• Home
• About
• Archives
• Subscribe
• Contact

Legal-Courts

Idaho Supreme Justices Charged In U.S. Court

 July 17, 2009 ⋅  Post a comment

COPYRIGHT BOISE GUARDIAN
By DAVID R. FRAZIER

In an unusual legal maneuver, five justices of the Idaho Supreme court have been charged in U.S. District Court with violating the constitutional rights of Idaho Second District Judge John Bradbury.

The legal hassle stems from an ongoing feud over where Judge Bradbury actually sleeps. He claims when he bought a house in Grangeville, changed his homeowners exemption from Lewiston to Grangeville, and registered to vote in Grangeville, he met the requirement that his court be “chambered in Idaho County”. SEE GUARDIAN STORY

The Idaho judicial council–chaired by Chief Justice Daniel Eismann–disagreed and filed charges in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking Bradbury’s removal from office if he didn’t “actually reside” in Grangeville (Idaho County). One of the primary issues in the matter is a clear definition of the term “actually reside.”

In the Federal civil complaint filed late Friday, Bradbury claims his 5th and 14th amendment rights to due process have been violated because evidence collected and considered by the Idaho Judicial Council–the body which oversees judges–was not disclosed. Federal law precludes prohibiting a state court from an action, but the individual justices are bound by the civil rights act, so this action can be viewed as a “back door attempt” to force the Idaho Supremes to reconsider the charges brought by the Judicial Council–they have turned down several motions in the case already.

Bradbury’s hearing before the Idaho Supremes is set for 3 p.m. July 22, but that could change depending upon the actions of the U.S. Court.

The summary of what Judge Bradbury is seeking from the Federal District Court follows (from the complaint):

• An Order finding declaring that, as a result of the participation of Justice Eismann in considering, conferencing, and adjudicating motions in this matter with the other Defendants as members of the Idaho Supreme Court on the Panel assigned to adjudicate this matter, Defendants have been inherently implicated in the conflict and/or bias, exclusive of any claim of subjective or actual bias, arising from the participation of Justice Eismann, as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court and as Chairman and presiding officer of the Idaho Judicial Council, in the adjudication of this matter before the Idaho Supreme Court, in violation of the objective constitutional standards of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution that Judge Bradbury is entitled to rely on.
• An Order finding and declaring that as a matter of due process Judge Bradbury is entitled to disclosure of the witnesses, charging facts including the facts and standards relied on by the Judicial Council to determine “actual” residence,” and related documents necessary to enable Judge Bradbury to mount a defense to the charges against him, including, specifically, the documents requested in his Request For Production of Documents served on the Judicial Council on September 2, 2008.
• An Order finding and declaring that Idaho Code § 1-809 is unconstitutionally vague on its face in that it fails to sufficiently define the term “actually reside” so as to enable a reasonable person to ascertain the VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF, Page 24 criteria necessary to constitute actual residence in order to comply with said statute.
• In the alternative to 4 above, an Order finding and declaring that Idaho Code § 1-809 is unconstitutionally vague as applied by the Judicial Council as a result of the Judicial Council’s failure and refusal to sufficiently define the facts and standards relied on by the Judicial Council to determine what constitutes “actual” residence,” in terms of frequency, duration or in any other cognitive terms sufficient to enable a reasonable person to ascertain the criteria necessary to constitute actual residence in order to comply with said statute.
• An Order temporarily restraining Defendants from adjudicating the merits of the issue of whether Judge Bradbury “actually resides” in Idaho County pursuant to Idaho Code § 1-809 solely on the “existing public record,” until this Court can hear Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
• A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, preventing Defendants from adjudicating the merits of the issue of whether Judge Bradbury “actually resides” in Idaho County pursuant to Idaho Code § 1- 809, on the grounds of the alleged inherent conflict or bias, exclusive of subjective or actual bias in violation of the objective constitutional standards of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution that Judge Bradbury is entitled to rely on.
• A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, preventing Defendants from adjudicating the merits of the issue of whether Judge VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF, Page 25 Bradbury “actually resides” in Idaho County pursuant to Idaho Code § 1- 809, until such time as Judge Bradbury is afforded disclosure of the witnesses, charging facts including the facts and standards relied on by the Judicial Council to determine “actual” residence,” and related documents necessary to enable Judge Bradbury to mount a defense to the charges against him, including, specifically, the documents requested in his Request For Production of Documents served on the Judicial Council on September 2, 2008.
• A Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from adjudicating the merits of the issue of whether Judge Bradbury “actually resides” in Idaho County pursuant to Idaho Code § 1-809 solely on the “existing public record” until the issue of the unconstitutional vagueness of said statute can be determined by this Court.
• A Permanent Injunction based on this Court’s declaration that Idaho Code § 1-809 is unconstitutionally vague on its face with regard to its “actual” residence requirement, or, in the alternative, that Idaho Code § 1-809 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Judge Bradbury by the Judicial Council with regard to the statutes’ “actual” residence requirement.

To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.