Huckleberries Online

HBO Coverage Bugs Brannon Camp

Posted by DFO

Dec. 18, 2009 9:50 a.m. • 36 comments

“I was disappointed that my cover letter would appear in the media, almost before the ink was dry. I certainly have no problem with the contents of the letter being provided to the media, because I stand behind everything that was stated in it. … It is my belief that an open and candid discussion between counsel could be of value. I offered this meeting, not out of a concern for any weakness, or as a show of strength, of the complaint. It was offered because I thought that such a meeting might be viewed as productive for all. Perhaps it was a novel, or naive, thought that counsel might discuss a mtter before running off to the media and formal court proceedings. … Mr. Gridley advised that he was unaware how my letter came to be released to the Spokesman-Review’s Huckleberries blog”/Starr Kelso (pictured), attorney for Jim Brannon’s attempt to overthrow the 2009 Coeur d’Alene city elections. Entire letter here.

Question: Would you prefer that I respect the sensitivity of the attorneys involved in this case? Or give you the developing news as it crosses my desk at Huckleberries Online?

36 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Sisyphus on December 18 at 9:31 a.m.
Such a tease.
moscow_minidoka on December 18 at 9:32 a.m.
Good, I’m glad! That’s the purpose of a good, informed, critical media (as opposed to the other sources of news in CDA). Good work, DFO!
Sisyphus on December 18 at 9:44 a.m.
“DFO: I’ll have a pdf if the entire letter in a few minutes.”—yeah but you can go ahead and cue the violins. Its sure to be a tear jerker.
moscow_minidoka on December 18 at 9:49 a.m.
The “whaaaaaambulance” continues to roll through town. Who will the Brannon campaign blame next for the fact that he lost the election? “It’s your fault - and yours, and yours - and that mean “liberal” journalist over at HBO! Especially him! Everybody knows he’s in Mike Kennedy’s pocket! Let’s get Spencer to sue DFO!”
moscow_minidoka on December 18 at 9:50 a.m.
“Or give you the developing news as it crosses my desk at Huckleberries Online?”

Well, duh. Do your job. Bring us the news. Who else will?
KeithErickson on December 18 at 9:50 a.m.
Come on, Dave. You know the answer to that question. Feed us the news as you get it! Period. Let Star whine. It makes this story that much more fun.
Phaedrus on December 18 at 9:52 a.m.
“I was disappointed that my cover letter would appear in the media,..” Starr Kelso

Isn’t this the attorney that is representing Brannon and his gang at Open&TransparentCDA.hypocrites? How many FOI requests has McCrory, Gookin, Souza, Brannon,Ingram, LarrySpencer, et. al filed with the city? And they aren’t happy when a letter sent to the City Attorney — a public record— is made public? You’d think that a head that tried to contain so many contradictory beliefs would simply explode!
nic on December 18 at 9:53 a.m.
“Would you prefer that I respect the sensitivity of the attorneys involved in this case?”

Like Brannon’s camp is showing respect? ‘I don’t give none, but I demand it!’
scootermom on December 18 at 9:55 a.m.
Respect the “sensitivities” of attorneys?

Since when did litigation demand such sensitivities? Is there a victim here that needs to be protected from media scrutiny? Are there details about this case that would reveal personal or private information?

If not, there’s nothing sensitive to protect.
DFO on December 18 at 9:56 a.m.
@ Keith Erickson re: “Come on, Dave. You know the answer to that question.”

Of course. But I couldn’t think of any other question to ask. Anyone have something better?
nic on December 18 at 9:56 a.m.
“It is my belief that an open and candid discussion between counsel could be of value.”
“I offered this meeting… “
“It was offered because I thought that such a meeting might be viewed as productive for all.”

I offered the meeting, I think it’s of value to all. I thought it would be productive. I didn’t show up. I won’t return phone calls. I am a robot.

(OK, so I made up that last one)
hmoffsuite on December 18 at 9:57 a.m.
>>> “sensitivity of the attorneys”

Isn’t that an oxymoron?
nic on December 18 at 9:58 a.m.
“Is there a victim here that needs to be protected from media scrutiny?”

Yes, his name is Jim Brannon.
Phaedrus on December 18 at 9:59 a.m.
I’m no attorney, but If a lawyer didn’t want their letter to be considered a public document couldn’t they state that they wish it to be considered a “privileged communication?” And Kelso is Brannon’s attorney, who is to say Jim Brannon didn’t leak the letter that Kelso is talking about? Wasn’t it reported in the CdA Press?
bpoole on December 18 at 10:06 a.m.
Any information presented to the city is public information. DFO, you do a great job of presenting the news to those who frequent this site, and would ask that you continue to do so.
Fishwife on December 18 at 10:07 a.m.
Kudos to Mr. Kelso for asking for a meeting. His client has limited resources. Mr. Kennedy and the City have unlimited reources for hired legal counsel. If he can save his client money by settling the issues ( I have not seen the court complaint), he is being a resonsible attorney.
nic on December 18 at 10:13 a.m.
“Kudos to Mr. Kelso for asking for a meeting.”

