Rick Jore's request for exemption denied

Rick Jore's request to have property exempted from seizure to pay legal fees owed in the House District 12 race was denied Monday morning in district court, although what additional action the attorney to whom he owes the money might take is unclear.

District court judge Kim Christopher listened sympathetically to Jore's argument that he committed no crime against anyone, but in the end, explained that she was forced to follow state law regardless of the fact that she understood Jore's frustration.

"The court cannot grant an exemption. The court recognizes how painful this must be for you, both personally and professionally," Christopher told Jore. "Much as the court might like to address moral grounds, you've placed me and the people have placed me in this position to uphold the laws of the Legislature."

Christopher was referring to a Supreme Court order issued in March based on related election law instructing Jore to pay the legal fees incurred by Anita Big Spring, who filed suit to contest a ballot recount done last December. Big Spring filed suit on behalf of Jeanne Windham, and was represented by Helena attorney Mike Meloy, who attended Monday morning's hearing but did not participate.

State law allows for a judge to assign attorneys fees to a losing party in an election contest, and Jore argued that the intent of the law was to penalize those who attempted to defraud the general public — not a person running for public office who simply was on the losing end of a contested ballot count.

"The details of this case are unique and aren't within the intent of the statute," Jore said. "I have not initiated any action against anyone. I have not defrauded anyone of their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness."

The purpose of the hearing was to provide Jore the opportunity to claim property exemptions to prevent certain items from being seized by Meloy, who had already seized more than $500 in Jore's bank account in late August. However, Jore did not use the hearing to specify any specific property exemptions, but to ask the court to exempt all of his property from being seized.

"I recognize the purpose of this hearing is limited in scope. My claim is my entire property should be exempt. I don't feel I morally owe this debt," Jore said.

Several dozen Jore supporters packed the courtroom and rallied around Jore outside after the hearing, where he attempted to answer their questions. Jore has said he will not take money from friends in the community to cover the debt because of the principle of it, and he reiterated his position that the state Supreme Court largely overstepped its bounds when ordering him to pay Meloy's legal fees, which totaled more than $15,000.

During the hearing, Jore submitted an essay on the doctrine of interposition, which loosely states that local magistrates and officials should attempt to reign in federal and state powers, including courts and governments, that attempt to impose their will on and usurp local authority, Jore explained in an interview last week. Jore left the Republican party and ran for the House District 12 seat as a Constitutional party candidate.

Christopher told Jore his case could bring attention to flaws in the state statutes covering election laws, noting that local media were on hand to cover the event. State Sen. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) and other elected officials were also there in support of Jore and promised to look into the election laws during the next legislative session.

Just what additional collection activity Meloy might take though is unclear. Although he is still owed more than $15,000, he said in an interview last week that he would have to weigh further collection activity, including the time it would take for the discovery process required to assess Jore's assets, against the fact that he'd already devoted dozens of hours to a case in which he might not ever be fully compensated.

According to Meloy, he had asked Jore's attorney, Duncan Scott, to agree to waive attorneys fees prior to the December hearings, but said that Scott would not agree to that. Scott had attempted to have himself removed as Jore's attorney earlier this spring, and Jore confirmed Monday during the hearing that Scott was no longer his attorney.

At the end of the hearing, Jore asked Christopher if he could submit a brief detailing the "unintentional effect of the statute on our First Amendment rights." Although Christopher promised to read any items submitted by Jore, she made her ruling on the spot, essentially telling Jore her hands were tied in the matter.

Christopher told Jore she shared his concerns, but noted that she must constantly remind juries to weigh cases based on current law, not necessarily what they feel is right or wrong, and that she was obligated to do the same in this situation.

"Perhaps bringing this to the public's attention is your best hope," she told Jore.