In a story that appeared in the Kitsap Sun this morning, Josh Brown doesn't come out and outright deny the charges that he never occupied the residence he gave as his address. He does say, the lawsuit is wrong and that, "Obviously, I consider myself a resident of the CK district."
There's a very real difference between "considering yourself a resident," and actually living there.
The story was written by Brynn Grimley, who is seemingly Brown's personal press agent. During the campaign, she wrote absolutely nothing but glowing reports about the 25-year old commissioner, while completely ignoring questions brought to her attention concerning Brown's ethics and qualifications for the job as well as the issue of his residency.
In the story, it's obvious she didn't talk to anyone but Brown. Unbiased journalism would have dictated she at least call Robert Ross, the CK resident who brought the suit for a comment, in addition to trying to reach the attorney who filed the action. But in my view, Grimley hasn't done anything in reporting on Brown that would present him in anything but the most positive light. Frankly, if I were Sun Editor Scott Ware, I would remove Grimley from covering him since she has what appears to be a personal bias favoring Brown, and put a more seasoned, unbiased reporter on it — someone like Travis Baker perhaps.
The bottom line questions for Josh are this:
• Do you live at the address you gave on your Declaration of Candidacy, or not?
• Have you ever lived there, and if so, on exactly what date did you move in?
• If you do live there, why have your neighbors given legal depositions saying they've never seen you, and believe the apartment you claim to occupy is vacant?
• Would you be willing to open the door to the press today so we can see furniture in the apartment as well as other obvious signs of occupancy?
• If not, where exactly (meaning a bona fide address) is it that you actually do live, and for how long?
As I said in my earlier post, I don't believe the plaintiff's in this suit would go as far out on the limb they have without a pretty solid case. Frankly, if Brown were willing to open his Perry Avenue apartment door today, he would put ALL this to rest immediately. If not, he will only fuel the speculation that he blatantly lied. That's certainly not the best way to begin a political career...
So, how about it Josh? Can we come visit today?
I would bet that Brown won't have to offer a defense on the merits. The suit was filed after the 10-day deadline. The lawyer who drew up the petition used the date of Brown's taking the oath of office (Dec. 21, 2006) as the date the election was certified. That is incorrect. The election was certified on Nov. 28, 2006. I believe the suit had to be filed not later than 10 days after Nov. 28.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you the truth, I'm not certain exactly what law they based their suit on. In researching this, I asked about the 10-day thing and was told there was something else covering it, and I don't believe it was the swear-in date, but I'm unclear on exactly what it was.
ReplyDeleteRemember, these people were playing it close to the vest because they weren't happy the Business Journal got wind of this before they were ready, and weren't very forthcoming with their information.
There's more here than meets the eye though - I'm very convinced of that.
Micajah,
ReplyDeleteIs there perhaps another law that covers the eligibility of a candidate? Is the 10 day thing to contest an election because of voting results and not the legality of the candidancy?
Shannon C
I'd just like to see Josh answer the questions posed.
ReplyDeleteRCW 29A.84.311
ReplyDeleteCandidacy declarations, nominating petitions.
Every person who:
(1) Knowingly provides false information on his or her declaration of candidacy or petition of nomination; or
(2) Conceals or fraudulently defaces or destroys a certificate that has been filed with an elections officer under chapter 29A.20 RCW or a declaration of candidacy or petition of nomination that has been filed with an elections officer, or any part of such a certificate, declaration, or petition, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Yes, he is denying the claims of the lawsuit (ref: http://www1.kitsapsun.com/bsun/local/article/0,2403,BSUN_19088_5253486,00.html)
ReplyDelete"In a phone interview Sunday evening, Brown said he hadn’t seen a copy of the lawsuit, but that he did live at the Perry Avenue address and that the suit is wrong in claiming otherwise."
He didn't say he lived at the address. He said the lawsuit was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn the past couple of days, Brown has been seen by multiple witnesses "moving in." This is fixing to get REAL interesting...
A few years ago, Derek Kilmer moved to Kitsap County, established residency in the 26th District and then ran for office. It happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteYou're in Scotsdale, AZ now so if a PI was following you, they'd find you weren't at home. That is neither a scandal nor my business.
So, I think I'll wait until the court addresses the issue legally before passing my final judgment, but from what I've read thus far, Josh Brown has a lease as well as rent and power receipts which establish legal residency. Once the legal residency issue is established, he is due the same reasonably privacy as you, I, Derek, or any other citizen. Demanding he disclose where he slept, when, with whom, etc. is nobody's business.
BTW - If you read the quote to see what it really says rather than only what you want to see, you'll notice it says that he "... DID live at the Perry Avenue address..." (my emphisis on "did").
Your seemingly overzealous and gleeful desire to find some scandal is blinding you from objectivity.
From your KPBJ article: "Brown's honesty and ethics were also an issue during the campaign. There were questions about his college degree…". Yes, there were questions but those claims were also proven to be UNFOUNDED so the real story seems to be about Brown haters on a witch hunt grasping at straws. Attacking Josh in the blogs is fair game but writing like that in the KPBJ borders on Yellow Journalism.
