Former U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller got a bit of a jolt last week when a judge handed him the bill for his protracted, unreasonable and rather embarrassing court fight against the results of a fair election.
We agree with Judge William Carey’s Friday ruling that ordered Miller to pay $17,373.85 in legal costs the state of Alaska racked-up during Miller’s court challenge to the 2010 election.
We think it’s unfortunate Carey had to rule that Miller shouldn’t pay legal bills for his rival, Sen. Lisa Murkowski. She had to defend her legitimate write-in win against Miller’s increasingly shrill bid to become a U.S. Senator appointed by the courts. But, legally, the judge found the state was the prevailing party, not Murkowski, who joined the suit but had no claim to reimbursement of her expenses.
Miller, of course, does not agree with the judge’s view that the suit filed against the state he sought to represent was filed for the defense of the state’s Constitution. Miller said he did it for all of us, not for himself.
In Carey’s own words, quoted by the Associated Press: “The hearings and briefings revealed Miller arguing a fair election but addressing the margin of votes and the closeness of a possible win. The main thrust of this action was not, in this court’s view, to altruistically promote and preserve constitutional protections, but to win an election, with the political and pecuniary benefits that would accrue thereby.”
Miller lost at every level in three courts when he sued the state over its handling of the election and the counting of write-in votes for Murkowski.
It doesn’t take a crystal ball and a swami to see what’s probably going to happen next. The suit started in federal court, but a judge determined the case belonged in the state courts. Miller will proceed to blame every judge, especially the one who told him to file first in state court.
Miller mouthpiece Randy DeSoto is already on the job, telling the AP that Judge Carey “mistakenly divines — without any evidence concerning this before him — that Joe Miller’s motivation was a U.S. senator’s salary. Obviously, the judge and many like him do not get it.”
That’s right.
The judge doesn’t “get it” the way Joe Miller does.
The majority of the state’s voters, who soundly rejected Miller by voting for Murkowski or Scott McAdams instead of Miller, also don’t “get it” the way Miller does.
We think Joe Miller doesn’t “get it.” His unsuccessful bid for office died by popular vote, and the resulting court dramas were all about him.
Pay up and move on already.
Comments (22)
Add comment"The majority of the state’s
"The majority of the state’s voters, who soundly rejected Miller by voting for Murkowski"
From the ADN "The Division of Elections has now counted 92,164 votes for Murkowski and 90,458 for Miller."
Is that a sound rejection? Looks around 51/49% to me. Also Murkowski was soundly rejected by the voters in the primary. Did you forget that? You also seemed to have left out the fact that Murkowski also has to pay the state. Bias much?
The only thing I find
The only thing I find embarrassing is that Alaska is the second most corrupt State in the USA.
They way Murkowski won was embarrassing.
Joe Miller will pay the 17K easy while Alaska shells out millions on "Special sessions" and waste.
What this election has shown me is how gullible Alaskans are. Murkowski gets her butt kicked clean out of the election. She then launches a huge advertising campaign. Next thing you know all the dumb A's that voted against her, vote for her.
You really can sell Ice cubes to Alaskans.
Curtis - learn how to properly do the math
The final tally after the Alaska Supreme Court adjudicated the election was:
101,091 39.1% Murkowski
90,839 35.1% Miller
60,045 23.21% McAdams
In other words, 64.9% (or almost 2/3) of Alaskans voted AGAINST MILLER. That is a pretty resounding loss for MILLER.
Hanklive - nice off topic post about special sessions that have nothing to do with the election. Here is a question: why is Joe Miller working for Western Representation PAC, funded by the very same Tea Partiers who bankrolled his election; I would say he was bought and paid for just as much as Lisa.
I would like to know how Joe Miller paid for his legal bills with the Fairbanks North Star Borough records that he illegally destroyed since he was in debt 6-figures, did he use his campaign donations?
Legal Intent
Judge Carey agreed with Miller's stated reason for pursuing his court case, e.g. to determine the legal standard. And the federal district court initially rule that there were serious legal issues raised, such that they ordered a stay of the certification of the election.
Yet Carey then divined the real reason for Miller's fight: he wanted the perks (and salary) that go along with being a Senator. Obviously, Murkowski is only a Senator for altruistic reasons (/sarc).
The Juneau Empire's Editorial board continues the bidding of the corrupt establishment. for Alaska.
Agree or Disagree
One can agree or disagree with the opinion expressed here, but at least it was straight-forward and supported by fact, logic and some reasons.
Personally, I like these kind of hard-edged editorials and would like to see more from the Empire.
Nice work.
Skirkz
Well yes, she did get a bit less than 40% of the final vote count in a three-way race. And she did it the hard way -- via a write in campaign. That would make her the winner as compared to the whiner, Joe Miller.
lest we forget
I know for certain that up to a third of the ballots from one town mailed into Div of Elections never got counted.
Goldbelt, a Native Corporation, was in charge of security for the ballots. Did they pick all of them up from the post office?
What happened to this town's ballots which by the way voted heavily for Joe Miller.
All the facts were never presented to the court since the courts refused to allow the discovery which would have resulted in the chain of custody of ballots being revealed.
In due course of time, we will see how legitimate this election was-- or how corrupt. Trust me.
Ma Baker's Certainty
Ma Maker asks for trust because she/he knows for "certain" that a wad of ballots mailed from some town in the election were not counted.
Certainly that "certain" fact would have been of interest to Joe Miller and certainly the court had it been raised and argued but I am certain it was not, which of course makes certainty a little less certain, in a certain sort of way.
Ma Baker's "certain" sentiment is not based on facts or reason, of course, but instead on innuendo and rank speculation.
Sort of like Joe Miller, right?
Trust me. I think I am right here.
mabaker trust?
Mabaker, I don't trust you!
