[Vision2020] Jus' When You Thought Things Couln't GetMoreStupid . . .

[lfalen]

I completely agree with you on the use of  outside counsel by the UI.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:37:21 -0800
To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Jus' When You Thought Things Couln't GetMoreStupid . . .

> I think a legitimate issue has been raised by the suit, and one whose eventual resolution, if it has not been already resolved elsewhere, will have some important impacts for educational institutions.
> 
> I hope that the UI does not waste its much needed resources, especially now after the UI President's appeal to the state legislature, on this suit by hiring outside counsel.  The issue is not a complex one, and one I suspect, but do not know for sure, where recent court cases will have greatly narrowed the issues, if not decided the eventual outcome.
> 
> If the present UI Counsel and his staff are unable to effectively argue the case in court, then perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the UI Counsel and staff.  In the past, the UI has squandered much resources on outside counsel.  With all the online legal resources now available, one would hope a competent attorney could research, brief, and argue this issue without outside help.
> 
> 
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID  83843
> 
> waf at moscow.com
> 208 882-7975
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Wayne Price 
>   To: Moscow Vision 2020 
>   Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:34 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Jus' When You Thought Things Couln't Get MoreStupid . . .
> 
> 
>   Tom,
> 
> 
>   I agree with the two statements you made.  However in your "bonus round' you started talking about a "newly availed freedom", and there I have to disagree with you, that freedom has been with us 
>   since December 15th, 1791, hardly "newly availed".
> 
> 
>   Also in light of the  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), I have a feeling from reading them that the Supreme Court will eventually
>   agree that in state owned housing, you can't require a citizen to give up a fundamental Constitutional right just to live there. See my comment on waiving your fundamental 
>   Constitutional right to search and seizure just to live in state owned housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Wayne
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> 
> 
>     Two things, Mr. Price -
> 
>     1)  The South Hill Vista apartments are, in fact, state-owned housing.
> 
>     2)  If residents of these state-owned dwellings are permitted to store
>     firearms and ammunition within these state-owned dwellings, there is
>     nothing to prevent residents of state-owned dorms (including those dorm
>     residents who habitually consume such copious amounts of alcohol as to
>     fall out of second-floor windows) from possessing and storing firearms and
>     ammunition within their dorm rooms.
> 
>     And for the bonus round, might I add that the first fatality resulting
>     from this newly availed freedom may, subsequently, place the state (along
>     with the State Board of Education and UI President Duane Nellis) in court
>     once again . . . as defendents in a wrongful death lawsuit.
> 
>     Tom Hansen
>     Moscow, Idaho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On Mon, January 24, 2011 7:11 pm, Wayne Price wrote:
> 
>       Paul,
> 
> 
> 
>       If we can agree that South Hill Vista, in one way or the other is in
> 
>       fact state housing, then I can't see how a rule waiving a fundamental
> 
>       Constitutional Right in order to live in that state housing will be held
> 
>       by the court(s) to pass Constitutional review.
> 
> 
> 
>       I worded it above specifically to look at the issue of waiving a
> 
>       fundamental Constitutional right to take out all the possible animus
> 
>       of what can be a "hot button" topic, and strictly look at it as a
> 
>       Constitutional issue. For example, can the University of Idaho, as a
> 
>       "state" entity require people to waive the right of search and seizure
> 
>       in a state owned residence?  IF the answer is yes, that would mean a
> 
>       law enforcement agency to enter University housing, in this case South
> 
>       Hill Vista, would NOT need a search warrant. Can we live with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Wayne
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>   =======================================================
>    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
>   =======================================================
>