Mr. Harrison didn't make the claim; he challenged it. If a public claim is true, what's the problem? Have integrity and back it up: Let the fight begin!
Bravo, Mr. Kriegel! Just letting you know that at least one Independent reader is in support of you, the tea party, and AFP.
Great article but unfortunately the fact remains that discrimination against the "indigents"
right to a fair and impartial due process in Montana civil trials simply does not exist and never will in Montana's Judiciary (see Artcle II, § 17, of the Montana Constitution which requires that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”) In my civil lawsuit, I brought many issues before the District and Supreme Courts including ....
State Court Decisions Addressing Constitutional Due Process or Equal Protection
In Gold v. State, 236 P.3d 2 (Mont. 2010), an indigent appellant brought two civil actions
arising from the impoundment and subsequent sale of his vehicle and personal property at a sheriff's auction. (see Gold v. City of Missoula, DV–03–46, 2004 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 2246 (Oct. 15, 2004); Gold v. City of Missoula, DV–03–46, 2006 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 318 (May 4, 2006) In these original actions, Gold filed a motion for appointment of counsel under the Montana Public Defender Act, which the district court judge denied on the grounds that section 47–1–104(4)
“does not provide for the assignment of counsel at public expense to represent an indigent plaintiff in a civil action for damages based on injury to loss of property.”
Gold, 236 P.3d at 2 (TABLE).
Gold then petitioned for writ of supervisory control, which the Montana Supreme
Court denied. Following the denial, Gold brought the action against the State alleging, among other things, that the Montana Public Defender Act unlawfully discriminates in allowing counsel for certain civil cases, but not for others.
Gold, 236 P.3d at 2. The district court again granted summary judgment for the defendants and Gold appealed. In his appeal, Gold cited the specially concurring opinion in Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 54 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2002) (Nelson,
J., concurring), discussed
infra, and argued that equal protection and equal access to justice
should “work together to prevent discrimination against the poor in Montana’s justice system.”
Id. The issue was not resolved by the court, which affirmed the district court’s decision.
However, the court commented:
We acknowledge the irony of the situation–the Catch-22 in which Gold finds himself–
namely, that the fact his claims have not been adequately presented is itself reflective of
the very claims he is attempting to present: that as an indigent citizen, he requires
assistance of counsel to vindicate his Constitutional civil rights. Nevertheless, this Court
simply cannot decide a question of such significant import on the basis of the current
briefing. . . . [and] the record . . . is wholly inadequate for purposes of deciding such a
Gold, 236 P.3d at 2 (internal citations omitted).
State Court Decisions Addressing State Constitution’s Open Courts Provision
Section 16 of Article II of the Montana Constitution states:
Artcle 16: The administraton of justce. Courts of justce shall be open to every person,
and speedy remedy aforded for every injury of person, property, or character. No
person shall be deprived of this full legal redress for injury incurred in employment for
which another person may be liable except as to fellow employees and his immediate
supervisor who hired him if such immediate employer provides coverage under the
Workmen’s Compensaton Laws of this state. Right and justce shall be administered
without sale, denial, or delay.
Mont. Const., Art II, secton 16. In Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
, 54 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2002) (Nelson, J., concurring), several justces of the Montana Supreme Court suggested in a concurring opinion that access to the courts is a right without which other fundamental rights, such as the right to pursue employment, would have no meaning. Citing this concurring opinion, the plaintiff in Gold v. State, 236 P.3d 2 (Mont. 2010) (involving civil acton arising from impoundment/sale of vehicle and taking of his personal property) discussed supra, argued a denial of his fundamental rights under
artcle II, secton 16, but the court refused to reach the issue.
Obviously, the Montana Courts are still in denial concerning equal justice.
Such a silly conversation. Listen to yourselves. Try this 'wasting water' justification on an 8-year-old and see how much sense it makes.
Its a waste of energy, not water... get it right.
You are very welcome. I,obviously, have done a lot of research on this subject, before and after reading your article. I double-checked all the St. Vrain stuff after reading it, but already knew about Dell, Remneas and Steamboat. I came across the 2 from looking up everyone who played on any Montana team according to baseball reference.com on familysearch.org. I've never seen Dell or Remneas noted or creditted anywhere else. I found this out independently.
There have been over 100 future major-leaguers come through Missoula, including a Hall-of-Famer, who got his nickname while in Missoula, yet there has only been one (as far as I can find thusfar) that actually lived here as a kid. I have found exactly 10 born-and-raised Montanans (obviously McNally,Steamboat and also Plews).
