<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Let's see if I can piss absolutely everyone off.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First, it is my belief that in matters of government The Rule of Law as
opposed to The Rule of Man is basically what protects our
individual rights and guards us from arbitrary judgments made by
individuals/organizations in their own interests. The Rule of Law does not
operate perfectly unfortunately, but when it does operate well, we are all much
better off.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hence, I agree with the premise that in all its actions any governmental or
quasi-governmental agency should follow the law as written. If they find a
problem with a particular law, the recourse is to try to change that
law and/or ask for judicial relief. Hence, anyone who sincerely
believes that a government or quasi-governmental body is breaking the law has
the right, if not the duty to ask for judicial relief by following the correct,
relevant judicial procedures. There is one small caveat, however,
which I will mention below.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have not read Weitz's complaint, nor am I likely to spend the buck a page
to get a copy. If anyone has a PDF or DOC file of it, I would appreciate
it if they could email it to me at <A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A>. I have not made a
layman's reading of the laws at issue. From times past, I remember that
there is usually a small time window in which to file and to perfect a
challenge to the results of a levy election. I doubt that the
court will consider a challenge to a levy that occurred in 1992 or even last
year. I could be wrong -- I haven't read the applicable laws.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The caveat, if I am permitted to be long winded:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Without question Weitz has the right as a citizen to challenge
within the framework of existing law, the last levy if he sincerely feels that
its execution was illegal. However, whether his claim that he is doing it
for the children and school district is bullshit or not depends on the answers
to a few questions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The most prominent of these questions is: Did Weitz attempt to point
out clearly to the MSD <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>before</FONT></STRONG> the
last levy election the legal problems he is now claiming in court to
exist? If he did not, then his self-claimed altruistic motivation is
highly suspect. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If one wants a government body to act in accordance with the law in a given
matter, one ought point out before an alleged violation occurs what
one's opinion of the alleged possible illegality is. In the present case,
this could have been done by directly addressing the MSD and/or by asking for a
restraining order from the court.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do not remember any request for a restraining order. Given the
quality of the reporting/coverage of the local newspapers, it is possible that
such a request was made but its occurrence was not reported. At any rate,
the election occurred.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Assuming that no restraining order was requested, did Weitz ever approach
the MSD in any way prior to the last levy election with his clearly articulated
concerns? Perhaps some V 2020 poster knows whether he did or not, or can
find the answer. If he did not, then bullshit is the answer to his
self-serving claims of altruistic motivation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Further, as it has already been pointed out, Weitz himself was the MSD
board during the levying process for some of the levies he is now
challenging. Do the minutes of the MSD Board reflect any
concerns/objections by Weitz relevant to the problems he is now
challenging? Does anyone know? If Weitz did not clearly articulate
his concerns when he was a member of the board, it is highly improbable that his
current altruistic, self-serving claims of motivation deserve credibility at
all.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If, however, Weitz made a clearly articulated claim of levy
related alleged illegalities to the MSD before the last levy election or
asked the court for a restraining order to stop the election, and in the cases
of the levies that occurred during his MSD Board tenures clearly presented his
objections to their legalities, then it would be unjust to criticize him for his
current actions or call him a civic terrorist.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To recap: If prior to the last levy election and prior to the levy
elections that occurred during his school board tenures, Weitz made a clearly
articulated, good-faith effort to point out the alleged illegalities, and the
MSD either ignored his warning or found them without merit, then, if his
position now has probable merit, he ought not be scorned. If he has not
made prior attempts, whatever his present motivation, it is not to help the
children and school district -- he could have done this simply by threatening
legal action should MSD err again or to ask for a restraining order should
another levy election be set.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I await the answers to the questions concerning Weitz's prior
actions to attempt to correct the alleged problems before they
occurred.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is another question. Has the MSD paid attorneys to
check for each levy election to see that all the legalities have been
properly executed? Did the MSD receive correct legal advice?
Did they follow it? If any part of Weitz's claim is found to have merit
and tax money is lost as the result of erroneous legal advice, can the MSD
collect the lost funds by an action for malpractice against the errant
attorneys?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(208) 882-7975<BR><A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=vpschwaller@gmail.com href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">Glenn
Schwaller</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Weitz is a civic terrorist?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Ms. Emerinemix,<BR><BR>I don't know if there is any merit to Dr.
Weitz's claim. I believe that the foundation for any argument is "is this
position valid?" With something as complex and potentially dangerous
and damaging as the illlegality of a tax-based ballot measure, I have no problem
with someone questions its validity. Dr. Weitz has wisely chosen to use
the law to determine if his claim has merit. Many will discount this as
"frivolity" and cite a laundry list of reasons based on gut-wrenching emotion
(oh the poor kids! The poor teachers! The poor administration!) and
avoid considering a more insidious outcome of allowing a group to unfairly and
inappropriately tax the public for whatever it is they want (be it schools,
roads, parks, athletic centers). This potentially could set a precedence
by which any group could do the same thing. If Dr. Weitz's claim has no
legal merit, then why would MSD have any concern? I for one would rather
see the law surrounding this issue clearly delineated than to see some other,
possibly more unsavory group, use the same tactics to fund their particular
interest.<BR><BR>Schwaller<BR><BR>"The bigger they are, the harder they fall on
you"<BR> Mark Knopfler<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BODY></HTML>