For the past several months Sheriff Francisco Rivero has taken on a campaign of criticizing and slandering the District Attorney’s Office and myself.

I have remained silent to these comments from the sheriff as I feel it does not benefit either of our offices or the fight for public safety.

However, he has recently started slandering individual members of my office with falsehoods and misrepresentations.

This is not acceptable for any elected official, especially one who should be a partner in law enforcement.

The sheriff has publicly made statements that I am left of the ACLU and a member of the American Communist Party, neither of which is true.

He quoted me of saying I intend on putting him in jail for the rest of his life, a statement never made publicly of privately.

Sheriff Rivero has said I am soft of criminals and I put outlaw motorcycle gangs above the interest of citizens.

I will do everything legally possible to provide for public safety, but let there be no misunderstanding, I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and will honor that oath.

I never have, and will not make personal attacks on the sheriff. Using my position to do so is not in the best interest of the community or the administration of justice. Additionally, to try and humiliate anyone in public is against my upbringing.

Recently, Sheriff Rivero has publicly attacked my criminal investigators in order to discredit them prior to the release of their investigations into his activities.

The sheriff has publicly said some investigators illegally made entry into the Sheriff’s data base system (RiMS) for “entertainment purposes.”

The truth is, for many years prior to Francisco Rivero ever working for the sheriff’s department our two agencies have worked together to investigate and assist each other in our mutual goals of protecting the public.

For years some investigators who also worked for the sheriff, had been updating the sheriff’s RiMS system with current information.

Additionally, both agencies have mutually shared reports to help in criminal investigations, which is not for “entertainment purposes.” This was the practice that had been followed until he discontinued this valuable tool in combating crime.

The sheriff has said my investigators are “running amok,” “bullying” and “threatening” people. The sheriff gives no examples nor has he ever brought his beliefs to my attention.

I have found my investigators to be extremely professional and understanding of the needs of the people, but at the same time we are aggressive in our fight against crime.

Lastly, Sheriff Rivero publicly said I am “scared”of my investigators. My only response to him is, do not confuse fear with and respect.

This office is committed to seeking the truth and holding accountable those who violate the public trust.

Don Anderson is district attorney for Lake County, Calif.

I write this letter in defense of playing nice.

I recently attended a public meeting that one of our county supervisors attended. Eight people attended, including the supervisor.

Three individuals seemed to be there only to challenge this supervisor regarding the Lake County Board of Supervisors’ vote on an ordinance regulating marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of Lake County.

They accused the supervisor of accepting a monetary bribe for voting in favor of the ordinance.

Name calling, innuendos, lack of courtesy do not promote positive outcomes.

The few who were there to confront the supervisor were rude. They did not allow the common courtesy of letting each person express their views without being interrupted by rude side comments.

However, when they were speaking common courtesy was expected.

I am a passionate person, so I know how it feels to be passionate about an issue.

Courteous and respectful debates generally result in finding common ground somewhere in the middle.

Maybe the outcome isn’t exactly what we want, but that is the foundation our country was built on: Finding common ground that addresses opposing views.

I think that is what our supervisors tried to do: Find a compromise between those who want dispensaries banned, and those that want them to be unregulated.

All individuals who wish to do business in Lake County have guidelines imposed by the county and state governments. The guidelines vary and are based on type of business, location, products sold, services rendered, etc.

Dispensaries are a business and as such should be treated as other businesses in Lake County with guidelines to follow.

All those present at the meeting agreed that medical marijuana seems to help people and those individuals should be allowed access to their medicine.

One person stated that he does possess a marijuana card, but that he got it purely for recreational purposes.

Other comments were made regarding having to hide the use of marijuana, yet people are allowed to drink and use pharmaceuticals openly.

After a few more rude comments, two people at the meeting got up to leave clearly angry, and one commented that the room was full of bigots.

I looked up the definition of a bigot: “One who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.”

The comment reminded me of the old saying, “When you point your finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you.”

Clearly some people have forgotten how to play nice.