I'd love to be involved with a more intensive research project/article. I can be reached at:email@example.com
Nothing wrong with trying to conserve water, even if there is a "seemingly" endless supply....which does, as you said seem doubtful. I too hate it when sidewalks get watered. All of us can cut back a little without losing any of our quality of life. Conservation is ALWAYS a good idea.
"Is public nudity legally allowable within Missoula city limits? If not then the city council's decision is a violation of the tenets that ALL residents of the jurisdiction"
Quite the opposite. Is public nudity illegal? If not, then it must be allowed. Many, many towns and even states have laws against public nudity. Missoula does not. Until it does, the government must allow the event. If the citizens are really that concerned about public nudity, pass a law. It's been done many other places.
So the answer to your question is: Yes. Public nudity is legally allowed within Missoula. Until it is not, those who don't like it have to endure it.
Missoula's annual precipitation has been about 13.8 inches since at least 1970. That one year you mentioned is obviously an anomaly. Why are you trying to trick people with baseless alarmism?
With all due respect to Gunnar Rocksund, the greatest threat to biodiversity -- and indeed, in the final analysis, is the ultimate cause of ALL our environmental problems, and probably our social and economic problems as well -- is the unchecked growth of the planet's human population. But it's taboo to even mention THAT, even though until we do, and get serious about addressing the problem, all we try to do to ameliorate it is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
("Invasive species are the second-greatest threat to biodiversity. Or, maybe Emily, you could try to stop the greatest threat - habitat loss.")
For a profession, I am a wildland restoration practicioner - I have nothing but the utmost respect for nature. That being said, I have to say this opinion piece sounds utterly naive & fallacy-ridden. Emily, don't pick a random high-precipitation year (1998) & then try to pass off this stastical outlier as baseline data. Simply put, the climate here is very different from where you moved here from. Don't compare the two at face value - go learn some more Earth science & about this locality's uniqueness before shouting your ignorance from the mountaintop. There are plenty more local natural resource issues of greater priority than a few people sprinkling sidewalks going on here... For example, do you have any noxious weeds growing on your property? Invasive species are the second-greatest threat to biodiversity. Or, maybe Emily, you could try to stop the greatest threat - habitat loss. You might as well tell people to stop building things.
For updates visit the cause page. Www.facebook.com/BarryABeach
I want to read this to so many people and then smile at their blank, comeback-less faces.
It seems like simplifying procedures and form management would be an effective way to reduce costs and improve outcomes. The article mentions that the court has asked the legislature to improve the rules...has there been any traction on that? Are any legislators or officials from DOJ (or, for that matter, anyone in the Governor's office) pushing the issue in the legislature?
These are questions that are best answered by a hydrologist and a climatologist. I am neither, but I am a geologist. Having gone through the UM geology department my understanding is that Missoula is in no danger of having a water shortage similar to the Desert West that you speak of. There are water wars raging in the West but not here in the Missoula Valley. The climate models that I have seen coming from the only person I know that is qualified to answer these questions (Steve Running) seem to show a warmer and wetter future for us if they show any changes at all. Arguments for efficiency of use always have merit but this is a question of dollars and sense and not of water shortage.
I am not sure the comparison of NM. or NV. are relevant to Missoula. We are not currently in a water shortage or close to one. The models I have seen do not put us in one in the future so I am not sure this concern is one past people simply wasting their money on green lawns.
Maybe the Independent should look deeper into this question and get some answers from the experts?
Sincerely....one who is admittedly not an expert.
Thank you to Jessica Mayrer and the Missoula Independent for bringing much-needed attention to this critical issue. You help bring us one step closer to Equal Justice for All.
Well said! How I miss Missoula. Here in NC one is suspect for even owning a bike. Hmmmm; we have not tried riding naked...
I think people might be more concerned about that allowing the naked bike ride might open the door to allowing more things that are considered indecent, little by little. After all, suppose some people want to have a naked day... everyone who wants to can walk around completely naked around town. And why should they be stopped? After all a naked bike ride was allowed, so how would this be much different? A bit more exposure? So what? If you don't like it just stay home. And on it would go.
"Public indecency" could eventually be swept by the wayside. Just saying.
Until our bodies are no longer looked at as something that needs to be covered up, public nakedness is going to be frowned upon.
busybodies is a good description! Too much time on their hands...
Everyone keeps saying, just stay home if you don't want to see it.... people, summer is peak tourist season. How are they informed? How do you warn them when they are downtown with their children? Staying home doesn't solve them problem for everyone!
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation