Young’s sentencing erodes public trust in justice system
While visiting Crescent City, I read with complete disgust about the handling of Jerrold Young’s case (“No jail time in insurance fraud case,” Aug. 14). With 30 years of law enforcement experience and over half in supervision, I find it asinine that to see small-town politics enter into sentencing determinations.
State correctional officers fought to become classified as peace officers in the state of California. After achieving that status, they agreed to adhere to a “higher standard” of performance in compliance with the Police Officer Code of Ethics.
To seek to have a relative serve the original 30-day jail sentence in order for Young to keep his job is natural. To actually succeed in achieving probation and community service is absurd.
It’s actions such as these by liberal courts that are incrementally eroding public trust in the very people who are paid to protect us. I personally thought our system of justice had made better progress than what has just been demonstrated.
Lake Havasu City, Ariz.
The reality is that Ms. Westfall does not have skills to throw the mud she wants to. Westfall has become a one-issue council person. I am sorry to say she should not have her seat on the council. Ms. Murray’s call for censure is right on.
What my City Council needs is another William George Peepe. Donna needs to step down before she is made the fool she has become. Mr. Peepe took the mud from the tidal wave and made Crescent City anew. For years, Councilman Peepe carried a note in his pocket. I believe all our current leaders should read it.
Ms. Westfall, you need to read this note. A copy can be found at Wier’s Mortuary. You need to think about this message and its words and step down.
What say you to the following: “Please, no socialized government schooling, education, teaching for the children, an open letter to my legislator.” “Please, no socialized government police, and sheriffs, an open letter to my legislator,” or, “Please, no socialized government military soldiering, an open letter to my legislator. Please do not let them do this to me.” And if you will, “Please, no socialized government, an open letter to my legislator.”
Perhaps we ought to organize a monarchy here in this land instead. Preferably with princes, bishops, earls, dukes, counts, and so forth, and so on.
The remainder serfs, chattel of the royalty, slaves. A king to rule us one and all. Enough to say, enough to cry of this “democracy” rubbish.
This letter-writer might appreciate Mary Antoinette, queen of France. Who, upon, being informed, “The people have no bread to eat,” replied, “Well then, let them eat cake.”
One contemplates that if Marie Antoinette were told, “The people have no doctors, no medicines,” her reply may have been, “Let them pray to God, they are but peasants, rabble, ragtag, commoners.”
After working all this time “without pay,” but with a hefty per diem, the Legislature handed the governor a budget that did not balance and like children said, you fix it. As they left for vacation. He did, with the veto pen, now they are complaining.
Do we really need meditation gardens in our prisons? Do we need to import regents at high salaries, and pay relocation expenses? Do we really need to protect a fish that is not even native, probably came off a Chinese fishing boat, at the expense of 85,000 jobs in the Central Valley? Jobs mean income to the state. Blame your legislator when you can’t afford fresh vegetables, and remember it when you vote.
The idea of “tax the rich and the corporations” is very short-sighted; the rich have the option of moving to another state, taking their businesses, their money, and our jobs with them. The movie studios rarely film here anymore, and we are saying goodbye to Apple and Yahoo.
Drill here, drill now, is a very good idea, can be done safely, and out of sight. Slant drilling like the Russians are doing in the Gulf of Mexico, from a “platform called Cuba,” and after that, tax cuts.
I would like to make note that prior to the enacted plan in the Central Coast regions there were several examples of public input regarding other options that could have been implemented that would have had a less severe economic effect on coastal communities and local fisherman, even though these other alternative plans were well documented to show an across-the-board success in fishing management.
The deciding board members on a 3-2 vote decided to enact one of the most impactive plans, shutting people out of key areas and making it difficult for coastal communities to survive. I would like to also mention that the other alternative plans had substantial science to back up their findings and had the endorsement of local coastal city acceptance.
Even with all this, the board still chose the plan that would have the most negative impact, a plan that in fact still does not address the true intention of the MLPA, which was to control pollution along coastal shores and will cost an estimated $35-40 million annually to be paid by state tax payers.
Fastenau may have been in the stakeholders group, but I do not believe he had the rights of the local community and fishermen in mind. One last thing I would like to add. The MLPA process is only one part of the whole agenda. Once you take a look at where the current funding is coming from you will see that there is no representation for local communities anywhere (most funding is coming from oil companies and environmental groups). And, if you take a real good look at the fine print inside these so-called “reserves” you will see a little clause that notes these plans can be modified to completely prohibit access to the areas within the MLPA.
So in other words if the monies-that-be decide they want the coast shut down, all it takes is a few signatures.
I personally do not get a warm fuzzy feeling when someone says I cannot fish from a spot anymore. Take care and please people, do not stop fighting for your rights.
Property owner in Crescent City
In my opinion, Gov. Schwarzenegger is wise to direct state agencies to develop strategies to address sea-level rise along the California coast. The California coast is expected to experience a rise of 1 to 1.4 meters by 2100, which would cause a projected loss of 41 square miles, or more than 26,000 acres, currently inhabited by 14,000 people.
However, the California Coastal Commission would also be wise to do a little more fact checking before selecting Crescent City as the first city to address those sea level rises, considering that Crescent City is the one place in California where sea level is not only not rising, it is decreasing — a steady trend that has been officially documented by the NOAA.
Therefore, it would make more sense for the California Coastal Commission to wait for the next application from an area where they are actually experiencing a rising sea level to address this issue, as it does not apply in Crescent City.