Dear Ivan---I suspect I'm not the only one to be perplexed at this
situation. We have heard from you about the fact that you don't use the
sewer system, yet are taxed for it, and that is the reason they have a lien
on your home.
This is on the face of it so crazy that I have to wonder what pieces of
info I have missed---what were the counter arguments from the city's
attorneys that could carry so much weight?
I have to wonder things like, are some of the taxes owed on your previous
house (that burned down) and did you use the sewer then?
OR do *others* who have septic tanks *also* get billed for sewers?
OR why were you turned down by the local ACLU a while back? Why did they
not feel you had a case? OR what grounds did the MHRC give in the letter
of denial?
OR why was it so impossible to find legal help--did they feel you had no case?
I find it hard to believe we are getting the whole picture here-----
you suggest you are discriminated against because they say you are
"different"--and you relate this to being an aggressively active PWP---do
you also suspect homophobia?
How can they take a house worth much more, for a tax lien of $1,400.00 ?
You say the city says you "mis-spend" your SSDI---what do they mean by
that, and what right do they have to dictate how ANYONE spends such
income?
Do they refuse you for "city welfare" because your SSDI income is enough to
put you over the legal limit for welfare?
So many questions---but when you ask folks to advocate for you, especially
at a distance,with no other input, you have to expect them to need all the
facts.....
You are now in touch with your representative's office ( did you try Sen.
Snowe too ?) and that may carry more clout than hard copies from us on
PIEN. I certainly hope this problem is resolved in your favor, but I still
think there is more to the story, and if you care to or have time and
energy to fill us in, it will be appreciated.
Ivan wrote in part---
>And the real BAD news:
>
>At 4:10 I opened the mail and there was a letter from the MHRC . THey
>have bought the City's >arguments, not mine. THerefore, the MHRC says
>that my claims should be DISMISSED.
>
>During the 4-hour facat-finding meeting, the City lawyers submitted all
>kinds of typed
>documents. I had no lawyer, and just tried to hold on and telll my story.
>
>I have to respond by NOVEMBER 20, and any "relevant" documents can be
>included.
>
>I am afraid that even hand-written letters from the PIEnetters are deemed
>irrelevant.
>GOSH, what now folks?
>Ivan
Camilla Flintermann, CG for Peter 81/70/55
Oxford, Ohio
http://www.newcountry.nu/pd/members/camilla/one.htm
<[log in to unmask]>
"Ask me about the CARE list for
Caregivers of Parkinsonians ! "
