Comments on: Ada County Explains Scope of Magistrate Court Litigation

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:37:51 +0000

Guardian, please never put in spell check! It makes me check mine two or three times(I still make boo-boos) and it is really fun to watch the spelling police go at each other!

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:25:56 +0000

I point out theirs, you point out mine.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:11:53 +0000

Rod: … Ada County should stop providing the service, instead of sueing.

It’s always dangerous to criticize spelling and grammar, Rod. I believe you probably meant “suing,” rather than “sueing.”
(-;

By: Bus Rider

Bus Rider — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:57:27 +0000

GAH! You re-printed the county’s typo. The first line should read: “seeking relief from the undue” not “undo.”

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:31:07 +0000

Spelling errors and bad grammar (first paragraph, beginning “On December…”) aside, if the three cites are not paying, then Ada County should stop providing the service, instead of sueing.

By: Trexmaniac

Trexmaniac — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:30:56 +0000

So, I guess I may be confused on what they mean when they say “Ada County does not receive the fine money the cities collect.” When someone is issued a dog at large ticket and they pay this at the courthouse for a total of $76.50, $25 for the fine and $51.50 for the “court costs”, they are telling us the county doesn’t receive any of that revenue?

By: Goobs

Goobs — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:03:28 +0000

Where are Eagle, Star and Kuna in all this? I had someone who knew the suit was in the works tell me those municipalities are just as accountable for costs as the cities cited in the stories, but they aren’t mentioned as part of the suit. Was that person actually wrong?

EDITOR NOTE–As the GUARDIAN noted, those cities should also pay–“egual justice.” The reason they are not mentioned is that under the original agreement and court order the little guys either were not incorporated, had no police force to write tickets, or were simply so small it didn’t make a difference. We think the little guys will also get dinged soon to pay their share–regardless of how small it may be.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:42:09 +0000

This looks pretty simple to solve.

The entity receiving the money from the fines should pay for the court services renedered. In addition, the cities should pay for the transport, incarceration and other associated costs of keeping their citizens in the county lockup.

The least expensive model would be to have the county prosecutor conduct business in the District Attorney Model v. hiring private law firms for prosecutions of infractions, misdemeanors and felonies.

What goes on around here is not in the best interests of the taxpayers with costs not amortized and administered by a single public entity.

By: dog

dog — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:38:56 +0000

WTF?