Daniels', Windham's claims are disputed

Editor,

David Daniels suggested last week that "Jore lay his cards on the table," the implication being that I have not done so. The cards that he wants me to lay on the table were never dealt to me. They aren't even part of the deck. My entire hand was laid on the table in my letter to Anita Big Spring, publicly published on this page, establishing the details of this case and my position.

Letters before and since, coming from the Windham camp, have espoused emotional rhetoric and opinions based on bias and partisanship. Those letters do not warrant a response. Partisans will justify their position regardless of facts. Nonpartisans see the obvious intent to shift the focus.

I have to say I am very disappointed and more than a little frustrated that Ms. Windham publicly accuses me of knowing of a proposed agreement her attorney (allegedly) presented to Duncan Scott (the attorney who represented me) when I made it clear to her husband long before it became a public debate, that I was unaware of any such proposal. Mr. Daniels and others may be interested in the following fact:

Mr. Wilmer Windham, husband of Jeanne Windham, saw fit to attend the Constitution Party meeting that was held in Ronan on April 30, 2005, as a representative of his wife. During discussion of the Supreme Court order that I pay Big Spring/Windham's legal fees, in addition to my own, Mr. Windham was allowed the floor. He conveyed to me and the roomful of attendees this supposed proposal.

My response to him at that time: No such proposal was ever discussed with me and I did not see the relevance of his point since the statute pertaining to awarding of attorney fees leaves discretion to the District Court judge and there is nothing in that statute suggesting that attorney fees be awarded based on agreements between attorneys. Rep. Joey Jayne, Rep. Verdell Jackson, former Rep. Dick Green, and Sen. Jerry O'Neil were in attendance. I am sure any one of them would be willing to verify the accuracy of this account of our exchange. (A good argument can be made that the Supreme Court violated this statute by taking discretion away from the District Court.)

The Monday after this Saturday meeting, I called Duncan Scott to ask him if such a proposal had been presented to him. His response: "Not that I recall. I don't believe I have anything in writing, but I will check. Quite frankly, I would have recommended against it."

Ms. Windham's assertion that I "demanded" attorney fees and I "wouldn't be out one dime because the Republican Party was footing the bill," is patently false and I am insulted by the insinuation of dishonesty.

I couldn't "demand" attorney fees because I was never asked. Also, while the Republican Party paid the majority of Mr. Scott's fees, it was I and friends and supporters within and without the Constitution Party who paid the rest ($10,000). Even though the District Court had awarded fees from Big Spring because she had initiated the action, we raised the funds and paid our bill a month before the Supreme Court issued an opinion and mandated that we were also going to be liable for Windham's fees.

Only an entrenched mindset of moral relativism would try to justify any argument that I am responsible for this situation when I did not violate any law (I haven't even been accused of doing so), did not initiate any legal action, and did not contest any ballots, including the "double-marked" ballots that were counted for Jeanne Windham.

"A candidate should not be punished for running for office. Rick was an innocent party." — Jeanne Windham (Missoulian, June 10, 2005)

"He [Rick Jore] has now conveniently placed himself on some higher moral ground in order to avoid a situation which he is personally responsible for creating." —Jeanne Windham (Lake County Leader, July 21, 2005)

I understand that double-mindedness demonstrates instability. I am discovering that it is also very difficult to respond to.

Rick Jore

Ronan