Still no decision on Hurley resi

Jeremy Nash news-herald.net

A dispute concerning Loudon County Commissioner Julia Hurley’s residency status remains unresolved.

Russell Johnson, 9th Judicial District attorney general, in December gave Hurley until March 6 to move back into the second district.

“In my opinion, the facts are clear that last summer she purchased a house outside of the second district with the intention of making it her permanent residence,” Johnson said in an email correspondence. “She, in fact, made it her permanent residence. There are several facts to corroborate this. Although given four months from my letter to her attorney, she has chosen not to resign or move back into the second district from which she was elected to represent.”

Johnson said Friday he would contact Hurley’s attorney, T. Scott Jones, one more time before he files any form of lawsuit.

“I owe this to the citizens of the second district who voted for her and the other nine commissioners and the other Loudon County elected officials who live in their district and follow the law,” Johnson said. “The right thing for me to do is to try and remedy that situation for them.”

The issue dates back to July when Commissioner Van Shaver questioned Hurley’s place of residence after becoming aware of her move.

“We don’t observe artificial deadlines set by public officials that don’t have the authority to dictate our conduct,” Jones said. “I’ve provided a lease showing the expiration date. I’ve provided a litany of case law to the attorney general showing that basically we’re on solid legal ground and I have provided a statement that my client it is her full intention to return to her district after this temporary relocation is completed.”

In a Feb. 6 letter to Johnson, Jones showed a 12-month lease for her former residence on West 5th Avenue in Lenoir City. The lease ends Aug. 1.

“If someone wants to set an artificial deadline and ouster suit then we’re not the one that drew the line in the sand. I guess they’ll have to file it and the chips will fall where they may,” Jones said. “That being said, it would be civil litigation and Ms. Hurley is scheduled to return to her district late summer, early fall, however you want to consider that timeframe, and it would it would then render it a nullity, and it just seems there would be a better expenditure of taxpayer money rather than catering to the whims of Mr. Shaver.”

Jones emphasized there was no pending litigation.

“I don’t see that Ms. Hurley has done anything wrong, and I guess what is vexing to me when we have another member of commission that I assume, and I’m referring to Van Shaver, is threatened by Ms. Hurley’s success and also the fact that theoretically she would be in his commission district and I assume he’s concerned for his own seat,” Jones said. “... Ms. Hurley has discovered evidently through means of social media that effectively Mr. Shaver through his and his wife’s account are all but stalking her on Instagram, I think viewing on average her Instagram account 26 times a day.”

Shaver said he does not utilize social media. He said Jones was “trying to deflect the failures of his client in another direction.”

“It wouldn't matter where she had moved to, what district she moved to, if she left her district the offense is the same,” Shaver said. “So I don’t care what district she moved into. When she moved out of the second district, she essentially violated her requirement to live in her district.”

He felt what Jones said was a “full admission she does in fact live in the wrong district.”

“Attorney Jones is trying to make the best of his client’s bad situation by claiming what was intended and executed as a permanent move to a principal residence was merely a ‘temporary move’ — which is what they are claiming after his client had her error brought to her attention,” Johnson said.

Johnson was brought into the situation by Loudon County Commission in August. At the time, commissioners were uncertain what was considered temporary.

“I agree with attorney Jones in that there is a dearth of case law on this issue and that the outcome in court is not an assured thing for either side,” Johnson said. “I, however, believe that a plain reading of the law and the intent of the law is to not condone these types of situations. We may have to ask a judge to ultimately decide this issue, which is unfortunate. Ouster lawsuits, if that is the route I go, are given preference for hearing over cases already docketed.”

Jones has not wavered.

“When I say it is almost vexing to me, I guess I look at it as in the immortal words of Shakespeare in one of his plays, ‘It appears to be much ado about nothing,’ and responses to things that I almost think don’t beg a response,” Jones said. “But I have supplied that information to the general. I did extensive research associated with it. I supplied him with the case law, told him what it is and then the only person that seems to be beating this drum, of course again it’s based upon information and belief is Mr. Shaver posting this. I don’t understand it. Maybe he’s threatened by her, but I just don’t understand why.”