Embezzling officer should not be working
Del Norte County ought not to have a probation officer working who has been accused of stealing from the officers’ fund.
The April 11 article, “Crowell reaches a plea bargain,” said he is only getting a misdemeanor and a fine for the crime of theft. Balderdash.
What kind of respect can he expect from the people he is working with? He has lost the right to any respect from those people. This is a joke. Remove him from the office of probation now.
This is another slap in the people’s face. Please, give every subject in this county the same treatment. When they are giving some a slap on the wrist and some more severe punishments for the same infractions, it causes anger problems among the people. We feel like peasants in the land, kind of less than the ones who rule over us.
Stop it, we are all the same here and want the treatment to be equal for all. This is not equal, he got to keep his job ruling over other people accused of a crime, and he is no better then they.
Get him out of the probation office today.
Theft by embezzlement of property worth less than $1,000 is a misdemeanor, subjecting a defendant to a possible jail sentence of six months or less, and a fine of up to $1,000.
Lenda Beck, Crescent City
Proposed amendments for better government
In response to Bob Berkowitz’s April 11 Coastal Voices piece, times are hard, as is his math. That 1 percent, the wealthiest among us, controls over 75 percent of all wealth, and so should be paying over 75 percent of all taxes. As Bob points out, they are not, as they pay only 37 percent.
Yes it is true that out of an earning of $100,000, a 17 percent tax is $17,000. That is a lot of money. If my income is $20,000, that 17 percent tax is $3,400. That is a lot less than $17,000, but still fair for both of us. So, Bob, please don’t complain when most of us want fairness in our tax code.
I agree with Bob that joining a group to push for change in our government is the democratic way. I want a group that will push for a new set of Constitutional amendments:
• Outlaw lobbying. Lobbying should be treated as treason. If you want to approach an elected official, have a petition with you, and an open appointment on a publicly available docket listing your petition points.
• Elected officials can earn no more than 85 percent of what is the average total income of their district. If you want to earn more, improve your district. All elected officials should get travel and lodging if working outside their districts, but maintain a regular schedule in the local office.
• Federal taxes will be set by common vote every two years or as an emergency vote at any time. Taxes must be an equal percentage for all citizens. All citizens will pay that percentage on their yearly income no matter where the wealth is generated. No loopholes. This tax will also apply to campaign spending
• Benefits, or laws passed for elected officials, must also be applied to all U.S. citizens.
The harsh reality is that no matter your political party, special interest groups have taken our government from us; we must at least outlaw lobbying if we ever want it back.
Kenyon Hensel, Crescent City
Answers to questions on gun control legislation
Linda Lamarr’s well-written March 28 Coastal Voices piece about the supervisors’ gun rights resolution deserves acknowledgement, albeit belatedly.
Opinions on gun control abound, and hers is a common theme among the “gun grabbers” genre, although I’m not ascribing such motives to her. She posits a presumably sincere question on the subjects of “what is wrong with limiting high capacity magazines, expanding background checks and having tougher gun trafficking laws in place”?
Taken one at a time I’ll posit my answers to her questions. What is wrong with limiting the capacity of magazines? My question is, who is going to decide the capacity, Dianne Feinstein or Harry Reid? Does Linda have a preference? I agree with the idea of limiting the capacity myself. I opt for a space for 40 little 40s. Would Linda go along with that?
Expand background checks from what information to what information? How much information is sufficient? Should a baptismal certificate become necessary? School records? Work records? Political affiliations? Voting records? Where does the line lie? At what point is privacy to be taken into account?
Would Linda include government in the “tougher gun trafficking” laws? Do Linda and her like-minded minions object to the Obama Justice Department and ATF collaborators furnishing several thousand military-style guns to the Mexican drug cartels?
Those very guns have been proven to be responsible for the deaths of two American law enforcement officers, as well as scores of Mexican citizens. Is that okay with Linda and friends?
I ask point blank, have you voiced your objections to your legislators regarding this egregious slaughter of innocent people (far more than Aurora or Sandy Hook combined)?
If not, perhaps you should do so before writing about “deeper background checks.”
If Linda and her presumed sympathizers would bring guns under a vise-like control, what then would they do about X-acto knives which were just used to stab/slash 14 innocent students at a Texas college? Are rolling pins and cast iron skillets next for deeper background checks?
Evil exists. We can but won’t be proactive against it legislatively. We can best engage it by returning to a humbling of national arrogance (personified by an Obamaesque whoop-de–do) to a Job-like dedication to natural law (God’s law). Reaffirmation of the Second Amendment by the Board of Supervisors is a bona fide reassertion of citizens’ rights to possess arms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Dale L. Bohling, Crescent City