After being in session for two days this year one of my colleagues told me it felt like we had been in session for two weeks already. I’m not sure what that says about how things went this week, but I would say that that the interim seemed to me like it went by rapidly.

I get asked a lot about what to expect this year, and if the first few days are an indication of what is to come, it won’t be dull by any means. Governor Otter didn’t hesitate to declare that we have weathered the storm and predicted almost a six percent increase in revenues but only wants to spend about five percent of that. I have been told that our forecasting committee is not quite so optimistic. The State of the State message was brief this year and he did not give many specifics for his budget requests.

The minority party has wasted no time posturing on several issues but the most drastic is a sales tax bill to increase revenues by a mere 400 million dollars. It would reduce the sales tax rate to five percent but would eliminate a list of exemptions. I haven’t had time to go through the specifics yet but the most glaring is that when you buy a new or used car you would be taxed on the gross sales price with no allowance for your trade in. It doesn’t leave much to the imagination to see what that would do to auto sales.

Then the bill goes after nine categories of services, professional, (attorneys, accountants, etc.) personal, (beauticians, barbers, house cleaning, etc.) business, construction, (building a house, repairing your house, etc.) and repairs of all kinds including getting your car fixed. The list is too long to go through here so I would suggest you take a look at the statement of purpose for House Bill 345 and let your imagination wander. And most amazing of all is that they think they will be taxing a whole new group of folks. But in reality it is you, the consumer, the ones who buy this stuff who would be footing the bill. Our housing industry is still in the tank and there is thought that this would help things by increasing the cost? I guess I don’t quite catch the vision of how this would help the taxpayers.

Another topic that will be debated extensively will be the Health Insurance Exchanges. Every state has been told that if we do not have an exchange in place, the federal government will set it up for us and we will pay the costs. The two schools of thought on this matter are that it would be better to have a state program than a federal one and we would pay the costs, and if federal government sets it up for us, we will be required to do what we are told to do and we will pay the costs. Looks like we get soaked either way. Oh, I almost forgot. If the plan we come up with on our own is not acceptable to the federal government, they will require us to fix it to their liking and we will pay the costs. Confused yet? I’m sure you can see how much debate this will generate.

So it looks to be another busy session with a dab of controversy mixed in. My only hope is the session goes by as quickly as the interim seemed to escape. We’d be done in record time. What a dreamer I am.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

9/22/2011

Sheriff Olsen,

I wanted to personally let you know of my decision to oppose you in the upcoming May election. Should you want to discuss the issue, feel free to contact me. You have my number. I look forward to hearing from you.

Andi Elliott

To the Media
22 September 2011
Since 2007 I have been approached by Jefferson County residents and folks from outside of the county asking me to oppose Sheriff Blair Olsen in the next election.

After waiting for several years in hopes that someone would take the challenge, I realized that with my personal experiences with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, I am the person I have been waiting for.

After consulting with family, friends and interested parties, I have contacted the Elections Clerk at the Jefferson County Courthouse and have determined that I do indeed meet the qualifications to run for Sheriff of Jefferson County, Idaho.

So therefore, when the filing process becomes open after the first of the year, I will be filing the appropriate paper work to oppose Blair Olsen in the May 2012 elections.

Interested parties can contact me at: Elliott4Sheriff@gmail.com

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Neighbors called Andi after multiple complaints about Dan Murdock’s (of Hamer, ID) half starved horses had been ignored by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department.

While Andi was taking pictures of the horses from the roadway, Murdock’s neighbor, Kent Young, came out to see why his dog was barking. Seeing Andi taking pictures of the Murdock horses in poor condition, Young began taking pictures of Andi taking pictures of the horses. Andi’s husband was there as a witness and was taking pictures of both Andi on the public roadway and of Young taking pictures of her. All photos were turned over to the JCSD.

The complaint said that Andi had returned to the Young’s property after being warned not to by Deputy John Clements. Andi has never even been on the Young’s property at all…not even the first time as she was taking pictures of horses across the street. (She did not realize at the time that neighbors had also made complaints about Young’s horse. Deputy Clements told her this information at a later date.) The state veterinarian has now been out to examine the horses and Deputy Clements told Andi that they were now being checked on a monthly basis and that the horses were gaining weight.

It was a little over a year ago, that Sheriff Olsen and Prosecutor Dunn failed miserably in trying to prosecute Andi for trespassing on the property of Raul Torres of Mud Lake, when they sent her out to offer assistance for the Torres’ mother dog left in the yard for 5 days before receiving outside help. Animal cruelty charges were never filed against Torres’ even with an Ada County veterinarian’s documentation of multiple broken legs.

