[Vision2020] A uniform legal challenge

[Phil Nisbet]

Well, well, well.

A level playing field in all of the community’s endeavors has been called 
for by our leading luminaries.  Specifically they have called for all and 
sundry in the community to play by the law.

That being the case and seeing that they are active in the pursuit of any 
who break the law, a challenge to see if they are serious about it or just 
blowing the typical smoke up all of our rectums.

So here are three cases of specific illegality occurring right here in 
Moscow Idaho which the law pursuing committee of vigilance can take on.  As 
a mater of fact, they should immediately take them on, or we will all know 
for a fact that they are simply using the law as a way of scapegoating 
others who disagree with them.

Case One

TITLE  54
                    PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, AND BUSINESSES
                                  CHAPTER 28
                                  GEOLOGISTS
    54-2818.  STATE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION CONTRACTS -- EXCEPTIONS. This 
state and its political subdivisions, such as county, city, or legally 
constituted boards, districts, commissions or authorities, shall contract 
for geological services only with persons registered under this act, 
provided further that nothing in this section or act shall be construed to 
prevent registered professional engineers from lawfully practicing soils 
mechanics, foundation engineering, geological engineering, and other 
professional engineering, as provided in chapter 12, title 54, Idaho Code, 
and licensed architects from lawfully practicing architecture as provided in 
chapter 3, title 54, Idaho Code.

CE Brockway and his firm were hired to perform geological services for the 
County of Latah, which is a political subdivision of the State of Idaho.  CE 
Brockway is not registered to perform geological services by the Idaho Board 
for Professional Geologists.  His contract was initiated by Mr. Thompson, 
the County Prosecutor of the County of Latah, who was well aware of the lack 
of registration of the firm who he engaged and attempted to hide his wrong 
doing by suggesting that hydrological services were unrelated to geology.

So, when are the lords of the law abiding going to turn in the County 
Prosecutor and Mr. Brockway for what is an obvious breaking of Idaho Code?  
When can we expect them to initiate a letter writing drive to insist that 
the Attorney General of the State of Idaho take action on this criminal act?

Case 2

Idaho Law is very specific with regards water rights.  Persons with a 
domestic water right are authorized to use water from a well to provide they 
and their households with a maximum of 2500 gallons of water per day which 
may be used solely to provide for household consumption and for the watering 
of no more than a quarter acre of lawn and or garden, which is for domestic 
consumption only.  Domestic consumption may not be used to irrigate 
commercial crops nor for industrial uses or to provide commercial 
stockwater.

A tour via internet of the Mary Jane Farms website shows the presence of PVC 
used to drip irrigate crops sold commercially to the Moscow Coop.  
Inspection of the records of that area for a well registered to provide 
irrigation water indicates that no such permit exists and that in fact, a 
domestic water well is currently in use as the source for irrigation of the 
commercial crops sold by Mary Jane Farms.

This clear violation of Idaho water law is a theft of water from existing 
water users who have followed the law and have legitimate permits for the 
use of water.  It is a serious depletion of the water resource when the 
community as a whole is being asked to conserve water.

Surely people who want a level playing field and insist that the law be 
uniform in application will want to file a complaint with the Idaho 
Department of Water Resources to halt this illegal use of a public resource. 
  Further, civic minded individuals who abhor selective enforcement and 
insist that everything be uniform in legal application, will insist that the 
Moscow Coop refuse further purchases of food produced illegally using stolen 
water.

Case 3

SECTION 6. RELIGIOUS TEST AND TEACHING IN SCHOOL PROHIBITED. No religious 
test or qualification shall ever be required of any person as a condition of 
admission into any public educational institution of the state, either as 
teacher or student; and no teacher or student of any such institution shall 
ever be required to attend or participate in any religious service whatever. 
No sectarian or religious tenets or doctrines shall ever be taught in the 
public schools, nor shall any distinction or classification of pupils be 
made on account of race or color. No books, papers, tracts or documents of a 
political, sectarian or denominational character shall be used or introduced 
in any schools established under the provisions of this article, nor shall 
any teacher or any district receive any of the public school moneys in which 
the schools have not been taught in accordance with the provisions of this 
article.


This being the case, surely the folks who are so diligent in seeing that the 
law is uniformly carried out will be at the Moscow City Council Meeting to 
insist that the Virtues Project by immediately shut down.  A fast review of 
the project website at http://www.virtuesproject.com/ shows that the program 
is taken from the "sacred Texts" of several cultures.  The program is 
designed to teach virtues in the context of sacred (That is simply to say 
religious) literature.  Since the programs goal is to train 50 teachers to 
use this sacred literature in the Moscow Public Schools and will be using 
Public funds to promote these religious goals and objectives, not only from 
the City of Moscow, but also from the Moscow School District and the 
University of Idaho with a planned expenditure of $75,000 over the next 
three years, this attempt to give religious instruction in the public 
schools in contravention of Idaho's Constitution would naturally be opposed 
by such leading luminaries as Saundra and Rose.

So, please get going on these obvious actions by the nasty old scofflaws, so 
that we can see that indeed your actions on so many other things in zoning 
and water law and religious separation of church and state are not just you 
using the law to bring down your opponents.

Or is Tom's

"The law is the law.  These allegations of conspiracy and "lynch mobbing" 
are groundless."

Just another smoke screen?

Or how about Rose's;

"I ask that they obey city, state, and federal regulations.  That is not an 
unreasonable or bigoted request.  It's the same standard that I am expected 
to follow."

If she is serious, then of course she will take action against those nasty 
people who are breaking the law in the above three stated cases.

We wait with baited breath to see what actions they will take.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/