This is bad, very, very bad. According to Wayne Hoffman with the Idaho Freedom Foundation: Court ruling a big blow for the Constitution

“The handmaidens of Big Government are the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Idaho is a part. Earlier this month, the court allowed [...]]]> …well at least some of them.

This is bad, very, very bad. According to Wayne Hoffman with the Idaho Freedom Foundation: Court ruling a big blow for the Constitution

“The handmaidens of Big Government are the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Idaho is a part. Earlier this month, the court allowed to stand a ruling that says police can surreptitiously attach a GPS device to your car, track your movements and monitor your activities — all without needing a search warrant.”

Here is the case filed August 12th, 2010. A few of the judges dissented viewing this as little kids playing on the street but they are the cops instead.

Excerpt:

 … this invasion of privacy was all because some folks saw these guys buy fertilizer at Home Depot. From Judge Reinhardt:

I concur in Chief Judge Kozinski’s dissent.I have served on this court for nearly three decades. I regret that over that time the courts have gradually but deliberatel yreduced the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the point at which it scarcely resembles the robust guarantor of our constitutional rights we knew when I joined the bench.

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.  :-)

“I should have been an attorney, Ma!” But, you know what, I would be broke and probably working at Walmart so I could afford to eat. I most likely also would have pissed off every judge in the state and (I have done a good job doing that being a layperson), thus thrown off cases [...]]]>

“I should have been an attorney, Ma!” But, you know what, I would be broke and probably working at Walmart so I could afford to eat. I most likely also would have pissed off every judge in the state and (I have done a good job doing that being a layperson), thus thrown off cases because of contempt of court charges. Thank God, I am not a criminal – there would be no mercy for me.

I feel that our Idaho Judicial system is running rabid and has turned into an authoritarian political system right underneath our noses. Lay people do not understand this stuff ( I have a hard time wrapping my brain around some of this god forsaken crap) and I have found out that neither does our Legislature. It’s out of their control and they need to get it back for us!

Most likely this new rule change was at the hands of the Judicial Criminal Mediation Committee. I don’t know, no one will respond to me. However, the Idaho Supreme Court decided to suspend the rule that automatically disqualifies judges because they feel it is abused and we need a study. This study is to see just how much power they can take that completely controls our right to due process. They don’t want us to have any. What happens during the interim? The people have no voice in this major change that I feel violates the rights to due process thus a fair trial. WHERE IS OUR LEGISLATURE?

You can read about it here at SCOIDblog.  This is what Anonymous commented on that blog.

The rule is used “excessively” to disqualify unethical judges. When there exists no credible disciplinary apparatus for dealing with bad judges, and attorneys take a vow of silence regarding publicly disparaging the conduct of bad judges, then the anonymous DQ rule works well in protecting the public from bad judges.

Next – you can count on this. They will take the civil side of the courts so we can’t remove judges from those cases either. Nothing like the wolves guarding their own hen house.

“Sorry, sir. We cannot remove the biased judge over your case who is married to the prosecutor’s wife. The Supreme Court just dictated that the rule no longer exists to disqualify a judge. You are screwed! “

Chief Justice (my cat) thinks we need to call the Wellness Committee and get a hold of that Carlton guy from California to express our concerns that some of these judicial folks in control might be off their meds and/or get some adjusting.

P.S. Ironically, this is what the Supreme Court signed in 2006. Policy Regarding Fairness and Equality in the Courts.

It is unfortunate that at the local level some of these opinions even have to go before the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here is a recent civil case (actually it took almost 5 [...]]]> Granted, I am not happy with many facets of our judicial branch of government, however, it is important to point out when they get something right.

It is unfortunate that at the local level some of these opinions even have to go before the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here is a recent civil case (actually it took almost 5 years to settle) where the Idaho Supreme Court overturned both the magistrate and the district judge’s opinion, those being of Judge Burton and Judge Luster.

I  just find these kinds of cases so obvious that I am genuinely concerned when our local judges think they have the power to invade our privacy and our constitutional rights. This case involves a minor who is on probation and after gathering a history of the parents who admitted they had used drugs, the Court decided to require  drug testing of the juvenile’s parents. The nature of the Supreme Court case tells us that the appeal challenges the constitutional and statutory authority of the judge(s) deciding to mandate random drug testing over the parents. 

The District Court’s decision to affirm the Magistrate’s decision was reversed.