Earlier this month, Andi released information on her newly published book, AND NONE WOULD HELP…Barbie, The Story of the Mother Dog with Broken Legs, which documents the failure of Olsen and Dunn to uphold Idaho’s animal cruelty laws and instead embarked on a vendetta against Andi (because of a previous horse starvation case in Menan, ID in which Olsen failed to act) and another rescuer from Boise.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

We seem to have an “Absent Minded Professor” in the White House. With oil over $100 per barrel, and gas at nearly $3.50 a gallon, our president continues to call for “green energy” to replace our steadily increasing reliance on oil. To my knowledge, cars and trucks have not been retrofitted with windmills or solar panels to power them. Never mind that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, but until viable options are created to replace oil, we still have an economy where transportation and manufacturing are heavily dependent on the black gold.
Yet twice in as many weeks our Professor In Chief has stumped for weaning us of our dependence on oil and increasing reliance on “green” energy. Yet with no viable replacement for oil to transport us, our food, and everything else we buy, he might as well be marketing “flubber,” that fictional “green” energy source created by Disney’s Absent Minded Professor.

This month our professor has called for a reduction in U.S. oil imports by 3-4 million barrels of oil a day, or about one-third of our current demand over the next decade. This is to be accomplished not by increasing our own domestic oil production, but by using “alternative and renewable energy sources.” Since there are none on the immediate horizon to replace oil, we are left to surmise that his intention is to incentivize the “flubber” industry to power our Kenworths, John Deeres and Chevys.

Domestic oil production has declined 40 percent over the past 25 years even though demand has soared. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 75 billion barrels of oil have been precluded from drilling due to political action over that period. That oil would be enough to replace all of our imported oil, excluding what we get from Canada and Mexico, for over 22 years. World oil demand is projected to increase by 40% over the next 22 years, and U.S. demand projected to increase by 28%.

While we are unable to control events in the troubled Middle East where much of the world’s oil is drilled, we have the ability to reduce prices and mitigate demand by simply allowing access to our own resources.

Our professor also seems to have two sets of teleprompters he employs for his major speeches. When he reads from the one on the right, he brags that his administration has granted more new oil exploratory leases (though the new standards his EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is imposing for those new leases are so unrealistic that they’re likely to never be exercised). When he reads from the one on the left, he’s promising $2 billion to assist in technology improvements for off-shore drilling. Not here, but in Brazil!

His right teleprompter tells him to say, “The only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” But the left one tells him to do everything possible to restrict domestic production.

When he reads from the one on the right, he’s advocating the use of “clean coal” and natural gas for our energy needs. When he turns back to the one on the left, he has his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, canceling 77 leases for oil and natural gas drilling in Utah.

Increasingly it appears the concept of an Obama Energy Policy is an oxymoron. There is no policy, at least not one based in reality. Rather, if there is one, it seems based on some mythical, non-existent oil replacement.

We have to acknowledge that this administration likes high energy prices for ideological reasons. During his presidential campaign, Obama declared that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” on his energy agenda. And his current Energy Secretary, Steven Chu has said that he thought our gas prices needed to be much higher as a means of weaning us from our reliance on fossil fuels. He told the Wall Street Journal two years ago, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At that time, gas prices averaged $8 per gallon there.

It appears they’ve figured out how to do it: do everything within their power to thwart and restrict domestic oil production. At this rate, we’ll see $8 per gallon gasoline far sooner than we’ll see anything else to realistically replace it.

John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, recently said that Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012 based on the uncertainty of world events, the lack of domestic supply and increased worldwide demand.

Current “energy policy” assures we’ll pay more and more for oil with absolutely nothing done to ease the pain at the pump, while increasing, not decreasing our dependency on foreign sources.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

James Madison, the “Father” of the Constitution, said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” His statement seems prophetic when we assess the encroachment on our individual liberty by what we could broadly classify as “well-intentioned” government officials.

This gradual elimination of personal choice and liberty, as well as our concomitant individual accountability, was partially delineated last week in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency at the Energy Department was testifying to the committee when Senator Rand Paul inquired, “I was wondering if you’re pro-choice.” Hogan responded, “I’m pro-choice of (light) bulbs.”

The Senator responded, “Well, actually, that’s the point. The point is that most members of your administration probably would be frank and would be up front to characterize themselves as being pro-choice for abortion. But you’re really anti-choice on every other consumer item that you’ve listed here. Including light bulbs, refrigerators, toilets, you name it, you can’t go around your house without being told what to buy. You restrict my choices, you don’t care about my choices.”

“You raise the cost of all the items with your rules, all your notions that you know what’s best for me. Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house. And I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house, what I can do. You restrict my choices. There is hypocrisy that goes on when people claim to believe in some choices but don’t want to let the consumer decide what they can buy and put in their houses. I find it insulting.

“I wish you would come here to extol me…to try to convince me to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail. You put people out of business who want to make products you don’t like. This is what your energy efficiency standards are.

“I find it really appalling and hypocritical and think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman’s right to an abortion but you don’t favor a woman or a man’s right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine.

