STATE EX REL NYBO v DISTRICT COUR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO, 12171 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1971 STATE ex r e 1 KEN NYBO, Petitioner, THE DISTRICT C U T O THE FIRST JUDICIAL OR F DISTRICT O THE STATE O M N A A I N AND F F OTN, FOR T E C U T O LEWIS AND CLARK, and t h e H O NY F HONORABLE VICTOR H. FALL, JUDGE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel o f Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : Kendrick Smith argued, B u t t e , Montana. S t a n l e y M. Doyle appeared, Polson, Montana, For Respondents: Arnold H. Olsen argued, Helena, Montana. For Amicus Curiae: Hon, Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Submitted : Filed: 2 0 r,gV. A . December 21, 1971 PER CURIAM: T h i s i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding s e e k i n g a w r i t o f p r o h i bition directed t o the d i s t r i c t court of the f i r s t judicial d i s t r i c t , Judge F a l l p r e s i d i n g . On November 1 5 , 1971, a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h i s Court s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e a n o r d e r denying a motion t o quash a w r i t of mandate i s s u e d by Judge F a l l . Petitioner Ken Nybo had been named d e f e n d a n t i n a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t o f mandamus i n c a u s e No. 35351, f i l e d October 2 6 , 1971, i n t h e respondent d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Lewis and C l a r k County. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t o f mandamus was by Harry L . B i l l i n g s who s o u g h t mandamus t o i n s p e c t t h e books o f one "Save Our S t a t e Committeef1 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s SOS), under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. B i l l i n g s was d e s i g n a t e d p l a i n t i f f and a p p l i c a n t , and i t i t was a l l e g e d t h a t Nybo, d e s i g n a t e d d e f e n d a n t , was chairman o f SOS and had c u s t o d y o f t h e "booksf1. The a p p l i c a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t B i l l i n g s was a n i n c o r p o r a t o r , d i r e c t o r and s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r o f a n o r g a n i z a t i o n c a l l e d " C i t i z e n s Opposed t o S a l e s ax" ( h e r e - i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s COST), and t h u s e n t i t l e d t o i n s p e c t t h e books o f SOS. It was a l l e g e d t h a t COST and SOS were opposing o r g a n i z a t i o n s concerned w i t h d e f e a t i n g o r p a s s i n g Referendum !I68 a t t h e e l e c t i o n on November 2 , 1971. Referendum !I68 was provided f o r by t h e 1971 Montana Revenue A c t , whereby t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d i n t o law a 40% income t a x s u r t a x e f f e c t i v e on passage and a p p r o v a l of t h e A c t , I t t h e n r e f e r r e d t o t h e p e o p l e a measure w i t h two q u e s t i o n s : (1) For r e d u c t i o n o f t h e a l r e a d y imposed 40% income t a x s u r t a x t o 10% and f o r enactment o f a 2% s a l e s and u s e t a x ; o r (2) a g a i n s t t h e r e d u c t i o n o f t h e 40% income t a x s u r t a x t o 10% and a g a i n s t enactment of a 2% s a l e s and u s e t a x . I n o t h e r words, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e imposed a n a d d i t i o n a l t a x and g a v e t h e p e o p l e a c h o i c e o f c o n t i n u i n g t h a t t a x o r s u b s t i t u t i n g a new one; t h e o n l y a p p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e b e i n g i n who would pay. It would b e a g r o s s u n d e r s t a t e m e n t t o s a y t h a t s u c h a c h o i c e would be c o n t r o v e r s i a l . The l e g i s l a t u r e p a s s e d a l o n g t h i s c h o i c e t o t h e p e o p l e a t a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n on No.vember 2 , 1971. The Act c a l l e d t h i s s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n a " s p e c i a l g e n e r a l election". I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t mandamus a c t i o n , t h e p r a y e r f o r r e l i e f asked t h a t a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandus be i s s u e d r e t u r n a b l e w i t h i n a very b r i e f period, compelling defendant t o open t h e books of SOS t o i n s p e c t i o n ; t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t have c o s t s and a n a t t o r n e y f e e . A h a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t o f mandamus was i s s u e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t on October 26. 