I would suggest you look up the defination and history of "Yellow Journalism" before you accuse us of such a thing. In this case is flat out libelous. All we have done is report the facts.
ReplyDeleteThae issue is, some people don't like those facts. Frankly, that's not our problem. The facts are the facts and speak for themselves. It's not a case of "Brown haters" coming after him in the blogs. It's a question of his his basic honesty and integrity.
His college degree was questioned. It wasn't what he originally stated, and he changed the story twice. There's at least one lie involved in that situation.
On several occassions I personally witnessed him tell environmentalists one thing and the business community the exact opposite where NASCAR is concerned. He was lying to one of them. The only question is, which one?
Then there is this issue...
We believe we are justified in questioning his honesty and integrity because he has provided the reasons to do so. That's our job and we make no apologies for doing it and doing it well. If Josh was out front about his degree; told the same story about NASCAR to everyone; and actually lived in the Perry Avenue apartment; there would be nothing to question, would there?
We have posed three questions to Josh:
• Does he or does he not live at the address he gave on his Declaration of Candidacy? This is a simple yes or no question.
• If not, even if we forget that knowingly giving a false address is a crime, where exactly is it that he does live?
• If he doesn't live at the address he gave, is wherever it is he does live in the district he was elected from or not?
Why won't he answer them? Why isn't the Democratic Party insisting he do so we can all put this behind us?
Paying rent and utility bills doesn't qualify as being his legal residence if he never lived there. I personally pay a mortgage and utility bills at three addresses in two states. The problem is, I can only claim one as my legal residency.
Did he actually live there or didn't he? Yes or no? Simple question - one word answer.
"All we have done is report the facts."
ReplyDelete"Thae issue is, some people don't like those facts. Frankly, that's not our problem. The facts are the facts and speak for themselves."
Where are you finding all these facts? They certainly aren't available to the general public, as nothing of substance has been offered up for scrutiny. All the public has seen is whats in the legal text of the lawsuits filed against Brown, and assurances from the plaintiff's that they have an "air-tight case" and plenty of damning evidence. Frankly, assurance's from the plaintiff's are just not enough, considering one of them (Ross) is connected with Hamilton's race against Brown.
I'm waiting eagerly for the courts to address this and shed a little more light on the whole situation. As it stands now, there simply isn't enough hard evidence available for me to make a call on this either way. I'm not saying that this case is entirely without merit, but I'm going to take a "wait and see" approach until more information is available.
Where the facts come from...
ReplyDeleteThe issue of Josh's college degree has been documented several times - and wonder of wonders, actually reported by the Kitsap Sun.
In his original press release sent to all the local media, Josh stated he had a degree in Urban Planning from Berkeley. That was untrue. The Sun brought out that his degree is actually in "Interdisclinary Studies," whatever the hell that means. But what it doesn't mean is a degree in Urban Planning. It was later reported in the Sun that Berkeley doesn't offer a degree in Urban Planning.
The other instances of his lying about NASCAR come from a number of candidate forums. I personally moderated some of them, and was a questioner in others.
Than there is the whole issue of where he lives. I had an extensive conversation with the investigator involved in this, although he made it clear much of it was off the record and not for publication. Personally, I think what the investigator has uncovered and documented will be Josh's undoing. There appears to be a clear pattern of intentional deceit. But like you said, let the court's sort it out.
I still feel very strongly that the Democratic Party should be out in front of this and force Josh to be held accountable and prove the charges wrong. Sadly, it appears that they are looking to have the suit invalidated on a technicality instead. If that strategy works, it means he gets to break the law, lie to the voters, and get away with both.
No matter how you look this issue, that is just flat out wrong.
I voted for Josh, but think he owes it to the voters to answer these questions. If he lied, we need to know and the party should stop protecting him.
ReplyDeleteI said this on one of the other posts here but will say it here as well because this seems to be the busiest commentary.
ReplyDeleteIt's time for Josh to tell the truth.
If he lived there, he needs to prove it. If he didn't, he needs to resign. Either way, it's time to get the truth and get this behind us.
The Kitsap Sun reports that the suit wasn't dismissed. It seems that Flynn didn't issue a certificate of election to Brown until Dec. 21, when he took the oath of office.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she should sit down for a while and read the laws that govern her job, starting with this one:
"RCW 29A.52.360
Certificates of election to officers elected in single county or less.
Immediately after the ascertainment of the result of an election for an office to be filled by the voters of a single county, or of a precinct, or of a constituency within a county for which the county auditor serves as supervisor of elections, the county auditor shall notify the person elected, and issue to the person a certificate of election."
If Flynn failed to issue the certificate until Dec. 21, we might still get a chance to see a trial on the merits. I'm surprised, and glad that I didn't actually place a bet on the likelihood of a trial on the merits.