Opinion
Is that true? Who are the plaintiffs and what are their claims?
The following is public record.
The first “suit” is filed by a man with a long criminal history who received a broken leg when he fell off of a porch while resisting arrest for elder abuse. The county has already won this case once but this man has filed an appeal and this still constitutes a lawsuit.
The second “suit” is by a career criminal and serial plaintiff who claims his civil rights were violated because the sheriff will not allow him to smoke marijuana while he is in the county jail. The case is pending before the courts.
The third is a “suit” filed by a registered sex offender and serial plaintiff who is currently in San Quentin. The sex offender claims that the sheriff’s department allowed his girlfriend to take his property from his car after his last arrest and incarceration. The case is pending before the courts.
The fourth is a “suit” filed by a violent career criminal and serial plaintiff who is currently in custody at Pelican Bay. This career criminal is alleging excessive force by the officers who placed a control hold on his throat to keep him from swallowing bindles of cocaine during an arrest. The case is pending before the courts.
The fifth is the lawsuit filed by Bismarck Dinius, alleging that his rights were violated as a result of the charges filed against him. The case is pending before the courts.
Every county sheriff’s department receives complaints by career criminals. Serial plaintiffs are everywhere and for some people in custody it is a form of entertainment.
Francisco Rivero would have you believe that our sheriff’s department is routinely violating the civil rights of law abiding people.
Would Bismarck Dinius have a claim against the sheriff’s department if the district attorney had not filed charges? The answer is “no.”
The bottom line is that, once again, Francisco Rivero is telling another lie intended to create fear in the minds of law abiding citizens.
We cannot afford to give the responsibility of the office of sheriff to such a man.
Jeffrey Markham is a retired chief deputy sheriff. He lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Jeff Markham
But if you consider yourself a true Californian, in love and proud to be a resident of our much-maligned, beautiful, crazy and world-class state, here are three proposition recommendations from the heart.
No on Proposition 23, the “Suspend AB 32 Global Warming Act of 2006 Initiative.” This monstrosity, sponsored by Texas oil money, would suspend the California law that is pushing our state toward a future energy mix that relies less on fossil fuel and more on green energy.
And why is Texas oil money so interested in how California produces its electricity? They know that if California can move a significant portion of its electrical grid to green power and a meaningful amount of its transportation energy use to electrical vehicles the world will take notice. The possibility that fossil fuel consumption would no longer be the linchpin of civilization would be visible for all to see.
This year the permitting process is concluding for thousands of megawatts of solar thermal power plants on the Californian desert. Next year construction should start as Californians build power plants in California that use sunshine to produce electricity for California. Now who is not for that? Yes to green energy – no on Proposition 23.
Yes on Proposition 25, the “Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act.” How many years have we suffered the ridiculous Sacramento circus that produces the state's annual budget? How much money must we lose on short term loans and IOUs?
The two-thirds majority rule for passing the budget allows both parties to hide behind a murky process that fails to assign responsibility. When the majority party passes a budget we will know exactly who is responsible.
This is not about taxes, which will still require a two-thirds vote to change. This is about an important incremental change in how the state is governed. We can’t just clap our hands and make California the land of milk and honey again and I refuse to throw up my hands and say that California is “ungovernable.”
This is one step of many needed to increase the accountability of our lawmakers and to turn this state around. Yes on Proposition 25.
Yes on Proposition 21, the “Vehicle License Fee for Parks Act.” Vision and foresight are required in these lean times to raise an $18 tax/registration fee for most vehicle registrations. Mobile homes, permanent trailers, and California commercial vehicles are exempt from the tax while 25 million plus paying California vehicles would get admission and parking at California State Parks and Beaches.
From the Anza-Borrego Desert to Burney Falls the state’s 278 parks are an economic resource and an important part of our natural history. By passing Proposition 21 we have the ability to provide the funds needed to operate, maintain and make improvements to state parks and beaches.
This is an investment paid in real dollars, not borrowed money that will pay real economic dividends in the tourist and recreation economy.
More importantly, this continuing investment will contribute to the conservation of California’s natural grandeur for ourselves and future generations.
We care about California, yes on Proposition 21.
Evan Robert Willig lives in Cobb, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Evan Robert Willig
How to resolve AdBlock issue?