<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>All, (except the <STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00
size=5>yellow-bellies/craven crackpots</FONT></STRONG> afraid to sign their
own names, most likely to conceal their embarrassment of the knowing
asininity/dishonesty of their posts and the masters they are so willingly and
blindly serving),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>First, I would like to state unequivocally and as strongly as
possible that I believe that <STRONG>NSA has right to exist and to
operate</STRONG>. Like all of us living under the great constitution in
this great country, the persons behind and in support of NSA and its parent cult
have a <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>legal </FONT></STRONG>right to express
their points of view and to construct institutions to promulgate those points of
view.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is well known that I disagree vehemently with their points
of view and the hypocritical lack of honesty, etc. that the cult leadership
exhibits.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>But like many of the others on this list who think the cult is
excrementitious blot on humankind, I cherish the freedom of expression we all
enjoy and <STRONG>would absolutely disagree with anyone who would seek to
abridge the cult's</STRONG> <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000
size=5>legal</FONT></STRONG> <STRONG>rights to express their points of
view</STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The legal issue being debated is not whether NSA has a right
to exist/operate <STRONG>but whether they have <FONT color=#ff0000
size=5>legal</FONT> right to operate in Moscow's downtown commercial
district</STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Donovan argues that the following passage from the definition
of educational institutions does not apply to NSA:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT>"...giving advanced academic instructions as <FONT
color=#0000ff>approved</FONT> by the State Board of Education..."</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>since NSA is not accredited.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Perhaps Donovan did not read Ms. Lund's prior post carefully
enough.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>NSA is <FONT color=#0000ff>approved</FONT> by the state to
offer classes and diplomas. Once they <FONT color=#0000ff>applied</FONT>
for accreditation by an non-state accrediting agency, by law/rule they are
granted this approval by the State Board of Education. You need not take
my word for this. NSA president Roy Atwood testified to this under oath at
a state tax appeal hearing; cult attorney Gregor Dickison also argued the same
during the hearing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is going to be interesting to see if NSA is now going to
argue in this zoning proceeding that they are not approved by the state.
If they do, I will assure that at least two things will happen:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>1. A bar complaint will be
filed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>2. A request for a perjury prosecution will
be initiated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Actually, this case presents an <STRONG>wonderful opportunity
for the cult and for most downtown businesses</STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There is presently available one large property and
soon to be at least two more large properties within the City of Moscow
which are properly zoned for NSA activities. These properties have
adequate off-street parking and large, well constructed buildings.
All of these properties and buildings are sufficiently large to
accommodate NSA, Anselm House activities, and include a worship center for
Christ Church.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>By unconfirmed hearsay I understand that the owners of one of
these properties frequently sells its unused/surplus properties to civic,
nonprofit, and/or religious groups at a considerably lower price than they
would to a commercial buyer (for obvious business reasons).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The arrangement would benefit everyone. The cult could
profit from the sale of their downtown properties (they might even make money on
such a move) and thus give the downtown area opportunities for more retail
businesses/services and their added drawing power for other downtown
businesses; the cult could centralize their activities/control/security
and at the same time free up parking space in the downtown lot for use by
patrons of downtown businesses; etc., etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I hope this is one case where the cult can put their
dishonesty and pride behind and make a sensible business and operational
decision that would benefit all and remove them from a legal, public relations,
and ethical quandary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Donovan Arnold" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:donovanarnold@hotmail.com"><FONT
size=4>donovanarnold@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:sslund@adelphia.net"><FONT
size=4>sslund@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com"><FONT size=4>Tbertruss@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>>; <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:50 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: Zoning Code and NSA (archives )
READ § 4-11-9 (80) and §...</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> Saundra,<BR>> <BR>> I
am glad you are enjoying conversation about law. I love it too. It is fun.
