[Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process

[aaron ament]

donovan,
1. the attorney [and i apply that term loosely] for the androids was asked 
if he was ready to present his case last night and said he wasn't.  the 
"evidence" the android atty. was unable to present at the board of 
adjustment was his "opinion" regarding motive for bringing forward the 
complaint.  he was not prohibited from addressing the issue before the 
board.
2. read 1. again.  this time use a dictionary for any troubling words.  i 
used spell check so you should be able to find the words.
3.  to my knowledge the androids atty.  has never been ready to present a 
case.  he has been repeatedly offered an opportunity to speak to the 
issue--is the android college a permitted use in downtown moscow.  he has 
chosen not to, choosing instead to follow the lead of the android in command 
[by the way, has gluttony been dropped from the current sin list?] by 
attacking all involved.
4.  here is the real issue for you and those you serve.  we secular 
humanists are forced to obey the law.  we have no special dispensation from 
god to obey only those laws we agree with.

"citizen" ament
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
To: <nchaney at moscow.com>; <johnd at moscow.com>; <pegh at uidaho.edu>; 
<jon at n-k-ins.com>; <jlmack1 at verizon.net>; <lpall at moscow.com>; 
<griedner at ci.moscow.id.us>; <comstock at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:15 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process


> Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process.
>
> Last night (6/27/05) the Moscow City Council heard an
> appeal made by New St. Andrews College (NSA) regarding
> the Board of Adjustment's decision that NSA was in
> violation of the City of Moscow zoning codes.
>
> The 4-2 decision, I believe, only served as a catapult
> to a court battle that can easily overturn the council
> because it ignored an important part of law that
> trumps any city code, due process. Setting aside any
> position on the issue, and the evidence and arguments
> presented, or shall I say in this case, lack of
> evidence and arguments presented, do you honestly find
> the process outlined by the Moscow City Code (MCC) for
> appealing decisions regarding the planning and zoning
> administrator as fair and incorporating due process
> when you include the following:
>
> First, let me point out that BOTH Mr. Curley,
> representing those filing the complaint, and Mr.
> Dickison, representing NSA,  stated that they were not
> allowed to present evidence. Now I ask, what kind of
> decision could possibly derive from a process where no
> evidence is allowed to be presented? Is this a fair
> process in your mind? Do you want a city council
> making decisions where both sides of a complaint state
> they were not ever permitted an opportunity to present
> evidence? I surely do not. I would also hope that any
> sound reasonable person would also reject such a
> process that requires members of the city council to
> form opinions and make decisions without presentation
> of ANY evidence.
>
> Second, I would like to point out NSA was not allowed
> to formally be represented in the BOA hearing. Their
> status was only permitted as that of any concerned
> members of the community, not as an interested party
> whose property was threatened. They were also denied
> the opportunity to present evidence or make arguments
> they felt would advance their case.
>
> Third, representatives for NSA were not given an
> opportunity to review the information given to the BOA
> until five minutes before the hearing began. This did
> not allow the legal representatives of NSA time to
> read and make a case or clarify any misinformation in
> the materials presented by the complainants.
> Furthermore, the information the representatives of
> NSA were given was limited to that of only what those
> filing the complaint consented to divulge to the
> representatives of NSA until AFTER the hearing.
>
> Finally, the city council, in the appeal, was only
> allowed to REVIEW argumentation made by the BOA
> hearing. So any injustices made by the  BOA hearing,
> and the lack of presentation of any new evidence, or
> in this case NO evidence, was considered.
>
> At no point, in the city code, is there an opportunity
> for property owners to formally present a case in
> defense of their own property. This is frightening. It
> is horrifying to think that anyone in the city of
> Moscow can make a case against a property owner that
> they are in violation of city code, and at no time
> during that complaint process the owner be given an
> opportunity (or least the same amount of time as those
> filing a complaint) to review the case presented to
> the city and make a rebuttal or submit evidence in
> defense of that property.
>
> Setting aside their vote on the latest appeal, I hope
> that the Moscow City Council members will hear an
> appeal made by NSA, and send the complaint back to the
> BOA with the instructions that they allow NSA, and
> those making the complaint, to submit evidence, and
> that both sides be given access to the evidence
> presented well before the hearing starts. In effect,
> regardless of how they voted, before the City Council
> makes a final decision on this issue, or any issue,
> they need to insure that DUE PROCESS was included in
> any decision they rendered. Otherwise, any decision
> they make will be overruled by a court of law which
> not only supports due process, but demands it.
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.5/32 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
>