An open letter to Anita Big Spring

From Rick Jore

Ms. Big Spring,

On June 27, 2005, I received a copy of the official "order and judgment" from the 20th Judicial District Court that orders me to pay $15,663.56 for the legal costs you incurred in the case you filed against me. While the order contains no language regarding payment terms, I believe that common courtesy and fairness dictates that I inform you of my intent to refuse to comply with this order and the reasons that compel me to do so.

When the Supreme Court "ordered" on Dec. 28, 2004 that "one or more" of the contested ballots were invalid and should not have been counted for me and thereby declared that Jeanne Windham had won election in HD 12, I accepted that ruling. Since the Montana Constitution and law (Art. VII Sec. 2(3); MCA 3-2-601) require Supreme Court decisions to be "pronounced" in writing, I expected a prompt written opinion explaining the Court's reasoning.

In the meantime, friends and supporters helped to raise the funds necessary to cover the significant costs incurred in responding to the action you filed against me.

We were willing to pay our costs even though we felt it was a grave injustice. I had committed no crime, violated no contract, defrauded no one, and initiated no legal action. Legal action was brought against me to contest something over which I had no authority or control.

Inexplicably, the Court did not issue a full written opinion until March 18, 2005, almost three months after the Dec. 28 order. The first page of the opinion specifies the date of the decision by stating: Decided: March 18, 2005. The Court did not see fit to explain how a case could be decided on March 18, 2005, yet take effect on Dec. 28, 2004.

Additionally, by neglecting to make a decision regarding all seven of the contested ballots, the opinion was not even thorough enough to allow the Secretary of State to comply with the law (13-15-506(d)) which requires "total votes for each individual" be certified and filed in the official records of his office. Even now, the official vote tally for HD 12 on the Secretary of State website records 1,559 votes each for Jeanne Windham and me with an asterisk footnote stating: "Supreme Court ruled there was no tie vote — Election went to Jeanne Windham."

Rather than finalizing the election process by deciding on all seven ballots, the Supremes simply and arrogantly stated: "Having determined that these five ballots are invalid, it is not necessary for us to discuss the validity of the other two disputed ballots."

If "the issue at hand was one that had significance for the entire state in resolving the methods to be used in counting votes," as District Court Judge Christopher stated in her ruling on June 10, 2005, then the Supreme Court has left the job undone.

I have politely and quietly accepted the ruling of the Court regarding its decision on the contested ballots. I am not contesting, in any legal manner, the apparent questionable action (or inaction) of the Court stated above, although it adds not a little to my sense of indignation when I consider that the Court has indicated that it believes justice will be done when I pay your attorney fees.

However, I cannot in good conscience, I will not, acquiesce to such an injustice as this. Nor will I ask or allow my friends and supporters to pay this judgment on my behalf. I believe duty requires me, both for conscience sake and on behalf of the people of Montana, to oppose this gross injustice. Under the circumstances, I can conclude nothing else but that the Court has allowed bias to overrule its sense of justice.

I believe the most basic function of civil government is to uphold and enforce justice. In my view, it would be just to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases of frivolous suits, criminal actions, broken contractual obligations, etc. where one person has clearly wronged another. Also, it is understandable when attorney fees are levied against plaintiffs who lose in a case. Plaintiffs have the opportunity to calculate risk before filing an action.

In this case, none of these circumstances exist. Again, I did nothing that violated the law or the rights of another person and I did not initiate this legal action. Nor did I have any authority or control over the counting of ballots in HD 12, which is what you were contesting.

I realize that you now have the opportunity to collect this judgment via confiscation or lien of my property with the full force of law to sanction your actions. I also realize that if you, Ms. Windham, the Meloy-Trieweiler law firm, and the Democrat Party believe that it is just and right to collect this fee, I cannot stop you. The question that is left to you is whether or not you are morally entitled to collect this judgment simply because you have a "legal" right to collect it.

We have paid our legal costs. I believe the only just conclusion of this case is for you, Ms. Windham and the Democrats to step up and pay yours.

Sincerely,

Rick Jore

Ronan