Linda Diehl-Darms lives in Middletown, Calif.

Earlier this year, Canadian scientists researching utero-placental toxicities reported that blood from 93 percent of pregnant women, and blood from 80 percent of their umbilical-cords, contained a pesticide from Monsanto’s Bt MON810 (the most common genetically modified corn).

Human blood containing toxins from GMO crops?

That was not supposed to happen.

When MON810 was released into the US food supply over a decade ago, government approval was based on Monsanto’s own word that the toxin in the corn would pass harmlessly through the human body during digestion.

No independent research or testing was done, to verify Monsanto's claim. No long-term animal trials were done, to determine effects on multiple generations. And, no human trials were done.

“Yes, every cell of our corn contains a deadly pesticide. But don't worry! We assure you the toxin will just pass right through human digestive tracts. Take our word on that.”

And, bowing to pressure for deregulation, that's what the USDA and FDA did. They approved MON810, and other genetically modified crops, over objections from their own scientists.

Other countries chose to follow what is known as The Precautionary Principle. Based on real science (as opposed to Corporate-bought-science), they seek to understand long-term affects on health and the environment, before popping the lid off Pandoras Box.

Based on testing done elsewhere (since independent testing is not done here in the USA), many countries have outright banned Mon810. Thailand (producer of a third of all rice consumed in the world) has banned GMO rice. The list of GMO products banned in other countries is very long – products which unwitting and unwilling US consumers have been eating for years.

Corporate ag has been very successful at hiding the truth from Americans.

A 2006 study found that only 26 percent of American consumers believed they had ever eaten genetically modified food, while a 2010 survey reported that only 28 percent of respondents knew such foods were sold in stores. (Los Angeles Times 6-2-2011, “Debate rages over labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients”).

The truth is, most Americans consume GMOs daily. Not because they want to. But because they are not allowed to know.

In almost every developed nation in the world except the United States, labeling of GMO foods is mandatory. In England, consumers are allowed to choose. In France they have that choice. In countries of the former Soviet Union, consumers have that choice. In China, they have that choice.

But not in the USA.

Japan preferred a “wait and see” moratorium, so they could see what happened to the first generation born and raised on GMOs in the USA.

And what has happened to the US population in the 15 to 20 years since GMOs were introduced to our food supply?

Chronic disease rates and severe food allergy rates doubled – from 6 percent to 13 percent.

How much of that doubling of our chronic disease (mostly GI tract) and food allergy rates can be directly attributed to consumption of GMOs?

In the absence of labeling, how could we begin to answer that question?

The absence of labeling would seem to be working rather to the advantage of Big Ag and Corporate Food, don't you think? Certainly hard to identify need for product recalls, when we have no way of knowing which products are making us sick.

Twenty years after it was introduced with the unsubstantiated promise that it would “pass through the human digestive tract,” we now know that Monsanto's claim that its GMO Bt toxin would be expelled by our digestive tracts was wrong. Instead, it remains in our blood.

Whoops.

To learn more, read food industry professional Robyn O'Brien's “The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food is Making Us Sick” (www.robynobrien.com) and please join the consumer movement to label GMOs (www.labelgmos.org/).

Deb Baumann lives in Upper Lake, Calif.

In November 2010, over 60 percent of Lake County voters made their wishes known when they cast a vote on Proposition 20's amendment to redistricting. It was a statement of the will of the people.

Lake County voters mandated by a vote of 11,933 to 7,908 to change the politics of the good old boys club controlling their lives. Voters clearly called for the end of party politicians and connected special interests controlling the make up of electoral districts. The electorate chose a new way to set up representation in Sacramento and in Washington.

Our hard working Lake County Registrar of Voters showed the June 8, 2010, election tally of 15,559 total votes in the county. Of those votes, Supervisor Rushing received 1,625 votes or roughly 10 percent of the votes cast in the entire county. She won her district by 54.6 percent.

