1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Judge grants Jore hearing over assets

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by JGrubbs, Sep 13, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    A judge Friday granted a hearing on Rick Jore's request to exempt his assets from a $15,600 judgment against him by the law firm that won for his opponent in the tug of war over the House District 12 seat.

    Jore has been ordered to pay the Helena law firm of Meloy-Trieweiler, which represented Democratic candidate Jeanne Windham who beat Jore in last November's election by appealing the results to the Montana Supreme Court.

    The hearing will be at 9 a.m. Sept. 19 in the Lake County Courthouse before District Judge Kim Christopher of Polson.

    In her order setting the hearing, Christopher warned Jore that she "will not re-litigate contested issues in this case ultimately decided by the Montana Supreme Court."

    The high court not only awarded the legislative victory to Windham, but ordered Jore, who lives near Charlo, to pay her attorney's fees. Jore did not contest the election result, which initially was ruled a tie by local election officials, and he did not seek to litigate the results.

    Jore has refused to pay the judgment, saying it is unjust because he didn't sue anybody, and would not have sued, even if local officials had awarded the election to Windham.

    Source: Missoulian
     
    #1 JGrubbs, Sep 13, 2005
  2. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a bad law very slanted in favor of the financially well-off. I can see awarding court costs if Jore had acted culpably, but he did not. It seems to me that the board of elections should have been sued rather than the opposing candidate, unless he was accused of rigging the election somehow (which, it seems, he was not - it was a tie vote).
     
    #2 Daisy, Sep 13, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...