The probation order was dropped and the order to require drug testing was found to be an invasion of privacy bordering on an illegal search that only furthered law enforcement because the parents were not part of the crime (peti theft).  It was a case of diminished privacy over Doe’s bodily fluids which violated the 4th Amendment of  the Constitution.

Filed June 1rst, 2010 – State of Idaho vs. Jane Doe and John Doe.

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare v. Jane Doe

Mother and her children were brought to Boise by the World Relief Organization (WRO). It places refugees in various communities, provides three to six months of financial assistance, and helps the refugees find lodging, jobs, access to social services, and contacts with people in the [...]]]>

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare v. Jane Doe

Mother and her children were brought to Boise by the World Relief Organization (WRO). It places refugees in various communities, provides three to six months of financial assistance, and helps the refugees find lodging, jobs, access to social services, and contacts with people in the community willing to help.

Then, the State of Idaho took her parental rights away from her because she is not smart enough. Her appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court  was affirmed. If she wasn’t smart enough in the first place, why did the State enter into the families’ care? This case is a tragedy.

Judge Bradbury is not necessarily running against Judge Burdick, but against a justice system that is dysfunctional because the average person cannot afford the court system. However, he feels Judge Burdick is part of the problem because he has been a judge for 28 years. The isolation and it’s pension for secrecy of the court [...]]]>  

Judge Bradbury is not necessarily running against Judge Burdick, but against a justice system that is dysfunctional because the average person cannot afford the court system. However, he feels Judge Burdick is part of the problem because he has been a judge for 28 years. The isolation and it’s pension for secrecy of the court has developed during his tenure.

Judge Bradbury wants judicial reform. Judge races are rarely contested and the bulk of Idaho’s judges are appointed, thus the public loses their votes. Judge Bradbury wants to open that process up. He says the legislature could change it and appointments would only happen upon serious illness or death. That way lawyers might be more receptive in running. Lawyers are hesitate to run against another judge. 

Judge Bradbury also believes the Idaho judicial complaint process should not be kept secret and these complaints should be open to the public. We are being deprived of our right to know. Only a handful of people review the complaints.  That information is needed in order to vote “informed”, however Judge Bradbury says that the judiciary doesn’t think the people are smart enough to  recognize  judicial misconduct so the complaints  are “secret.”  It is the “litter box” of buried information.  Judge Bradbury says judges are “public servants” not “royal princes.” However, Idaho Judicial Council member Philip Reberger says that judges do not need to air their “dirty laundry.” According to Judge Bradbury, the last two decades of the judicial system in Idaho has proved “dysfunctional.”

Judge Bradbury understands rural communities and his decision on an appeal for a workers compensation claim may be considered more wisely because he is from a community of loggers, miners, and ranchers.  He understands the impact of the injury in relation to a rural lifestyle.  He does not live in an “ivory tower.” He also understands the impact of services that are not available to rural communities in the areas of the drug and mental health courts where the individual is not tracked because of lack of funding, so they end up in the prison system for a crime caused from an illness.

Additionally, all the the justices are from the treasure valley or Twin Falls. No judge from North Idaho is on the Idaho Supreme Court. Judge Bradbury says they “ should have justices from north and east Idaho on the state’s highest court”

Judge Bradbury is running against Idaho Supreme Court Justice Burdick who sits on the Wellness Committee with local District 1 Judge Simpson’s spouse and Judge Copsey’s spouse from southern Idaho. This creates a possible conflict when a case cannot be resolved unbiasedly if a case that is presided by  either judge is appealed and goes to the Supreme Court, especially if there is even a slight indication of possible impropriety that might involve that spouse in a particular case. I have written both judges for their opinion on the process of Idaho Judicial Supreme Court Committee selection. Neither judge has responded.

Our judicary is in need of judical reform. Vote for Judge Bradbury on May 25th! The only other contested judicial election on the May primary is for Bradbury’s current district judge position, two lawyers running for the seat. There is no transparency in government until it begins with our justice system.

The information gathered on this post was found at Idaho Reporter at Challenger in Supreme Court election wants judicial reforms  by Brad Iverson-Long.

If this were not so serious, it would be funny.  You can’t call a Conflict Resolutions company to resolve a conflict – because the police will be dispatched to file a report against you in McCall, Idaho.

Conflict Resolutions LLC is a consulting service out of McCall, Idaho.

