Considering all the shit I’ve taken from people armed with verbal torches and pitchforks since writing this post Saturday, its nice to see that a sitting judge at least tentatively agrees with the notion that you have to prove ‘where’ someone lives, not where they don’t to vacate a seat.
Don’t worry, I’m not lacing up the tennies, or prepping the inhaler to help me make a victory lap…and I’m certainly not gloating. But I had no idea the public…and the media for that matter had such a tenuous grasp of the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ (which applies in both civil and criminal law, though the burden of proof is different).
Armstrong also brings up something that I eluded to Saturday…that the final say on questions such as residency should not fall to the opinion/investigation of the County Attorney…but to some other body.
It makes perfect sense that a sitting judge might not want to give the power to issue judgement of an elected official to an appointee of the Executive Branch…separation of powers being what it is and all.
Of course, all of this could get turned on its head Thursday. But the day the opinion of an investigator or someone other than a judge, or jury of your peers is equivalent to actual judgement, is the day that our legal system falls apart.