Judge's order: Assemblyman is "not an actual resident" of district he represents

I have finally obtained the order filed late last week in the residency case of Andrew Martin, the assemblyman elected a day after Judge Rob Bare said he was ineligible to run.

Bare's order, attached here, is not as explicit, referring only to Martin's lack of residency in Assembly District 9 and not declaring him ineligible to be on the ballot. (That's not what the judge could do, only what he chose to say.)

The order concludes: "The Court finds that Andrew Martin is not an actual resident of Assembly District 9, the assembly district of the office which he seeks."

Bare's order mentions the surveillance paid for by Martin's opponent, Kelly Hurst, that found the Democrat spent every night from Sept. 16 to Oct. 3 at a residence outside of AD9. The judge does not mention evidence presented by Martin going back to December 2011 -- a homestead exemption recorded on that house, tax returns filed from there, receipts for household goods immediately after purchasing the home, television sets, a cable bill— that indicated he was living in AD9.

And it is interesting that Bare extrapolated in his conclusion that Martin's "actions during the surveillance period are representative of Mr. Martin's actions throughout his ownership of (the residence outside the district), not mere coincidence of timing."

Or was it? Why doesn't the Legislature use its unique powers to hold a hearing on this issue and determine whether Martin should be serving? (I have previously observed the absurdity of this situation.)

Yes, the Assembly, absent any Hurst contest, would have to expel Martin and that would take a two-thirds vote (odds of that happening=odds of Martin ever being Assembly speaker). But why not demonstrate to the world, if Martin has the evidence, that he really does live in the district he represents? If not, he will be tainted as a legislator and as a 2014 candidate.

My guess: No one will listen to me. No worries. I'm used to it.