It’s go time: Daily vs. The City of Sioux Falls

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.


#1 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:11 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:16 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:22 am

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

#4 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:29 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:30 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:34 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:36 am

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

#8 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:41 am

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

#9 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:41 am

In reference to article 9.

#10 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:44 am

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

#11 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:47 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:50 am

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 04.26.11 at 9:54 am

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.


#14 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 9:55 am

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

#15 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 10:08 am

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 04.26.11 at 10:42 am

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 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 10:48 am

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

#18 Scott on 04.26.11 at 11:04 am

Rant a Bit PG Party???

#19 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 11:14 am

Have enough mics.

#20 Scott on 04.26.11 at 11:56 am

I got six!

#21 l3wis on 04.26.11 at 4:17 pm

Rock on.

#22 Pathloss on 04.27.11 at 1:24 am

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 04.27.11 at 9:18 am

But do you have 2 turntables for each microphone?


#24 l3wis on 04.27.11 at 9:56 am

This KELO video is pretty good

The Argue Endorser also covered it|newswell|text|Home|s

#25 City of Sioux Falls reacts to the Daily case — South DaCola on 05.09.11 at 6:40 pm

[…] 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 […]

Leave a Comment