Judge keeps protection order in place

SANDPOINT — A North Idaho magistrate judge declined Friday to modify or lift a temporary protection order against Bonner Commissioner Steve Bradshaw after he was ruled to have made several death threats against fellow commissioner Asia Williams last August.

While Bradshaw may be chaffing under the restrictions, Magistrate Judge Justin Julian said he has only himself to blame.

"Now it's coming back to bite him," the judge said in ruling to leave the order in place and declining to lift any restrictions.

However, the judge also refused to consider Williams' request to extend the order until Bradshaw is no longer in office.

Bradshaw had sought changes to the order, saying it was being inappropriately enforced as a political maneuver to hamper his ability to serve as county commissioner — and hurt his campaign for county sheriff.

In his request to have the order lifted or modified, Bradshaw and his attorney, Mauricio Cardona of the Davallier Law Group, argued the restrictions imposed were akin to domestic violence cases and not an ideological dispute between opposing viewpoints on the political spectrum.

"These are not two people with a personal relationship," Cardona said. "This involves a political relationship where they happen to be on two sides of most issues."

While the judge made clear what was and wasn't allowed under the protection order, which is set to expire in just over three months, Cardona contended the order was being enforced more as a criminal protection order than a civil order. Instead of adhering to the parameters outlined by Julian at a January hearing, the attorney said Bradshaw was being held to those akin to a criminal case.

The result was a restriction on his constitutional rights to free speech and an impediment to his ability to campaign for county sheriff. It is also impeding his ability to meet with constituents and department heads.

"As it's being enforced, it's hampering with his ability to do his job," Cardona told the court.
In response to Williams' testimony, Cardona said Bradshaw disputed ever making any threats against the District 2 commissioner and that a decision to not challenge that contention at the initial hearing was a "strategic decision" by a prior counsel.

Williams told the judge she opposed lifting or modifying the protection order, saying she faced constant stress, harassment, and ridicule because she sought the order following threats by Bradshaw to shoot her in the head.

"Those all are having an impact on my ability to do my job," the District 2 commissioner said in the hearing.

Instead of abiding by the terms of the protection order, Williams testified that Bradshaw went out of his way to avoid them, including what she said were efforts to avoid being searched to ensure he was not carrying a weapon.

Before the terms were clarified, Bradshaw indicated he would not be attending a regional meeting for county officials. However, when she showed up to attend, Bradshaw was there in what she said was a defiance of the order.

While her fellow commissioner might be chaffing at the restrictions, Williams said they are merely "reasonable consequences" of Bradshaw's own actions in threatening to kill someone.

"He is asking the court to say he is above the law," she said. "He is not."

In asking the court to keep the order in place without modification, Williams asked that it be continued until Bradshaw was no longer in office.

Under the protection order, Bradshaw is to have no contact with Williams, as well as remain 300 feet away from her at all times. The exception to this, however, are commissioners’ meetings, regardless of location. Bradshaw is also not allowed to possess firearms or any other weapons at commissioners’ meetings, or any county property, even when Williams is not present.

At the start of the hearing, Julian cautioned Bradshaw and Cardona that the hearing was to decide the merits of whether the order should be modified or lifted, not to reargue the case. He told the pair that the time for any appeal or challenge to the ruling had long since passed.

"It seems to me that you are now asking … to go back and reargue the trial, and that decision has been made," the judge said, adding that finding the restrictions imposed by the protection order to be onerous is not grounds to have it dismissed or modified. "That's the chips falling where they may."

  Williams