While I liked most of the city attorney’s testimony during the public services meeting about the changes to the city’s administrative appeals process, I was a little concerned about the city attorney’s statement in the opening (paraphrasing) “Due process is open to interpretation (in reference to code enforcement)” DAN DAILY CASE

HUH? Let’s review;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

This guy has a law degree? Innocent until proven guilty? Do you know what that means?

This says it best;

The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person’s basic rights to ‘life, liberty or property, without due process of law.’ Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases.

In other words, government cannot tell you how much fucking concrete you can pour on your own property. Do you understand? It is equivelant of someone telling you how much you should clean your toilet.

10 Thoughts on “City of Sioux Falls reacts to the Daily case

  1. Helga on May 9, 2011 at 8:25 pm said:

    I know this is completely off topic but I have to say it….right now Rachel is trashing South Dakota and Doogard and the new abortion law. And SD deserves it and more. It is 2011 not 1891, women have rights, but not in SD.
    OK back to your cement story. Which also sucks.

  2. Joan on May 9, 2011 at 8:55 pm said:

    I agree with Helga.

  3. l3wis on May 10, 2011 at 1:15 am said:

    Watching now, thanks for the link.

  4. l3wis on May 10, 2011 at 1:18 am said:

    But back to the original topic. You will notice that if you click on the link to the PS meeting video it is not available now. I’m sure this is due to some editing. I made the city aware that after the PS meeting was over, the camera’s were still rolling. So in between that meeting and the City Council meeting, you could listen to the chatter. I didn’t hear anything scathing, except maybe some bad lawn care advice.

  5. Pathloss on May 10, 2011 at 9:21 am said:

    People are missing the point. The supreme court action questions the constitutionality of city government, particularly civil procedures. The concrete subject was not appealed. There’s no ordinances against pouring concrete and they don’t even require a permit. Civil procedures are broad reaching. The city can chose not to pay a contract and there’s no appeal. It could be a million dollar contract, there’s no cap. This is why only dummy corporations set up by city insiders get contracts. Others know they’ll not be paid but ‘buddies’ of the mayor always get paid and there are often ‘add-ons’. Do you want to go into an events center project this way? It’s a big payday for political crooks and a huge liability for taxpayers. Another point here is the city doesn’t follow rules of law. They don’t keep case files and you can’t present evidence or subpoena city representatives. There were director hearings they said didn’t happen. Tape recordings and documentation were proven but the city destroyed them. What’s especially troubling is the city spends millions in taxpayer money obstructing and fighting against constitutional law. This is not the government I want, maybe you do. We must return to government of, by, and for the people.

  6. Pathloss on May 10, 2011 at 9:43 am said:

    What the city attorney and council missed or failed to mention is there will numerous lawsuits resulting from a supreme court decision. Prior settlements and future litigation will topple the city budget. A’s will fall from their bond rating. We’ll fill many hotel rooms but it’ll be lawyers, not conventions.

  7. l3wis on May 10, 2011 at 10:38 am said:

    As I understood the changes, it seems the only thing they want to change is making the city responsible for finding the burden of proof.

    Maybe you see something else; http://docs.siouxfalls.org/sirepub/cache/0/f1f14s55pd2t2a3cea4bf155/16636205102011103758784.PDF

  8. Pathloss on May 10, 2011 at 11:48 am said:

    Still unconstitutional. They select and pay the hearing examiner. He’s an alcoholic lawyer they prop up and give lines to read.

    There’s still no REAL appeal into court. A city hearing is just that, it’s opposing opinions and potential mediation. It’s not FINAL.

    When you go, always bring a court reporter (about $35/hour). A tape recorder isn’t enough. Expect every possible trick. It’s con men, not government of the people.

    I’d let them schedule a hearing. They’d pay a hearing examiner ($). I’d walk in, start the court reporter, and state it’s not accepted rule of law because the examiner is not impartial. I’d accept a reschedule date once we (mutually) agreed upon a mediator. Then, walk out.

  9. Pathloss on May 10, 2011 at 1:30 pm said:

    It’s scary when they change ordinances. They slip something else in.

    Post 2004, they amended city employee complaints from citizens panel to individuals’ manager. When you make a complaint, it goes into Human Resources and disappears. I made 4 complaints. All were ‘lost interdepartmentally’.

    Worst ordinance change (2006) is mayoral recall. They wiped it out. There’s now no process to recall a mayor unless the council introduces an ordinance. But guess what, the mayor can veto it.

Post Navigation