28 a t 10 a.m. It was r e t u r n a b l e on October I t was n e v e r s e r v e d on d e f e n d a n t Nybo. N o n e t h e l e s s , on t h e r e t u r n d a y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y by p l a i n t i f f B i l l i n g s and s t a t e m e n t s by h i s c o u n s e l who a d m i t t e d s e r v i c e had n o t been h a d , b u t a s s e r t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t Nybo was " h i d i n g out". After a b r i e f hearing t h e following colloquy occurred: "COURT: W e l l , you a r e a n o f f i c e r of t h i s C o u r t . I f you p r e s e n t t h a t t o be t h e f a c t , I w i l l a c c e p t i t a s s u c h . P r e p a r e a Preemptory [ s i c ] W r i t o f s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t i f n e c e s s a r y , why t h e S h e r i f f may f o r c e h i s e n t r y i n t o t h e o f f i c e and s e i z e whate v e r i s t h e r e , and M r . Nybo I want b r o u g h t f o r t h w i t h b e f o r e t h i s Court t o explain---Was h e e v e r s e r v e d ? "MR. OLSEN: No, s i r , h e was n o t , and I submit t h a t h e h a s been e v a d i n g u s . II COURT: W e l l , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e p a r e a n a p p r o p r i a t e paper s o t h a t h e w i l l b e f o r t h w i t h b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t t o e x p l a i n h i s a c t i o n and b e s u b j e c t t o i n t e r r o g a t i o n by you i n open c o u r t . T h a t ' s t h e way we do t h a t ." It [~Ihe way we do t h a t " became what i s e n t i t l e d "Peremp- t o r y Writ o f anda am us" which i s i n p a r t a s f o l l o w s : "THE STATE O MONTANA t o KhT NYBO, Chairman of t h e F Save Our S t a t e Committee, Helena, Montana, G r e e t i n g : 11 WHEREAS, t h e above e n t i t l e d came on r e g u l a r l y f o r h e a r i n g on t h e 2 8 t h day o f O c t o b e r , 1971, a t 10:OO A . M . a n d , "WHEREAS, t h e a p p l i c a n t and p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, was r e g u l a r l y and d u l y sworn and t e s t i f i e d , and, "l.JHEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and determined t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , KEN NYBO, i s t h e Chairman o f t h e Save Our S t a t e Committee, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s S.O.S., a n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a s s o c i a t i o n formed f o r t h e purpose o f promoting t h e p a s s a g e o f Referendum No. 68 ( t h e s a l e s t a x ) which w i l l a p p e a r on t h e b a l l o t o f t h e November 2 , 1971, s p e c i a l g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , a n d , "WHEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and adjudged t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , KEN NYBQ, Chairman of S.O.S., h a s a d v e r t i s e d u r g i n g p a s s a g e o f t h e S a l e s Tax Referendum and h a s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e o f f i c e s t o b e under t h e name o f KEN NYBO, S.O.S., Helena, Montana, and t h a t a d d r e s s was found t o b e Room 305 o f t h e Union Bank B u i l d i n g , Helena, Montana, a n d , "WHEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s t a k e n s p e c i a l n o t e o f S e c t i o n 94-1431, S u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) , RCM1947: a s f o l l o w s , "' (4) t h e books o f a c c o u n t o f e v e r y t r e a s u r e r o f any p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , committee, o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , d u r i n g a n e l e c t i o n campaign, s h a l l b e opened a t a l l reasonable o f f i c e hours t o t h e inspection of t h e t r e a s u r e r and chairman o f any opposing p o l i t i ca 1 [party] o r o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e same e l e c t o r i a 1 d i s t r i c t ; and h i s r i g h t o f i n s p e c t i o n may b e enf o r c e d by Writ of Mandamus by any c o u r t o f competent jurisdiction. ' "wI.IEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and a d j u d g e d t h a t t h e books o f a c c o u n t a r e i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n and under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f s a i d d e f e n d a n t Chairman, KEN NYBO, a t h i s o f f i c e s a t Helena, Montana, a f o r e