Joe G Pleeze
Joe,
Nice to hear from you. I am saying the ballots that were mailed from this one town never arrived at Elections nor were they counted of course.
But in due course of time, the facts will emerge. Meanwhile, care to bet $10,000 to see who is right?
Joe one more thing
Your argument about presenting evidence to the court is somewhat disingenuous.
The court ruled discovery would not be allowed.
A very strange procedure. Most court's, unless they be kanagroo, allow discovery.
Now you are a lawyer Joe so tell us why no court would allow discovery.
Discovery is the normal way of getting evidence. Of course it did not help that the court reduced response times way below the normal ten days allowed to answer in State courts.
No this wasn't a Kangaroo Court. It was, how shall we say, just itching to make a decision so fast that all the evidence could not be gathered.
Ma
You're barking up the wrong tree. Joe Miller was defeated. 64.9% of Alaskans voted AGAINST him and one small town's votes (if they were, indeed, not counted - which I highly doubt) would not have made a difference. (Unless that small town had just over 10,000 people, ALL of whom voted for Miller) He lost, he whined, he filed suit that cost Alaskans a lot of money and now he needs to pay up!
Ma Baker
I am not a big time gambler like you, so I can't bet $10K on who is right here. But I will make a wager on whether we should "trust" you that there were a bunch of uncounted ballots that Goldbelt dumped after they were mailed to the Division of Elections.
Here's the deal: I'll bet a grand that it will not become "true" or that you can otherwise "prove" that some community sent in a bunch of uncounted votes that were hijacked by somebody working for Goldbelt Security. You can have until Labor Day this year to prove your boastful speculation.
If you want to take the bet, let me know via this forum and I'll give the Publisher of the Juneau Empire my $1,000. You then have until Friday this week upcoming to put up your $1,000. The Publisher will hold the stake until Labor Day so you can bring forward your evidence.
If the Publisher decides that Goldbelt hijacked the ballots based on your evidence, then you get the entire stake. If you fail to prove up on your speculation, then you lose the bet and and the entire stake and the Publisher and I will take you for a drink using your dough.
There you have it -- put up or go back to watching television.
spoken like a true attorney Joe
Joe you did not get the kernal of the bet which was for 10k, not 1k. When you change terms, the bet is off.
But you knew that.
I do not know nor have I asserted that Goldbelt dumped them though they were the chain of command I assume between the Post Office and Elections.
By the way what was the date the State signed the contract to hire Goldbelt to secure the votes? Was it before the Natives gave 1.2 million to Murkowski or after?
What I am sticking to and what the bet is for is that the approximately one third of the votes of one town which were mail ins never arrived at Elections (or are not recorded as having arrived).
It was too bad the court did not allow discovery into the issue of how many dead people voted or how many criminals. How many dead people does it take to elect a Senator?
Ma Baker - use your real name if you are going to make a bet
Otherwise, it's not a bet, just a lot of hot air.
As for your questions about Goldbelt, the US Post Office, and the State Division of Elections - maybe you should fasten your tinfoil hat. Come on, fess up, you endorsed Joe Miller for US Senate, hate Lisa Murkowski, hate Alaska Natives, and hate Sealaska - you old tea partier.
Joe Miller isn't even on the hook for all of the State of Alaska legal fees, he is only being assessed 20% of the total and he is crying about it; imagine what he would be saying if he had to pay all of the bill.
If you think this election is close, I suggest you take a look at the 2004 State of Washington Governor's race, which Christine Gregoire won by 104 votes after a hand recount - that is close. Joe Miller is a sore loser by any definition you can dig up.
Tea Bagger's Requium
The Teabag party has shot its' wad.It's over, done, kaput, sianara teahodists!
seadog55
seadog55, using your logic, 60.9% (or almost 2/3) of Alaskans voted AGAINST MURKOWSKI. That is a pretty resounding loss for MURKOWSKI.
Ma Baker Folds Like a Cheap Tent in a Strong Wind
I guess I should have known Ma Barker wouldn't put a grand behind his comments. Yet another example of a brave but anonymous blowhard going to places already visited by goofballs like Joe Miller.
We have plenty of folks like Ma Baker that routinely write opinions on NSF accounts so I was not surprised.
the sign of defeat Joe G is ad hominum attacks
I really do not understand Joe. I made the bet. You would not take it. You just can't put your money where your mouth is.
If you really believe that one third of the votes last fall mailed in to Elections from one town were delivered to Elections or were counted, you should borrow the money (all of it) and put up....
I'd say anyone that loses to
I'd say anyone that loses to a write-in candidate can be assumed "soundly rejected," no matter who the write-in is.
We can take a quick unofficial poll if you want, but I'll wager that 2/3 of voting Alaskans will agree with me.
Joe is this you fighting the counting of an election?
In an order dated January 20th, 2010, Judge Patricia Collins ordered the Haines Borough to pay attorney fees totaling $15,322.50 to Mr. Kocher and Joe Geldhof, attorneys for the Plaintiffs in Gershon Cohen, et.al. vs. the Haines Borough. (Joe you could bet your award of attorney fees).
Cohen and other interested parties filed a court case to contest the Haines Borough Canvassing Board decisions regarding the October election for Assembly Seat A, after candidate Gary Lidholm won the election by 2 votes. Judge Collins ordered the borough to count 5 rejected ballots, overturning the election in favor of candidate Daymond Hoffman.
Haines Newspaper Jan 2010
Joe if you support fair elections, you will FOIA DOE to find out when Goldbelt got the contract to provide security for the ballots last when they were giving money to one of the candidates who was running.
It does sound a wee bit like the Twilight Zone. But I know that as a lawyer you will have an explanation.
I wonder how many dead people did vote in the election? Maybe you could check the rolls. Who knows. One of the voters may come back from the dead.