Concerns raised regarding Nevarez arraignment

Concerns are being raised that a June 18 arrest warrant issued against Jamisha Nevarez, 46, Bonners Ferry, that culminated in her arrest and a two-day jail stay before her release following a hearing on Thursday may have been flawed due to poor courtroom acoustics at her arraignment hearing June 14.

Nevarez, also known as Misha Davis, was charged with criminal trespass and resisting and obstructing law enforcement after a tumultuous two-month stint as chief executive officer of the Bonners Ferry Seniors Center came to an abrupt end May 31 following a series of incidents that raised questions about her mental stability.

The arraignment hearing June 14 was tumultuous as well, with Kootenai County District Court Judge Timothy Van Valin called in after Judge Justin Julian recused himself due to sweeping allegations against him and numerous other local elected officials, law enforcement personnel and others she insists are part of a dark and sinister cabal bent on silencing her to keep her from exposing their deep and allegedly dark secrets.

According to court minutes, the judge, appearing remotely via Zoom, attempted to silence Nevarez continuously throughout the approximately 19-minute hearing in the small courtroom.

Responding to direct questions by the Judge, clerk Teri Navarro testified that Nevarez had received notification of her rights. The judge noted he’d not seen an application for a public defender and was told she had that form as well.

After ordering she undergo psychiatric evaluations to determine if she is able to understand the proceedings against her, explaining the terms of her remaining free on bond and informs her she needed to sign up by 5 p.m. that day to make arrangements for drug and alcohol testing, interrupted several times by the defendant he tells her “I don’t want to hear you again.”

Moments later, Van Valin directs sheriff’s detention deputy Ryan Hoskins, who was serving as bailiff, to “please take her now.”

“Ms Nevarez is removed from the courtroom,” the minutes read, “she isn’t under arrest.”

But she was taken to jail.

In a written report afterwards, Hoskins writes, “Judge Valin called for me, Deputy Hoskin, and I stepped forward. Due to low audio volume and unclear communication in the video court, I believed that the judge had ordered me to take Nevarez into custody for contempt of court. Following this, Nevarez was removed from the court and escorted back to the jail. I contacted the Boundary County Clerks and confirmed at approximately 1346hrs (1:46 p.m.) that they would be holding Nevarez on an 18-1801, which is a misdemeanor charge of contempt of court. However, at approximately 1354hrs (1:54 p.m.) Della Armstrong from the Boundary County Clerks informed me that there had been a misunderstanding in court and Nevarez was not supposed to be taken into custody. I acknowledged the information and promptly released Nevarez from custody.

On June 20, Adrienne Norris, Boundary County Watchman, sent a letter to Van Vilan and others, to “bring to your attention several concerns regarding the arraignment of Jamisha.”

“I attended this hearing which was in the smaller court room at Boundary County Courthouse … During the hearing, there seemed to be audio difficulties which impeded clear communication. While observing the proceedings via the Zoom TV screen, I noted instances where Judge Vilan appeared to adjust his microphone without any audible output. Additionally, despite visible attempts to speak, there were periods where no sound was transmitted. Consequently, the judge kept asking Jamisha to stop interrupting, Jamisha repeatedly expressed that she could not hear him.”

Norris, who gave Jamisha a ride home after her release, requests an investigation to ensure that justice is served and that Jamisha receives fair treatment.

“The sequence of events prompts several questions,” she writes. “How did an audio technical difficulty escalate to the issuance of a warrant? Furthermore, Jamisha has allegedly endured ongoing harassment over the past three months from various government employees, elected officials, and community members. These include getting her fired from her job, threats to her life, defamation of character, and barriers to securing housing and employment. These actions suggest a concerted effort to get her to leave town, which I have evidence to support and have personally witnessed.”

Harassment or a technical issue, Jamisha, rushed out of court as she was, contends she walked out of jail June 14 with no instruction or written documentation on the terms and conditions of her release, no instruction on what she had to do to remain in compliance.

On Thursday, June 20, an in-custody review hearing was held and Nevarez said she was ordered to pay $1,000 for a bond violation and an additional $500 bond on top of the $800 bond she posted for her release May 31. She said she was also required to stay in the state and sign an extradition waiver. She underwent two psychiatric assessments on Friday with results pending and she must undergo random drug and alcohol tests six times per month. A competency evaluation review is set for 2 p.m. Friday, July 19.

The maximum penalty for the misdemeanors she’s charged with is up to six months in jail and/or a $500 to $1,000 fne for trespassing and up to one year and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000 for resisting and obstructing.

Meanwhile, questions she raised at the seniors center during her brief tenure as CEO seem forgotten. Where are the accurate books the previous board should have kept? The funds that should be on hand but allegedly aren’t? Where are the records required by multiple federal agencies?

What became of the independent legal, regulatory and financial audits she worked to schedule, audits few firms were interested in providing, allegedly due to issues of compliance by the previous board?

Answers are hard to come by.

Worse yet are reports of senior apartment residents who’d rather live with appliances that haven’t worked for months, faulty wiring, leaks and other issues rather than talk and risk eviction in a region with an average one year waiting list for subsidized senior housing.

“I don’t care if she is a nut or whatever,” one brave tenant wrote, “she was getting things done and personally I think a person would have to be crazy to take on the directors job. Since she has been gone, nothing is being done around here so my wife and I are making plans to move to a more civilized town, and the operative word here is civil. A town that is more interested in their senior citizen’s safety than the Good Ol’ Boys Club. You would have a lot more seniors making comments on these accusations, if they weren’t afraid of being kicked out of their apartments with no place to go.”