[PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 19

[Russ Johnson]

plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:

>I consider it unpatriotic to cause Multnomah
>county an expense for something that ultimately turned 
>out to be illegal in the end and then demand a refund.  
>  
>
They aren't "demanding" a refund. Mult. Co. is required to give a 
refund, because Mult. Co. did a service that was later deemed to be 
illegal, so in effect they would be stealing this money if they did not 
return it.

If you purchase something (anything) and later find that it's illegal, 
you would also be entitled to a refund.

Not to mention the fact that $180k is a drop in the bucket when it comes 
to how much money the Portland School district needs.

Now, here's another thing. The money was collected by Mult. Co... For a 
"State" marriage license. You want to give it to a city school 
district... What about the rest of the school districts in Mult. Co.???


>Do these refunds signal that anyone can demand something 
>from Multnomah County that will later be ruled illegal 
>regardless of the cost to this county, a cost that it's 
>taxpayers have to pay?
>  
>
If Mult. Co. renders a service, and that service is later deemed 
illegal, they are obligated to return any fees that may have been 
charged. That's only fair.

You seem to want to penalize the couples that were married and now are 
not. It's not their fault that Mult. Co. did this. It's Mult. Co. and 
the county attorney that are at fault here. If anything, the county 
attorney should bear some of the burden here, but the couples in 
question have no fault at all. Why penalize them?

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #15 (Collect all 25)
"It is not how much we have, but how much we enjoy, that makes happiness." - Charles H. Spurgeon