And shame on Mr. Kelso for not showing up to the meeting after the city agreed to meet.
mike_s on December 18 at 10:16 a.m.
Phaedrus partially points out the upside down aspect of this and it is a little odd. Not only are the open government folks giving the impression they want to close this but, equally strange, is the fact that the city government types, possibly on the defensive, are hurriedly releasing documents to DFO. Weird behavior from both sides.
Sisyphus on December 18 at 10:19 a.m.
No its not privileged. While an attorney wouldn’t disclose it without his client’s permission, its not privileged communication.

And Fishwife, while I applaud any attorney’s efforts to avoid litigation, the complaint alleges claims that can most charitably be characterized as novel. And Starr’s letter presumes that everyone agrees that he’s made valid claims with the understanding that his remedy of a new election has merit. Couple that with the valid points of law raised in the motion to dismiss and I don’t see a common frame of reference that would make such a ‘meeting’ productive.
florined on December 18 at 10:21 a.m.
ummm, Fishwife, what causes you to thing that the city and/or Mr Kennedy have “unlimited resources”?
DFO on December 18 at 10:21 a.m.
You know what I like best re: this brave, still relatively new cyber world? I can present you guys with the documents — instead of parsing them for a newspaper story — so you can form your own opinions from the original source. The Web allows Huckleberries Online to remove the middle man and keep things in context.
Sisyphus on December 18 at 10:23 a.m.
Exactly the irony of this latest letter, Mike. Brannon’s group to cry about not keeping secrets is pretty funny.
bpoole on December 18 at 11:01 a.m.
DFO: you do a fine job!
Joker on December 18 at 11:27 a.m.
“Just when I think you couldn’t possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this…and totally redeem yourself!” Harry in Dumb and Dumber.

C’mon Starr Kelso, get your head in the game. Haven’t you been paying attention to what is going on in the world? We’re in the era of instant information. Anything you say, write, email, can and WILL be used against you.

You should have known the second you mailed the first letter it was going to be made public. Now, you’re whining about it in another letter. Unbelievable.
MamaJD on December 18 at 11:51 a.m.
1) If doing things right is important with this crowd, then why hasn’t Mike Kennedy been served YET?
2) If transparency is important, then whining about public dissemination of things like a cover letter is hypocritical.
3) If being respectful is important, then failing to show up for a meeting you requested deserves an apology.
4) Jim Brannon’s “team” has been consistently stonewalling by taking as much time as possible for filing suit, serving papers, and delaying meetings. How is that a service to the citizens of Coeur d’Alene?
Joker on December 18 at 12:20 p.m.
It is extremely fun to watch these buffoons operate outside their OpenCDA bubble. They have a fundamental problem dealing with people and don’t seem to know how the system works.

Starr Kelso’s confusion over who is representing Mr. Kennedy could be solved with a simple hone call to him. Is a letter really necessary?

At this point, Larry Spencer appears to have more legal knowledge than Starr Kelso.

I question Jim Brannon’s judgment by allowing Kelso to be his attorney. Is this the best lawyer in town? Or he is simply the one who would work for free? The scarier thought for Jim Brannon is that nobody else would take this case because they knew it was a loser.
LarrySpencer on December 18 at 1:35 p.m.
Starr Kelso is one of the best for this complaint, and has experience in election law all the way to the Supreme Court. That he won or lost there is not the point, the fact is that he has a better understanding about election cases than anybody else involved here.
LarrySpencer on December 18 at 1:37 p.m.
Mama, Mike’s lawyers have already made an appearance for him, making service moot.

But then, you already knew that, didn’t you?
MamaJD on December 18 at 2:02 p.m.
Larry - Mike’s lawyers made the appearance because the service of process wasn’t happening as efficiently as one would expect. Additionally, my comment was referencing Mr. Kelso’s letter dated 12/14 in which he is still determining who would accept process on Mike’s behalf personally.

Whine and Delay is rarely a winning legal tactic. But since you hold Kelso in such high regard, Mr. Spencer, I will take your word for it that he is a good attorney. ;)
Sisyphus on December 18 at 2:23 p.m.
“But since you hold Kelso in such high regard, Mr. Spencer, I will take your word for it that he is a good attorney.”—LOL, and you say you aren’t professionally trained. Touche.
Joker on December 18 at 2:52 p.m.
@Larry, winning and losing in court is what matters. Are you saying Starr Kelso knows more about the law than you? I don’t believe that.
Phaedrus on December 18 at 3:07 p.m.
That he won or lost there is not the point,—LarrySpencer

Yes, it is the point. And that the election challenge case that he lost is being used in the city’s request to dismiss is even better. ;-)
LarrySpencer on December 18 at 4:18 p.m.
Yes, Phaedres. But not for your side. Winning or losing a case is importand to the case, but does not mean the attorney is good or bad, often the case or evidence was less than great. In those cases, even the best attorney will lose.

Experience, on the other hand, comes from having taken an issue to court, and knowing how a judge is likely to view the evidence.
nic on December 18 at 4:18 p.m.
“That he won or lost there is not the point”

That’s usually what people say when they’ve never won.
MamaJD on December 18 at 5:21 p.m.
The best attorneys know when to choose their battles. They also try to avoid court. They don’t attack windmills. And they don’t need to forecast the thoughts of a judge.

And Larry — going to the Supreme Court and losing is NEVER a “good” experience. But I would understand if that’s how you’ve soothed yourself.
Phaedrus on December 18 at 5:31 p.m.
often the case or evidence was less than great

As in this case, where both are less than adequate.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.