s a i d , a n d , "WHEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and a d j u d g e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , KEN NYBO, and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , S.O.S. Committee, have f a i l e d , r e f u s e d , and n e g l e c t e d t o open t o p u b l i c i n s p k c t i o n a s p r o v i d e d by law, a n d , "wHERUS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and adjudged t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n S.O.S. Committee and t h e d e f e n d a n t , KEN NYBO, f a i l e d , r e f u s e d , and n e g l e c t e d t o open t h e books t o s a i d p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, upon r e g u l a r and o r d e r l y demand t h e r e f o r e [ s i c ] a t t h e o r d i n a r y and r e g u l a r h o u r s of b u s i n e s s on t h e 2 6 t h day of O c t o b e r , 1971, a t Room 305, Union Bank B u i l d i n g , Helena, Montana, a n d , "WHEREAS, t h i s c o u r t h a s d u l y found and adjudged t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , KEN NYBO, and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , S. 0 . S . Committee, Helena, Montana, have evaded t h e d u l y and r e g u l a r l y i s s u e d p r o c e s s , namely an A l t e r n a t e W r i t o f Mandate i s s u e d by t h e above e n t i t l e d c o u r t , upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n d u l y v e r i f i e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, "NOW THEREFORE, t h i s c o u r t , b e i n g w i l l i n g t h a t speedy j u s t i c e be done i n t h i s c a s e on b e h a l f of him, t h e p l a i n t i f f and a p p l i c a n t , does command you, DAVE MIDDLEMAS, S h e r i f f , Lewis and C l a r k County, S t a t e of Montana, t o f o r t h w i t h s e e k o u t KEN NYBO, Chairman S.O.S. Committee, a t any p l a c e t h a t h e c a n b e found and b r i n g him t o r t h w i t h b e f o r e t h e above entitled court; "AND, you, S h e r i f f Middlemas, a r e f u r t h e r o r d e r e d and t h i s c o u r t does command you t h a t you g o t o t h e o f f i c e o f t h e S.O.S. Committee a t Room 305 o f t h e Union Bank B u i l d i n g and t h e r e demand oL anyone p r e s e n t o r i f no one i s p r e s e n t t h a t you do e n t e r t h a t room and t h a t you s e i z e t h e books o f a c c o u n t o f t h a t p o l i t i c a l committee, S.O.S. Committee and you b r i n g s u c h books of a c c o u n t f o r t h w i t h t o t h e above e n t i t l e d c o u r t . I t The f o r e g o i n g r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g document would a p p e a r be a judgment, a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , a w a r r a n t o f a r r e s t , a body attachment---all w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o r any p r o c e s s o f law; d e f e n d a n t n o t having been s e r v e d n o r t h e c o u r t having o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r him. O t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , October 2 9 , c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t n Nybo ( a p p a r e n t l y now a c r i m i n a l d e i e n d a n t a l s o ) a p p e a r e d . On November 1 d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l f i l e d a motion t o q u a s h on t h e grounds t h a t t h e " e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t o f mandate was i m p r o v i d e n t l y entered". A b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f t h e motion was a l s o f i l e d . On t h a t same d a y , November 1, t h e r e a p p e a r s i n t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s a n o t h e r t r a n s c r i p t , wherein t h e motion t o q u a s h was f i l e d and t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i s t r i c t c o u r t summarily, w i t h o u t even r e a d i n g o r h e a r i n g i t s c o n t e n t s , d e n i e d t h e motion and proceeded t o a l l o w p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l t o cross-examine d e f e n d a n t Nybo and f o r c e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e books. Counsel f o r Nybo made s e v e r a l o b j e c t i o n s , t r i e d t o o f f e r some e v i d e n c e , and asked t o be h e a r d ; a l l i n vain. He was summarily d e n i e d and t h e h e a r i n g t e r m i n a t e d by t h e c o u r t announcing: "Court i s i n r e c e s s . " The f o r e g o i n g shows a l a c k o f p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s and