“We [...]]]>

Helen Myrick Vice President of Ethics in Idaho

If this were not so serious, it would be funny.  You can’t call a Conflict Resolutions company to resolve a conflict – because the police will be dispatched to file a report against you in McCall, Idaho.

Conflict Resolutions LLC is a consulting service out of McCall, Idaho.

“We provide services to City/County Goverment and law enforcement agencies where a problematic issue has risen to a critical stage. Solutions are derived by analysis of the problem, employee morale, leadership training, strategic planning and implementation to improve or correct the situation.”

Look at the staff here. 

Chief of Police Summers - McCall, Idaho and President of Conflict Resolutions LLC

Helen filed a complaint with the City of McCall, Idaho. (excerpt from email 04/08/10)

Cheif Summers said that he doesn’t want to discuss anything with me.  I further requested that we need to have a public discussion about this and include the council.  I asked that he explain to the public why he thinks this is alright.  He said do not call me again or you will be arrested.  He said, I will have you charged with telephone harrassment.  I said, you’ll abuse your power?.  He said, I will have you arrested.  I guess we all know who would be prosecuting the charge!  Good thing, too, I didn’t call him on a city number, and talk about the same issue or it would be and may still be a civil matter for the city to resolve.  You cannot have your Cheif of Police threatening the public that way.

Maybe a few more folks ought to do that so he can threaten them.   I am filing a personnel complaint herein for BessiJo to forward to Mr. Kirkpatrick.  I do not beleive the Cheif of Police should conduct private business with the prosecutor and then subsequently threaten citizens when they express concerns

But, the city does not see a problem.

Reply to Helen from the City of McCall – April 23rd, 2010

Helen –

I have discussed with Chief Summers the matter of your phone conversation with him on April 8. I have also reviewed the complaint which he filed with the Valley County Sheriff’s Department (attached). It is clear to me that Chief Summers did not threaten to arrest you, or abuse his authority in that conversation. Rather, he expressed his desire that you not call him on his personal number again, and told you that he would file a telephone harassment complaint if you called him on that number again. From both his account of that conversation with you, and my conversations with him, it is clear to me that he will speak with you during work hours, on a work phone, about work-related topics. His objection on April 8 was to your contacting him on his personal phone. That seems like a reasonable objection to me.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any other concerns. 

Lindley Kirkpatrick, AICP

City Manager

Unbelievable. Helen explains more in detail on her local conflicts of interest and ISSUES page here.

P.S.  You would think I would get a kickback/donation from Conflict Resolutions LLC  for my free advertizing, but I am sure that will not happen. Besides, it would be highly unethical. They should thank Helen, too! However, since I published this post CR – LLC  has updated their site. They still need to fix the first page though. Their staffers are computer experts – they claim. They also consult in the matter of Political Campaign Consulting!

In Coeur d’Alene, Idaho the latest development concerning CV-2009-0010010, Jim Brannon vs. City of Coeur d’Alene etal., Judge Simpson has voluntarily disqualified himself. Jim Brannon allegedly lost by 5 votes and now has pressed the lawsuit to examine the votes. The lawsuit is heated and is ripping the very [...]]]> Breaking story at OpenCdA.com 6:43 am, April 14, 2010

In Coeur d’Alene, Idaho the latest development concerning CV-2009-0010010, Jim Brannon vs. City of Coeur d’Alene etal., Judge Simpson has voluntarily disqualified himself. Jim Brannon allegedly lost by 5 votes and now has pressed the lawsuit to examine the votes. The lawsuit is heated and is ripping the very seams out of the community.

There are known ties to an alleged fraudulent vote that stems from Judge Simpson’s wife’s commercial business address and there is speculation into the conflicts that are seemingly apparent because his wife has also been appointed to and works within Idaho Supreme Court Committees, alongside of the Judicial Council. This is a clear cut example of how nepotism muddies the judicial waters. Any hint of impropriety is reason for the judge to disqualify himself in order to retain the trust of the people.

Additionally, Idaho Supreme Court Justice Burdick is running for reelection and sits on the same committee, the Wellness Committee, with Judge Simpson’s wife, which has oversight over all of the judges in Idaho. Spouses on these committees who sit as members with our Supreme Court Justices is an ethical conflict – at least in my eyes.

I am not certain why Judge Simpson actually disqualified himself, but I am glad he did, and it was the right move. I just wish he had done this earlier in the lawsuit.

