[Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process

[Donovan Arnold]

Mr. Huskey,

If I were to make a claim to the city against your
home (to many snakes living there) which would prevent
you from inhabiting it, and you could only attend the
hearing as an "interested spectator" and you lost your
home, would you feel "due process" was applied? Or, in
your own words, "PERHAPS YOUR IDEA OF THE FAILURE OF
DUE PROCESS ONLY APPLIES WHEN ITS YOUR OX BEING
GORED."

The Idaho State Constitution protects the right of the
citizens to protect their property:

"Article One Section 1. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1.  INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by
nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable
rights, among which are enjoying and defending life
and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting
property;
pursuing happiness and securing safety."

The "inalienable" part, Mr. Huskey, means it cannot be
taken away by the government. They city did.

Linda Pall may be an attorney, but she also was not
present for the BOA meeting. I also doubt she would
print on the back of her business cards, "I will make
sure you are only an "interested spectator" as your
property is taken away by the government."

You made my case for me that NSA was never given a
chance to protect their property when you wrote:

"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."

Perhaps you should follow you daughter's legal advice
of attempting to destroy the credibility of your
opponents using the words of your wife that they are
"trash".

Donovan J Arnold

  







  

--- DonaldH675 at aol.com wrote:

> 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 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com