[Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process

[DonaldH675 at aol.com]

Mr. Arnold,
 
My first question is: Where has your indignation over due process been for  
the last year? Rose Huskey and Saundra Lund have been subjected to exactly the  
same process at the county Board Of Equalization Complaint hearings for the 
last  year as Mr. Dickison was at the Board of Adjustment and I haven't heard a 
word  of complaint from you about that. I saw you at both hearings on Monday 
at the  county where Mr Dickison was given 10 minutes to present, Rose and 
Saundra were  given 10 minutes to present, and Greg was then given time to rebut 
but there was  no equal rebuttal time for Saundra and Rose. You never 
mentioned due process  then. PERHAPS YOUR IDEA OF THE FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS ONLY 
APPLIES WHEN ITS YOUR  OX BEING GORED.
 
My second suggestion is that you go up to the UI Law School and have  
somebody give you some instruction on what "standing" means. At the Board  of 
Adjustment hearing which was an appeal of Mr. Plaskons ruling the two  parties with 
"standing" (which means a direct interest in the case) were  the City of Moscow 
represented by the Board of Adjustment and the appellants  represented by Mr. 
Curley. Mr. Dickison  was for legal purposes at  that hearing a member of the 
public. As such he has no more right to the  documents being presented than 
any other member of the public. His role at that  hearing was as an interested 
spectator, not the attorney for NSA because  NSA was not a primary party to 
the dispute. The dispute was between Mr. Curley's  clients and the City of 
Moscow.  
 
Thirdly you heard the city councilwoman Linda Pall who is an attorney  
suggest that pursuit of a lack of due process complaint was in her opinion  
unfounded. I would have to agree. I saw no evidence of any lack of due process  at the 
hearing.
 
Finally I would suggest that what we are seeing here is a playing out of an  
old legal saying that my daughter who is an attorney told me. "Argue the law 
if  you have it. If not argue the process. If you don't have that either argue 
the  character of the opponent. If you can't argue any of those three then 
raise your  voice and pound the table." Since in my opinion you haven't the law, 
the process  appeared fine, the character of Mr. Curley and his clients are 
irrelevant I  suggest you raise your voice and start pounding the table. In my 
opinion it's  the only approach left to you although I suspect it will be even 
less effective  than your efforts so far.
 
Don Huskey 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050629/e7aae668/attachment.htm