The Lake County Registrar of Voters showed the November 2010 election with a total of 19,841 votes cast on Proposition 20, the congressional redistricting measure: www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/ROV/Final_Election_Results.htm.

Supervisor Rushing has decided receiving 1625 votes in an election means she does not have to listen to the majority voice of 11,933 voters. She has chosen to go against the majority of voters in our county. She is ignoring the fact the voters asked for a fresh new approach to governance. She has chosen a politics as usual alliance with special interest groups, and state and federal representation that has led our county to be one of the poorest counties in the state.

Our representation in both Washington and Sacramento has awarded us with the 51st worst position in unemployment out of 59 positions available in the state.

We are in the 54th spot as a high poverty level county with only five counties in the state poorer than we are. We are also the second most impoverished county in Northern California, being slightly less poor than Del Norte County, which, is represented by the same Washington political machine as we have representing us. In fact, almost all of the coast district is made up of severe poverty level counties.

What is even more appalling, over 30 percent of children ages 0-17 in our county live in poverty. Think about that for a moment, almost one third of all children living in Lake county are living in poverty.

Our state and federal representatives; policies have awarded one third of Lake County's children with a life of poverty trophy for 54th place in standard of living: www.ers.usda.gov/data/povertyrates/PovListpct.aspst=CA&view=Percent&longname=California.

That leaves real questions Supervisor Rushing should be addressing.

Why is she going against the wishes of the majority of voters in the county after she received clear instructions by a sound majority in an election?

Why would she continue to support and push for maintaining a failed representative body that has not looked out for the interests of Lake County's working class?

Is blatant partisanship more important than following the will of the voters even if the system has harmed the economic stability of her constituents?

What private sector job creation by way of federal grants, or funding has found way to producing new jobs?

Why was our local private sector overlooked by our representatives when all the government corporate welfare money was handed out over the last two years?

Are we being represented for the people in the county, or are we just a stop off for some photo opportunities, a little wine sipping and some glad handing?

According to comments left in an article, a couple million dollars went to school districts and hopefully some money found its way into county protective services. But how does money going to support public sector jobs address the issue of loss of revenue from tax paying private citizens who no longer pay much in taxes because they are unemployed?

There are a people in our county faced with losing hours in job cutbacks as local businesses try to survive. Others are losing their jobs as more businesses cut back to cut labor costs. Some businesses have failed and closed their doors.

There are citizens trapped in the maze of continued unemployment for over a year because there is no affordable work within 50 miles. Others can not afford a newer dependable car to drive up to 1000 miles a week to get to work in the Bay area or Sacramento.

I do not know all of the local politics, because I am not a politician. I met Supervisor Rushing at a campaign stop during her 2010 election run. I was doing research on ways to bring the politicians and the business community together to help the city of Clearlake.

Supervisor Rushing made a striking statement that threw me back at first. It was a warm sunny day with a gentle breeze coming in from the Lake. The breeze had a cooling effect and I commented that it was nice the breeze was blowing in from the right direction today. She replied with something similar to, “the wind only comes in from the left.” I was stunned for a moment until I realized she was living and breathing pure politics.

What I am concerned with is, why has she gone against the will of the people so aggressively? There was a greater percentage of voters who voted for change then there were who voted for her.

Why is she so set on business as usual that the voice of the people means nothing to her. Surely, she respected the majority that put her in office, so why does she disrespect the will of the majority of voters?

There is not a platform she can stand on that says the working class have benefited from the old political system. The platform she is fighting to retain is the cause of our county being in the winners circle of extremely high unemployment and poverty. I am sure some will attempt to blame the citizens, but it is the politicians that are responsible for the laws and regulations that stifle a healthy economy.

We are in the circle of shame as a county with a third of our children living in poverty. Is maintaining the stronghold of power by the good old boys club so important to her that poverty is acceptable as long as the control is maintained?

The voters spoke, clearly and plainly: 2010 was a call for the end of Good Old Boy politics in Lake county. Denise Rushing needs to listen to the voters' voice.

Keith Buter lives in Lucerne, Calif.