Related posts:

Miscarriages of Voting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Nepotism in the Courts

Voter Fraud in Coeur d’Alene,Idaho

Judge Simpson Will Remain On Case

Protect the Integrity of every vote

Area citizens are now joining this lawsuit in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Letter to the Editor of the CDAPress - Why Bill and Lisa McCrory have decided to protect their votes.

“After reviewing the poll books, absentee ballot reports, and other publicly-available material, we see irrefutable evidence that illegal voters were allowed, and even in some instances encouraged, to vote in the City election. Sloppy election administration and specific unlawful acts nullified our legal votes. We will not accept that.”

Many of the votes questioned happen to be linked to influential citizens in /from this area.  Ironically, some of these citizens [...]]]> Breaking News 04-12-102:26 pm: Open Letter to Mike Kennedy from OpenCdA.

Many of the votes questioned happen to be linked to influential citizens in /from this area.  Ironically, some of these citizens are also linked to the questionable winner of the race, Mike Kennedy.

The CDAPress article spotlights names of relatives who are related to the county commissioner and to folks who gave the defendant a place to live so he could questionably say he was a resident of Coeur d’Alene in order to run legally. That voter happens to vote from Canada along with some others who don’t live in the area any longer.

What the article failed to mention is that one of  the voters, voted from a commercial address that happens to be a commercial address of the judge’s wife. Judge Simpson is the presiding judge over this lawsuit, CV-09-10010. They must be saving that juicy morsel for later fodder. Many of the alleged fraudulent voters will also not return calls. Looks like a subpoena may be the only thing they will understand – that they won’t sign or acknowledge unless they want to live in Canada – FOREVER – and no coming back to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho!

What is absolutely uncanny is how our local and state government is supporting the right to vote here locally, through people who are residents of another country, specifically Canada. According to the CDAPress Staff Writer, Tom Hasslinger:

They’re at most allowed to vote in presidential and statewide elections, Kelso argued, but not city elections since a chapter in state code dealing with municipal elections classifies legal voters as residents who have lived at their primary abode for 30 days prior to the election- the same rule the lawyer argues should disqualify Ainsworth’s and White’s votes.

But Reed, supported in opinion by the Secretary of State’s Office, said the state requirement makes the votes legal. As with the federal and state voting requirements, citizens abroad can maintain their voting rights so long as they don’t register to vote in their new countries, and maintain a local address.

However, there is still questionable speculation concerning the legitimacy of the addresses. They did not live there in other words.  These questions will all be eliminated when voters will be required to produce valid ID this next fall.

Coeur d’Alene Press staff writer, Tom Hasslinger also tells us: 

During the mayoral and council election, 6,370 city votes were cast. Confidential Investigations said the firm’s dug up around 10 ballots out of the first 20 or so they’ve looked into – with up to 90 more ballots possibly on the way – that the judge should toss out, including White’s.

We also have a problem with incorrect information being given. From the CDAPress comments by Dan English, Kootenai County Clerk:

The only clarification I would add, and this goes to your post at 7:29 straight up, is that the written instructions to register Sgt. Major Proft at the courthouse address came from the Secretary of State’s Office and even had the name of the staff member included. They have since clarified that was in error but we did follow their directions.

According to the defendant and the county clerk, these discrepancies are considered “innocent mistakes”, not to mention those who have given misleading addresses. However, it appears that Idaho only requires an “address,” you just can’t use the courthouse address.

If I ran into Judge Simpson’s car, Dan English’s car, the Mayor’s car, or for that matter anyone else’s car and nailed it, accidental of course, then should that act be considered an innocent mistake? Or, would I be held liable?

I am absolutely aghast that the defendants and our Secretary of State actually believe it is legal for those people who do not live here, can vote in city elections.

So, if I live in both Coeur d’Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington (addresses in both areas) – then I can vote in both city elections? Here is the link to the requirements of Spokane,Washinton. According to Idaho, if I keep my local CDA address but move to Spokane, Washington, I can still vote in the CDA city elections. Right? Then if I move from Spokane, Washington to Canada, I can vote in both CDA and Spokane city elections from Canada, right? Then, if I move from Canada to Mexico, I can still vote in Coeur d’Alene and Spokane. Right? If I have relatives in Post Falls and I lived with them for 30 days and I have a PO address, I can vote there too! I just can’t vote in Canada or Mexico unless I register there as a voter. Right?