<BR>> I also second your motion that anyone that doesn't like this type of
<BR>> conversation should hit the delete key.<BR>> <BR>> We can
obviously debate endlessly many different aspects of the law and more <BR>>
specifically MCC. But I am going to choose to only respond to you in the
<BR>> area of regarding whether NSA can or cannot legally stay downtown
because of <BR>> time restrains. If we meet in person, I would like to
discuss the reasons <BR>> why NSA cannot be in AF, FR, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4
zones, which are mostly <BR>> agricultural and residential areas.<BR>>
<BR>> As I understand your argument, you claim that New St. Andrews cannot be
in <BR>> the downtown area because two reasons.<BR>> <BR>> The first
reason being that you think it fits the definition of an <BR>> educational
institution which is excluded by law as defined by MCC in the <BR>> CBZ. The
definition of "Educational institution" is defined as follows,<BR>>
<BR>>>"A college or university supported by public or private funds,
tuitions,<BR>>>contributions or endowments, giving advanced academic
instructions as <BR>>>approved<BR>>>by the State Board of Education
or by a recognized accrediting agency,
<BR>>>excluding<BR>>>preschool, elementary and junior or senior high
schools, and trade and<BR>>>commercial schools; including fraternity and
sorority houses."<BR>> <BR>> I maintain that his is NOT a definition of
NSA. The reason being is because <BR>> of this line,<BR>> <BR>> "giving
advanced academic instructions as approved by the State Board of <BR>>
Education or by a recognized accrediting agency".<BR>> <BR>> This means
that NSA must have received accreditation by the Idaho State <BR>> Board of
Education or another national accrediting instruction recognized by <BR>>
Idaho State Statue for it to meet this definition. This is not an <BR>>
interpretive definition of if you think it meets this criterion or not. <BR>>
There are in fact only 11 colleges and universities that meet this <BR>>
definition according to Idaho Statue. No black and white here, they are;<BR>>
<BR>> Colleges and universities accredited by the Idaho State Board of
Education<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.accessidaho.org/education/suniv.html"><FONT
size=4>http://www.accessidaho.org/education/suniv.html</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>> Albertsons College of Idaho<BR>> Boise State
University<BR>> Brigham Young University<BR>> College of Southern
Idaho<BR>> Eastern Idaho Technical College<BR>> Idaho State
University<BR>> Lewis-Clark State College<BR>> North Idaho College<BR>>
Northwest Nazarene University<BR>> University of Idaho<BR>> Wesley Center
for Applied Technology<BR>> <BR>> Colleges and Universities accredited by
NWCCU<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.nwccu.org/Directory%20of%20Inst/State%20Map/Idaho/Idaho.htm"><FONT
size=4>http://www.nwccu.org/Directory%20of%20Inst/State%20Map/Idaho/Idaho.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>> <BR>> Albertsons College of Idaho<BR>> Boise State
University<BR>> Brigham Young University<BR>> College of Southern
Idaho<BR>> Eastern Idaho Technical College<BR>> Idaho State
University<BR>> Lewis-Clark State College<BR>> North Idaho College<BR>>
Northwest Nazarene University<BR>> University of Idaho<BR>> <BR>> NSA
is not on that list, so it does not meet this definition, there is no <BR>>
if, ands, or buts about it. It is on the list or not. NSA is not. To be <BR>>
recognized as existing as a school by the State Board is not enough. Its
<BR>> academic instructions must meet state standards as defined by Idaho
Statue. <BR>> NSA doesn't meet the state standards of teaching higher
education. Wishing <BR>> NSA on the list of accredited colleges because we
think it should be does <BR>> not make it so. It is not on that list, and it
has to be in order to meet <BR>> that definition, you cannot ignore that
sentence in that definition or make <BR>> it mean what you want it to
mean.<BR>> <BR>> The second argument made, as I understand it, is that is
that it doesn't <BR>> meet the definition of "Commercial School" because it
is not for profit.<BR>> <BR>> I maintain that while it is a non-profit
entity, this is not the legal <BR>> definition of commercial. Commercial in
MCC is defined as selling a product <BR>> or service. NSA does sell a
service.<BR>> <BR>> NSA not meeting the legal definition of an institute
of higher learning is <BR>> counter intuitive to the layman’s definition
which I think is what is <BR>> preventing people from thinking properly about
this. NSA also DOES meet the <BR>> definition of a commercial school as
defined by law regardless of if we <BR>> think that meets our understanding
of what commercial means. We are not <BR>> dealing with Webster's definition
of meanings or terms, we are looking at <BR>> legal terms. Those are way
different. The law doesn't prevent NSA from being <BR>> downtown if you read
the law and the definitions. Get NSA accredited by <BR>> either NWCCU or the
Idaho State Board and you will have a case.<BR>> <BR>> Thanks for the
conversation Saundra. :)<BR>> <BR>> Take care,<BR>> <BR>> Donovan J
Arnold<BR>> <BR>> <BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>