NEWSFLASH! There's a city councilman, Jay Jabour, who currently holds the Group 2 At-Large seat even though his election was invalidated last year when Judge Bernard Nachman determined that he does not reside in the district he represents.
ANOTHER NEWSFLASH! Jabour appealed this decision, even though he admitted under oath that, no, he does not actually live at his condominium at the beach, but really lives in his San Jose home, mere steps from his beloved country club.
BACKGROUND: Bob Harms, the defeated Democrat for this seat, sued after the elections and succeeded in getting the election tossed. Despite Judge Nachman's decision, Jabour was able to stay the decision during the appellate process.
Just so we're clear, to qualify for Group 2, Jabour changed his homestead election from his San Jose home to his beach condominium. He also changed his driver's license, etc. When Judge Nachman issued his decision, he ipso facto determined that Jabour had violated Florida law. Sure, his homestead exemption was revoked. But State Attorney Harry Shorstein wasted no time announcing that he would not prosecute Jabour for committing a third degree felony when Jabour submitted false voter registration information.
Finally, on February 20th, the First DCA will hear oral arguments to determine Jabour's fate. However, there's no telling how long the Court will take to issue its decision. One thing we know is that Jabour intends to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court if Judge Nachman's decision is upheld. Now, I'm no appellate attorney, but if I understand the rules (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), the First DCA could issue a per curiam affirmance which would deny the Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear the case, thus rendering Judge Nachman's decision final.
I know this issue will be blogged/discussed in greater detail as the hearing grows closer and after it happens by the folks at Jax Out Loud, A Geek Lawyer, The Folio, and The Urban Core (to name a few), but I just wanted to get my two cents in as Jabour's continued representation of Group 2 makes for yet another blatant act of corruption by a city official (see an earlier post). Even if Judge Nachman's decision is affirmed, this will only result in, at best, Jabour stepping down (thus forcing a million dollar special election -- something this city can ill afford). The worst we have to look forward to is his continuing his post until his term runs.
Not only is all of this another slap on this wrist of a county official, but it's a slap across the face to all the un-elected common folk who are the ones who'll end up paying for this malfeasance. Jabour has made a mockery of the democratic process. I think instead of running for a seat he does not qualify to run for, it's time Jabour seek a re-match against Art Shad, not in District 5 this time, but in the ring, Fight Club style, where I hear Shad has a wicked right hook (see the same earlier post).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Great point on the Per Curiam decision! I've only taken one case to appeal (bagged it), but my memory of State Con Law is that unless there's some division between the DCAs and they don't certify the matter as an issue of "great public importance," then they can affirm, per curiam, the trial court's ruling, which robs the State Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Questions remain in the minds of many about the legitimacy of any votes cast by Mr. Jabour while illegally seated on the Council...
That's exactly right. A "PCA" which is a one word decision ("Affirmed.") by the appellate court cannot be reviewed by the supreme court.
However, it is fairly unlikely that there will be a PCA in a case of this importance amd visibility, although it's not unheard of.
Post a Comment