a l a c k o f fundamental f a i r n e s s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r i s void. But, i t d i d n o t even s t o p t h e r e ! O November 5 , t h e n same d i s t r i c t judge awarded c o s t s , a s w e l l a s a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $500, a g a i n s t Nybo. It i s p a t e n t l y obvious t h a t s u c h c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded a s a r e s u l t o f a v o i d proceeding cannot s t a n d . However, t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n goes f u r t h e r . It s e e k s , i n e f f e c t , a r u l i n g n o t o n l y t h a t t h e proceedings were v o i d , b u t t h a t t h e y were v o i d because t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n SOS i s n o t w i t h i n t h e purview o f s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. I n t h i s r e g a r d p e t i t i o n e r a s s e r t s t h a t SOS was a b i p a r t i s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n t o promote passage o f Referendum #68 and t h u s was l e g i s l a t i v e i n n a t u r e and n o t p o l i t i c a l w i t h i n t h e s e n s e and meaning o f s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. P e t i t i o n e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h e respondent d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e motion t o quash may have been a d e t e r m i n a t i o n which would r e n d e r p e t i t i o n e r and members and c o n t r i b u t o r s t o SOS l i a b l e t o p r o s e c u t i o n under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 94-1469 o r s e c t i o n 94-1470, R.C.M. 1947, b o t h of which c o n t a i n c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n s . This Court i s s u e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e r e q u i r i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o quash t h e w r i t p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d t h e r e i n , o r a p p e a r t o show c a u s e why i t was n o t done. The Court a l s o o r d e r e d c o p i e s of t h e papers s e r v e d on t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . The Amicus Curiae b r i e f of t h e Attorney General t a k e s no p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e o f whether t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n SOS i s a " p o l i t i c a l " organizat i o n s u b j e c t t o t h e s o - c a l l e d Corrupt P r a c t i c e s Act. The Attorney General does, however, urge t h i s Court t o d e c i d e t h e q u e s t i o n . I n response t o our o r d e r t o show c a u s e , t h e respondent d i s t r i c t c o u r t appeared by answer e s s e n t i a l l y a s s e r t i n g t h a t s i n c e t h e r e c o r d s o f SOS were i n s p e c t e d , t h e matter i s moot. F u r t h e r , i t d i d n o t i n t e n d t o make any holding t o i n d i c a t e whether o r n o t SOS and i t s c o n t r i b u t o r s were i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e Corrupt P r a c t i c e s Act. As t o t h i s phase of t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n , we have examined t h e Corrupt P r a c t i c e s Act, p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t o s e c t i o n 94-1444, R.C.M. 1947, which c o n t a i n s a p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t c o r - p o r a t i o n s paying o r c o n t r i b u t i n g II i n o r d e r t o a i d o r promote t h e i n t e r e s t s , s u c c e s s , o r d e f e a t of any p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r organization. II A referendum measure of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s n o t such a s would be c l a s s e d a s t h e " i n t e r e s t s , s u c c e s s , o r d e f e a t o f any p o l i t i c a 1 p a r t y o r organization"; unless, the legis la t u r e classes i t s e l f a s a " p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r organization1'---which i t i s n o t , i n t h e s e n s e of t h e terms used. This Court has long held t h a t a referendum i s e n t i r e l y II legislative" in character. S t a t e ex r e l . Hay v . Alderson, 49 Mont. 387, 407, 142 P.210; F i t z p a t r i c k v . S t a t e Board of Examiners, 105 Mont. 234, 240, 70 P.2d 285. When t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e f e r s a measure t o t h e people, i t i s seeking t h e p e o p l e ' s v o i c e s i n g l y and c o l l e c t i v e l y , by i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups. For i n s t a n c e , l a b o r unions, league of women v o t e r s , chambers of commerce, newspaper e d i t o r s and r e p o r t e r s . a l l may have views and cannot c o n s t i t u t i o n a l L y be r e s t r i c t e d from e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r views. