Re: [Vision2020] Re: Zoning Code and NSA (archives ) READ § 4-11-9 (80) and §...

Thu Jan 27 10:27:10 PST 2005

All, (except the yellow-bellies/craven crackpots afraid to sign their own names, most likely to conceal their embarrassment of the knowing asininity/dishonesty of their posts and the masters they are so willingly and blindly serving),

First, I would like to state unequivocally and as strongly as possible that I believe that NSA has right to exist and to operate.  Like all of us living under the great constitution in this great country, the persons behind and in support of NSA and its parent cult have a legal right to express their points of view and to construct institutions to promulgate those points of view.

It is well known that I disagree vehemently with their points of view and the hypocritical lack of honesty, etc. that the cult leadership exhibits.

But like many of the others on this list who think the cult is excrementitious blot on humankind, I cherish the freedom of expression we all enjoy and would absolutely disagree with anyone who would seek to abridge the cult's legal rights to express their points of view.

The legal issue being debated is not whether NSA has a right to exist/operate but whether they have legal right to operate in Moscow's downtown commercial district.

Donovan argues that the following passage from the definition of educational institutions does not apply to NSA:

"...giving advanced academic instructions as approved by the State Board of Education..."

since NSA is not accredited.

Perhaps Donovan did not read Ms. Lund's prior post carefully enough.

NSA is approved by the state to offer classes and diplomas.  Once they applied for accreditation by an non-state accrediting agency, by law/rule they are granted this approval by the State Board of Education.  You need not take my word for this.  NSA president Roy Atwood testified to this under oath at a state tax appeal hearing; cult attorney Gregor Dickison also argued the same during the hearing.

It is going to be interesting to see if NSA is now going to argue in this zoning proceeding that they are not approved by the state.  If they do, I will assure that at least two things will happen:

1.    A bar complaint will be filed.
2.    A request for a perjury prosecution will be initiated.

Actually, this case presents an wonderful opportunity for the cult and for most downtown businesses.

There is presently available one large property and soon to be at least two more large properties within the City of Moscow which are properly zoned for NSA activities.  These properties have adequate off-street parking and large, well constructed buildings.  All of these properties and buildings are sufficiently large to accommodate NSA, Anselm House activities, and include a worship center for Christ Church.

By unconfirmed hearsay I understand that the owners of one of these properties frequently sells its unused/surplus properties to civic, nonprofit, and/or religious groups at a considerably lower price than they would to a commercial buyer (for obvious business reasons).

The arrangement would benefit everyone.  The cult could profit from the sale of their downtown properties (they might even make money on such a move) and thus give the downtown area opportunities for more retail businesses/services and their added drawing power for other downtown businesses;  the cult could centralize their activities/control/security and at the same time free up parking space in the downtown lot for use by patrons of downtown businesses; etc., etc.

I hope this is one case where the cult can put their dishonesty and pride behind and make a sensible business and operational decision that would benefit all and remove them from a legal, public relations, and ethical quandary.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
To: <sslund at adelphia.net>; <Tbertruss at aol.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: Zoning Code and NSA (archives ) READ § 4-11-9 (80) and §...

> Saundra,
> 
> I am glad you are enjoying conversation about law. I love it too. It is fun. 
> I also second your motion that anyone that doesn't like this type of 
> conversation should hit the delete key.
> 
> We can obviously debate endlessly many different aspects of the law and more 
> specifically MCC. But I am going to choose to only respond to you in the 
> area of regarding whether NSA can or cannot legally stay downtown because of 
> time restrains. If we meet in person, I would like to discuss the reasons 
> why NSA cannot be in AF, FR, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, which are mostly 
> agricultural and residential areas.
> 
> As I understand your argument, you claim that New St. Andrews cannot be in 
> the downtown area because two reasons.
> 
> The first reason being that you think it fits the definition of an 
> educational institution which is excluded by law as defined by MCC in the 
> CBZ. The definition of "Educational institution" is defined as follows,
> 
>>"A college or university supported by public or private funds, tuitions,
>>contributions or endowments, giving advanced academic instructions as 
>>approved
>>by the State Board of Education or by a recognized accrediting agency, 
>>excluding
>>preschool, elementary and junior or senior high schools, and trade and
>>commercial schools; including fraternity and sorority houses."
> 
> I maintain that his is NOT a definition of NSA. The reason being is because 
> of this line,
> 
> "giving advanced academic instructions as approved by the State Board of 
> Education or by a recognized accrediting agency".
> 
> This means that NSA must have received accreditation by the Idaho State 
> Board of Education or another national accrediting instruction recognized by 
> Idaho State Statue for it to meet this definition. This is not an 
> interpretive definition of if you think it meets this criterion or not. 
> There are in fact only 11 colleges and universities that meet this 
> definition according to Idaho Statue. No black and white here, they are;
> 
> Colleges and universities accredited by the Idaho State Board of Education
> 
> http://www.accessidaho.org/education/suniv.html
> 
> Albertsons College of Idaho
> Boise State University
> Brigham Young University
> College of Southern Idaho
> Eastern Idaho Technical College
> Idaho State University
> Lewis-Clark State College
> North Idaho College
> Northwest Nazarene University
> University of Idaho
> Wesley Center for Applied Technology
> 
> Colleges and Universities accredited by NWCCU
> 
> http://www.nwccu.org/Directory%20of%20Inst/State%20Map/Idaho/Idaho.htm
> 
> 
> Albertsons College of Idaho
> Boise State University
> Brigham Young University
> College of Southern Idaho
> Eastern Idaho Technical College
> Idaho State University
> Lewis-Clark State College
> North Idaho College
> Northwest Nazarene University
> University of Idaho
> 
> NSA is not on that list, so it does not meet this definition, there is no 
> if, ands, or buts about it. It is on the list or not. NSA is not. To be 
> recognized as existing as a school by the State Board is not enough. Its 
> academic instructions must meet state standards as defined by Idaho Statue. 
> NSA doesn't meet the state standards of teaching higher education. Wishing 
> NSA on the list of accredited colleges because we think it should be does 
> not make it so. It is not on that list, and it has to be in order to meet 
> that definition, you cannot ignore that sentence in that definition or make 
> it mean what you want it to mean.
> 
> The second argument made, as I understand it, is that is that it doesn't 
> meet the definition of "Commercial School" because it is not for profit.
> 
> I maintain that while it is a non-profit entity, this is not the legal 
> definition of commercial. Commercial in MCC is defined as selling a product 
> or service. NSA does sell a service.
> 
> NSA not meeting the legal definition of an institute of higher learning is 
> counter intuitive to the layman’s definition which I think is what is 
> preventing people from thinking properly about this. NSA also DOES meet the 
> definition of a commercial school as defined by law regardless of if we 
> think that meets our understanding of what commercial means. We are not 
> dealing with Webster's definition of meanings or terms, we are looking at 
> legal terms. Those are way different. The law doesn't prevent NSA from being 
> downtown if you read the law and the definitions. Get NSA accredited by 
> either NWCCU or the Idaho State Board and you will have a case.
> 
> Thanks for the conversation Saundra. :)
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Donovan J Arnold
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050127/73a182e2/attachment.htm