<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Georgia color=#000000 size=3>
<DIV>Mr. Arnold,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don Huskey </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>