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e C o r r u p t P r a c t i c e s A c t , s e c t i o n 94-1444, R. C.M. 1947, t h e words " p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n " do n o t i n c l u d e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s own p r o c e s s e s n o r such g r o u p s . The Ohio Supreme Court i n 1939, c o n s i d e r e d t h i s m a t t e r i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n concerning a t a x levy. S t a t e ex r e l . C o r r i g a n v . C l e v e l a n d - C l i f f s I r o n Co., 169 Ohio S t . 42, 157 N.E.2d 331,333, 336, i n v o l v e d a n a c t i o n i n quo w a r r a n t o t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l e g a l i t y of a c o r p o r a t i o n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o a committee o r g a n i z e d t o promote t h e a d o p t i o n o f c e r t a i n i s s u e s which were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e v o t e r s a t a general election. The s t a t u t e invol-ved, s e c t i o n 3599.03, Ohio Revised Code, provided i n p a r t p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a c t i o n : 11 (A) No c o r p o r a t i o n engaged i n b u s i n e s s i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , pay, u s e , o f f e r , a d v i s e , c o n s e n t , o r a g r e e t o pay o r u s e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s money o r p r o p e r t y [ a ] f o r o r i n a i d o f a p o l i JC *." t i c a l p a r t y , committee o r o r g a n i z a t i o n (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) * I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o t t h e i s s u e , t h e Ohio c o u r t s t a t e d : *** "It i s obvious t h a t , i n t h e above-quoted portion of t h e s t a t u t e a p p e a r i n g a f t e r [ a ] , t h e word 1 p o l i t i c a l ' m o d i f i e s n o t o n l y ' p a r t y ' b u t a l s o t h e words 1 committee, o r o r g a n i z a t i o n . ' The words ' p o l i t i c a l p a r t y ' have a w e l l understood o r d i n a r y meaning. Those words d e s c r i b e a n a s s o c i a t i o n o f individua3.s whose primary purposes a r e t o promote o r accomplish e l e c t i o n s o r appointments t o p u b l i c o f f i c e s , p o s i t i o n s o r j o b s . Although t h e word ' p o l i t i c a l ' may have a v e r y broad meanding, i t s meaning may b e c o n s i d e r a b l y narrowed where See Heidtman i t i s t h u s used t o modify t h e word 'party! v . C i t y o f Shaker H e i g h t s , 163 Ohio S t . 109, 126 N.E.2d 138. Obviously, i n r e f e r r i n g t o ' a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , committee, o r o r g a n i z a t i o n ' i n t h i s s t a t u t e , t h e G e n e r a l Assembly i n t e n d e d by t h e words 'committee, o r o r g a n i z a t i o n ; t o r e f e r o n l y t o a committee o r o r g a n i z a t i o n which i s a n a d j u n c t o f a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r a n a s s o c i a t i o n formed f o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same purposes o r performing subs t a n t i a l l y t h e same f u n c t i o n s a s a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . 1 1 The Ohio c o u r t t h e n concluded: '1 Our c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t respondent corpora t i o n could l a w f u l l y c o n t r i b u t e t o a committee o r g a n i z e d and cond u c t e d merely f o r t h e purposes o f a d v o c a t i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment and t h e passage (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) o r bond i s s u e s and t a x l e v i e s . " W f i n d then t h a t t h e Corrupt P r a c t i c e s Act does n o t e cover t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e and no f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y . By what we have s a i d h e r e t o f o r e , we hold t h a t t h e o r d e r s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f e r r e d t o a r e s e t a s i d e and t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r d i s m i s s e d , w i t h each p a r t y t o pay i t s own c o s t s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.