[Vision2020] inclusive justice

Sun Jan 30 14:03:48 PST 2005

Stig writes:

If you wanted to build a nice wooded fence in your yard 

And applied for a permit and it was granted. 

  would you, should you, Have to tear it down after it was built. 

Just because someone in the city goofed. 

They told you it was ok to make it 6 ft when 5 ft was the limit. 

I am just wondering? You've already paid for the fence. 

NSA might argue that they sincerely asked but were given the wrong information by the City of Moscow about zoning requirements,  and therefore they should not have to suffer the consequences of their expensive but illegal acts, but should now be allowed to continue their illegal acts.

This defense is called Detrimental Reliance.

This doctrine may sometimes work as a defense for a naive defendant in a very complex matter where reliance was demonstrably clear and innocent.  However, detrimental reliance  is seldom successful as a defense in the kinds of matters of which we are discussing.   This is usually because the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" doctrine rules; it is the responsibility of all to determine what the law is and how it applies to them.  This is especially true if the violator had/has legal counsel who should have been able to tell them the requirements of the law.  If legal counsel makes a mistake, the cost of correcting that mistake is his/her liability, not the taxpayers.

The classic cases all of us know about is where a taxpayer receives initial advice from the IRS (even written) that turns out to be wrong, and then the IRS brings actions to collect the tax due because of the error.  The taxpayer is stuck even though they innocently detrimentally relied upon the initial IRS advice.  [In one experiment using some simple scenarios, a group of CPA researchers found that the IRS gave wrong or incomplete advice in over 90% of the calls made to them!]

The detrimental reliance defense also will not work if:

1.    There was an initial intent to deceive by the violator -- like not fully revealing the facts of the situation or knowing what the law was but hoping to get a wrong or permissive answer from some ill-informed or sympathetic official.

2.    There was any (even very, very minimal) collusion between the violator and one or more city officials.

As I have hinted at before, if the facts in this case find the sunshine, there are going to be a lot of unhappy, angry people.  If, Stig, you really meant:

If the NSA or anyone is guilty of half of your charges, they should pay. 

you will be one of those especially angry.  You might even want to start/support another recall.

Although, the complainants in this matter are not part of those thought of as the "Intoleristas", but are instead evangelical Christian men (many of whose sexist, homophobic, anti-secular views I, for one, find abhorrent), the "Intoleristas" have known about the apparent permit violations by NSA for quite sometime.  (Your assumption that all the required permits were applied for by NSA in this case is incorrect.)  There are reasons why no action was taken, for example by myself:  but not because it was thought that the matter was not serious, but rather because of the real lack of faith in certain City of Moscow employees/elected officials and the cost of pursuing such an action against persons whose demonstrated regard for the truth, even sworn under oath in the name of their alleged and allegedly worshiped god, fails to exceed the minimum standard.  Think:  covenantal dishonesty, political dishonesty.

A satisfied refurbished Gemeinhardt user,

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: stigmatta x 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:24 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] inclusive justice

  Mr. Hanson, 

  I believe that all violators of law deserve to be punished. 

  I believe that in this country those charged with a crime 

  Are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

  Don't you? 

  Can you not extend that simple proposition to include 

  Violations of zoning codes? 

  Has there been a legal hearing on this matter? 

  If you wanted to build a nice wooded fence in your yard 

  And applied for a permit and it was granted. 

    would you, should you, Have to tear it down after it was built. 

  Just because someone in the city goofed. 

  They told you it was ok to make it 6 ft when 5 ft was the limit. 

  I am just wondering? You've already paid for the fence. 

  Look don't get me wrong, religious kooks get me too. 

  The religious right is destroying conservatism. 

  I have no love for the NSA and I am not a NSA stooge. 

  I however have much less desire to see socialism run amok. 

  I only posed the inclusive scenario, 

    because I truly believe that if, it was a leftist operation 

  there would virtually be nonexistent opposition on this board. 

  If the NSA or anyone is guilty of half of your charges, they should pay. 

  I supported the recall petition when good citizens got together to bring down 

  The corrupt county commissioners a few years ago. 

  The NSA is no exception to the law. 

                                Citizen x 

  Following what's right, not the sheep. 

  Rock.com E-mail Now Has a HUGE 50MB of Storage!   Sign Up Now!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050130/81f25122/attachment-0001.htm