Comments on: Montana Democrat Empties Out Rick Jore’s Bank Account

By: phil connelly

phil connelly — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:47:36 +0000

This law would certainly give me pause before running for office, given I could end up owing a lot of money should my opponent challenge the results and I lose.

By: Robert Jacobs

Robert Jacobs — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0000

This law is bogus. Rick Jore just agreed with the State of Montana who said he won. Legal fees should never be taken when all a candidate did was agree with the states election result. Montana was sued and Rick Jore has to pay. How sick is that.

By: John Taylor Bowles

John Taylor Bowles — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:12:22 +0000

I believe this is wrong. If you challenge, then you should pay the bill.

By: Edward TJ Brown

Edward TJ Brown — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:56:37 +0000

The Constitution Party is a nutty political party. Plain and simple. However, allowing a member of one political party to grab the money for an another party candidates does seem rather nutty as well.

By: rj

rj — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:54:05 +0000

Mr. Jore, play this to a tilt. If you do this right with media coverage of what has happened in your race, there’s no way you could lose this seat in 2006.

By: Michael Morrison

Michael Morrison — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:50:50 +0000

If we ever needed further proof that government is, at best, institutionalized theft, this is it.
And too we see the reason Jore was ruled out of the seat: Governments don’t want anyone in who might begin to lessen its power.

By: Rick Jore

Rick Jore — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:22:13 +0000

There was no statutory requirement to award attorney fees here. The actual language of the statute states:

13-36-205. Recovery of costs. In any contest, the prevailing party may recover his costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Costs, disbursements, and attorney’s fees in all such cases shall be in the discretion of the court. In case judgment is rendered against the petitioner, it shall also be rendered against the sureties on the bond.

In context here, “the court” is referring to the District Court. The Supremes took that discretion away with their order.