Saying that the burden of proof lies, “...above a preponderance of the evidence, and below beyond a reasonable doubt,” Verser ruled that in spite of phone and utility records, and an energy usage expert, as well as engaging a private investigator, Ross simply did not prove the case that Brown didn’t live in the district he was elected to represent.

“I believe that the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof that Mr. Brown was not a registered voter in his district,” Verser said, adding that there was no reason to believe that Brown’s parents or the other the people who testified on his behalf lied. Verser commented afterward that even if Brown had not presented any defense, Ross’ case would not have met the required burden of proof.

Brown’s attorney, John Morgan, a former chairman of the Kitsap County Democratic Party, commented afterward, “I told you after the first hearing that we would come back with guns blazing, and Mr. Ross - and his none of his friends - would be left standing.”

Morgan added that Ross’ case consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence and Brown’s defense was based on direct evidence. “Direct is better,” chuckled Morgan. “What they tried to do was prove a logical fallacy.”

Immediately after the verdict was rendered, Ross said, “We had a high burden of proof to meet, but in allowing the suit to move forward, the judge showed he believed it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit. But I’m not overly surprised at the outcome. I think the judge applied the case law in this matter he felt was appropriate.”

Ross then chuckled, shrugged his shoulders, and added, “Yeah, and O.J. was innocent too.”

A lot of what the case hinged on had to do with the sparse amount of Washington case law covering this situation - which is basically two cases. Ross’ attorney, Michele Rodosevich of the Seattle law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, commented only, “I think the judge placed a lot weight on the Dumas case, and not enough on the Wenatchee mayor’s case.”

One issue Morgan tried to force, but Judge Verser refused to allow, was calling Ross to testify. The defense was extremely interested in learning exactly who was financing the lawsuit, and hoped to uncover that information. Rodosevich prevailed on the issue of relevancy.

Ross declined to reveal the cost of the lawsuit, or say if there were any other contributors helping defray the cost of the action. Although Ross’ father contributed over $20,000 in support of Jack Hamilton, Brown’s opponent in the November election, both father and son were adamant that Ron Ross was not involved in either the lawsuit’s financing or its strategy.

Robert Ross said at the time the suit was filed, that his only motivation was to find the truth, saying, “If he’ll commit fraud to get elected, there’s no telling what he’ll do once he’s in there.”

County officeholders are usually defended by lawyers from the prosecutor’s office. But since the suit was filed before Brown officially took office and didn’t name the county, it also meant Brown was responsible for his own legal costs.

The Washington State Democratic Party had previously put out a call for help to fund Brown’s defense, but the law firm it had engaged, Perkins Coie, withdrew after it was challenged as having a conflict of interest. The money the state party raised went to pay that firm for its work up to that point. The afternoon after the verdict, the state party sent out another press release renewing the call for funds, which will presumably go to pay Morgan.

In spite of the ruling, Brown’s troubles may not yet be over. He still faces another residency challenge filed by James Olsen of Bainbridge Island. Olsen has declined to provide specifics, saying only that he has “compelling evidence” Brown resides with his parents in Silverdale - outside the district he was elected from.

He is scheduled to present his case to the Kitsap County Canvassing Board, which consists of Commissioner Chris Endresen, Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hague, and Auditor Karen Flynn, at 2 p.m. Feb. 15 in the Commissioners’ Chambers in Port Orchard. Like Brown, all three are Democrats. According to PDC reports, all three of them also contributed money to Brown’s election campaign - with Flynn contributing twice.

Olsen says it isn’t his intention to drive Brown from office, but says he takes issue with what he termed “perjury and misrepresentation.” He is also adamant about not acting in concert with Ross - or anyone else. He has requested a change of venue, which Flynn has denied.

Late in the afternoon after the verdict, a small group unhappy with the outcome began exploring the possibility of trying to have criminal charges filed against Brown. “He admitted to a felony on the stand,” stated one person who would only speak on the condition of anonymity. “He also admitted to stealing a wi-fi signal. Isn’t there anything this guy won’t do?”

The felony accusation stems from testimony at the trial that Brown and a former teacher, Arna Souza of Bremerton, had discussed Brown house-sitting for her. Souza testified she had that discussion with Brown in May - not in January as Brown stated - but that no agreement was reached. Brown, in the meantime registered to vote using Souza’s address. Souza said she never gave Brown permission to do so, and had only heard about Brown’s action after a visit from Ross’ investigator, Larry Walsh, two weeks ago.

The group said they will send a representative to meet with Prosecutor Russ Hague shortly, but don’t expect him to take any action. Once they have completed that necessary step, they will approach Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office.

Brown left the courtroom immediately after the verdict. Several attempts to reach him by phone for a comment were unsuccessful, as he didn’t respond to voice mails on either his office or cell phones.