[Vision2020] New NO info...

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Since Garrett has stated since he started discussing this issue that he was 
concerned that he could be cited for the music he plays, this hardly 
constitutes new information.

Giving power to write citations utterly lacking in consistency is not a 
hallmark of good law.  Establish a standard that will be applicable to all 
if you're going to change the ordinance.

Sunil


>From: J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] New NO info...
>Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:10:57 -0800
>
>
>Now you knew this was coming:
>
>NOW the truth comes out!  *You* are part of the problem.  Good going.  And 
>again, thanks for helping to make my point!
>
>J  :]
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:29:29 -0800
> > From: garrettmc at verizon.net
> > To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] New NO info...
> >
> > To clarify this a bit, police Chief Randy Weaver wrote
> > it with city attorney Randy Fife, from what I have
> > been told by the city.
> >
> > The last email I sent had a good template for what our
> > NO should look like.  I made a big sacrifice by
> > specifying what "noise" is.  In that case, "loud
> > amplification devices."  Included in that list is my
> > acoustic guitar, which would be citable by a police
> > officer and no complaint if between the hours of 10 pm
> > and 7 am.
> >
> > What other sacrifices do people want to make on this,
> > that insures our First Amendment is not eroded?
> >
> >
> > gclev
> >
> >