New Search
<br />Susan's appeal was filed by two volunteers from Occupy Medical at my suggestion and under my direction, and they <br />gave their address as the contact address. I don't know how her sister was notified, but her sister did not file the appeal. <br />The volunteers from OM found out early the morning of the 31st that the hearing was that day, and by the time they <br />arrived with Susan the hearing was already over. I have been in close contact with them the entire time throughout this <br />process, and I know that what I state is completely accurate. <br /> <br /> <br />> As a result of the hearing Susan's restriction was upheld with the <br />> exception of her receiving medical services on Sundays from Occupy <br />> Medical. We are collectively seeking a long term solution for Susan <br />> and wish her only the best. I hope this provides all a better <br />> understanding of our involvement. As far as the technicalities you <br />> have mentioned in the process, I do not have a part in that and if it <br />> is so I would consider them over sites or honest mistakes, <br /> <br />As you have told me many times, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I've made many "honest mistakes" that still had legal <br />consequences. If those who uphold the law expect others to respect the law, they need to follow the law themselves, <br />period. <br /> <br /> <br />> not illegal acts as stated in your follow-up email. <br /> <br />The Park Rules are clear what the law is. This hearing happened outside of the scope and instruction of the Park Rules. If <br />I act outside the scope and instructions of the Park Rules, your department would consider it an illegal act on my part. If <br />my theoretical violation of the Park Rules is an illegal act, how can you possibly try to argue that the Parks Deparment <br />violating their own rules is not illegal? <br /> <br />Heck, the reason this entire situation exists in the first place is because your department accused Susan of committing <br />an illegal act by violating the Park Rules. The rules that govern camping and littering and the rules that govern the time <br />frame are part of the EXACT SAME set of laws. You don't get to have two different standards. Either everyone is bound <br />by the laws, or nobody is. With all due respect, you have to pick one standard and stick with it. <br /> <br /> <br />> I thank you for caring and I hope you may also be able to bring something to the table that will improve Susan's sad <br />situation. <br /> <br />I don't know how to improve Susan's situation, considering that the City of Eugene does not consider people like Susan <br />important enough to adequately provide for. I do know, however, that excluding someone like her from city parks <br />makes her situation worse. <br /> <br /> <br />> This situation is in no way even remotely similar to what you <br />> described as the Cream Soda incident where a traveler was excluded from the park for possessing a glass bottle in the <br />park. That person had no prior contact be EPD and that situation was not consistent with our downtown mission. <br /> <br />If prioritizing the aesthetic desires of the "community" over the fact that someone like Susan has absolutely nowhere <br />safe to be is consistent with your downtown mission, you need to rethink your mission. <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />