You can listen as the SD Supreme Court weighed in on this case .

So why has there been no media about the case? Because we know the SF MSM are tools, and the city has turned that tool away from the case.

This is what I know so far;

• The City filed a 7 page brief citing 4 obscure cases.

• Daily’s attorney submitted a 38 page brief citing 35 state court cases, 13 US Supreme Court Cases, 2 other cases, 6 constitutional provisions, 8 SD statutes, and 3 city ordinances.

I’m no lawyer, but I think we know how this will turn out. Then maybe the media will pull their heads out and consider this a REAL story.

25 Thoughts on “It’s go time: Daily vs. The City of Sioux Falls

  1. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:11 am said:

    Live coverage: Only 7 minutes into the arguments, one of the justices says it seems the city is saying people are ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and it seems the city’s attorney doesn’t have his poop in a group.

  2. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:16 am said:

    Now they are in an argument about how a city grants special assessments. After that finished the city attorney admits that the original trial took 4 days over a 9 month period, and acted like he had no clue why. Well we both knew why, Tornow was dragging his feet. The attorney is now requesting a re-trial. The justices are not having it, because they point out that during the trial a city employee admitted that when a citizen requests a hearing all the city would do is give another citation and ignore the request. The city’s attorney is still requesting a re-trial at this point.

  3. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:22 am said:

    Another justice points out how excessive Tornow’s objections were during the initial hearing (68 of them).

  4. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:29 am said:

    Mr. Parsons, Daily’s attorney is now arguing. He makes the argument that the city’s zoning ordinances do not allow for due process. He calls the city’s ordinances and citations a ‘shell game’ by the city. Parsons calls the city’s application of procedures ‘a mess’.

  5. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:30 am said:

    Parsons argues that the city must have actual and apparent ‘fairness’ when dealing with citations to citizens. In other words, Due process.

  6. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:34 am said:

    Parsons basically says that the city will just keep citing you until you give up, because the administrative appeals process doesn’t work. One justice asks what happens when you ignore a ticket. Parsons, “You get another one.” But when you show up to the admin appeal, they tell you it has been canceled, then they give you another citation.

  7. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:36 am said:

    Parsons argues the goal seems to be a ‘win at all costs’ for the code enforcement department.

  8. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:41 am said:

    Parsons brings up that they encourage citizens to appeal in circuit court, then once you appeal they move to dismiss.

  9. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:41 am said:

    In reference to article 9.

  10. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:44 am said:

    In Parsons closing words he hints that the city’s process is ‘abusive’ towards citizens.

  11. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:47 am said:

    The argument now went back to the city’s attorney. One of the justices is questioning whether citations are issued on a complaint basis by other citizens, and if that is true is there a citizen board that overlooks that? Another justice questions how much money does Dan Daily owe the city for the citations? The attorney says, ‘He does not know.’ Because it was clumsily handled.

  12. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:50 am said:

    IMO, just listening to the city’s hired hand, he is very unprepared and he kinda sucks. The worst part about it is that my freaking tax money is paying this clown.

    The justices are now questioning whether there was really an appeal, in reference to due process, before it first went to trial.

  13. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:54 am said:

    One justice points out that the admin appeals process is a ‘catch 22’ by the city. Basically if they can’t nail you on one thing, they find something else to nail you on.

    COURT RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.

  14. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

    At this point, I don’t see the SC ruling on the city’s behalf.

  15. In conclusion, I felt the attorney (that the city hired privately) was unprepared, had very little knowledge of the case, and was very sloppy. He even hinted that he almost kinda of agreed that the city’s admin process sucks.

  16. Angry Guy on April 26, 2011 at 10:42 am said:

    We thought PG wouldn’t shut up before…. can’t wait for the floodgates to open after this victory. Good luck, crazy person. We’re all rooting for you.

  17. When the opinion comes out, I think we should throw a party for PG for our next South DaCola fest!

  18. Rant a Bit PG Party???

  19. Have enough mics.

  20. I got six!

  21. l3wis on April 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm said:

    Rock on.

  22. Pathloss on April 27, 2011 at 1:24 am said:

    A good day for democracy. Apparently, there’s freedom in this state. Perhaps, someday, it will be restored in Sioux Falls. Repealing Home Rule, reinventing ordinances, and returning to citizen friendly will take time. Meanwhile, vote down anything Huether including Huether. This happened on this council’s watch. Nobody from the council for 2014 mayor. How about a woman?

  23. yanktonirishred on April 27, 2011 at 9:18 am said:

    But do you have 2 turntables for each microphone?

    Shane

  24. Pingback: City of Sioux Falls reacts to the Daily case — South DaCola

Post Navigation