“I really find it troubling, this busybody nature that you want to come into my house, my bathroom, my bedroom, my kitchen, my laundry room. I just really find it insulting and I find that all of the arguments for energy efficiency you’re exactly right we should conserve energy – but why not do it in a voluntary way? Why do it where you threaten to fine me or put me in jail if I don’t accept your opinion. In America we believe in trying to convince our neighbors and but not trying to convince them through the force of law. I find this antithetical to the American way.”

The dichotomy presented by the Senator is significant: the freedom to choose to end a life while in the womb is sacrosanct while the freedom to choose what kind of light bulbs to use is trumped by government mandates. It’s okay to kill an unborn child but heaven forbid that we choose to use a 100 watt light bulb instead of a 95 watt bulb. This is not only inane and sheer lunacy, but it, pardon the pun, illuminates the morally bankrupt status of our steadily growing “nanny state.”

Someone once said, “Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.” And Louis Brandeis declared, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Yet that is precisely what is happening as government mandates reduced freedom and choice in health care, health care insurance, energy consumption, use of salt and trans-fats in food preparation, proscribing the proliferation of fast-food restaurants, disallowing the distribution of toys with children’s meals, and dictating standards for appliances, toilets, and light bulbs. With every government statute and mandate, individual freedom is sacrificed anew.

Freedom is usually characterized as something fought for against tyrannical ideologies and totalitarian regimes. We arguably have a totalitarian state emerging right before our eyes where our individual freedom is steadily eroded by self-supposed elitists who think they’re better equipped to make all of our decisions for us.

There is a moral imperative to freedom that allows us individually to make decisions and to be accountable for the consequences of those decisions. Perhaps it’s time to introspectively assess if we’re still the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” or if we are now the land of the oppressed and the home of the nanny state.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

So far, common sense, reason, and economic realities are prevailing over nonsensical, illusory, and ideological inanity in the “megaloads” issue in Idaho. In what should be a no-brainer issue, with crude oil prices once again approaching the $100 per barrel level, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are being allowed to ship their large pieces of equipment across northern Idaho into Montana.
ConocoPhillips is currently shipping the second of four massive coke drums, used in oil refining, to their refinery in Billings via the Port of Lewiston in Northern Idaho. Exxon Mobil has been jumping regulatory hurtles in their quest to transport 300 “megaloads” of massive mining equipment to their tar-sands project in Alberta, again via the Port of Lewiston.

Last week the House Transportation Committee in Boise defeated legislation that would require an extensive hearing process to be conducted before Exxon Mobil could begin their shipments from Lewiston to Sweetgrass, Montana where they will cross the border into Alberta.

Also last week, Idaho Transportation Director Brian Ness issued the first permit for “megaload” transportation of the mining equipment for the Alberta oil-sands project to begin leaving the Port of Lewiston. As Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry President, Alex LaBeau said, “Commonsense prevailed Monday…People understand this is a well-thought out proposal that will not only protect our highways, but also bring infrastructure improvements to Highway 12 at no cost to taxpayers. The decision is a victory for Idaho’s economy and the regional economy.” The Idaho Department of Commerce estimates the economic benefit of those shipments to be about $70 million to the state.

US Highway 12 has been a critical component to the East-West transportation corridor since 1926, stretching 2500 miles from the Pacific coast in Washington to downtown Detroit, Michigan. As has been the case with the extensive US highway system, Highway 12 was created for transportation purposes, in other words, the conveyance of people and goods over extensive distances. The fact that Idaho’s stretch of Highway 12 is a scenic byway is due to the topography of the region, not the reason for the highway itself.

The Alberta oil-sands project is important for North American oil production. The U.S. currently uses over 22 million barrels of oil per day, and 58% of that is imported to meet our demands from transportation to manufacturing. Over 22% of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. The Alberta oil sands project is expected to produce up to three million barrels of oil per day within the next few years, which will lessen our dependence on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela, which is currently ruled by an anti-American dictator.

Still perplexing in this mix is how the Obama administration is able to defy court orders to lift the ban on U.S. offshore drilling. I fear this is another instance where radical ideology clashes with economic realities, and we pay the price for it.

According to the Department of the Interior, the U.S. continental shelf contains 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which is enough to meet current U.S. demand for oil and natural gas for 15 years and 27 years, respectively. Environmental extremists have thus far been successful in crippling access to our own natural resources. Cuba, meanwhile, has been granting oil leases to China, Russia, and Venezuela to drill within 60 miles of the Florida coast, closer than any U.S. corporations now can because of Obama’s ban. One of the extremists’ arguments has been that it will take years to put such wells, as well as Anwar, the massive verified oil field in Alaska, into production. Well, it’s been years that they’ve been blocking our access, which means we could be reaping the benefits of less foreign oil dependence if they hadn’t been obstructionists to the process.

The volatility in oil and other commodities we’ve seen recently underscores the fact that scarcity of resources in the face of increasing demand creates price volatility, which price we, as end consumers, end up footing the bill for. And the fact remains, in spite of all the presidential grandiloquence and posturing on alternative energy sources, we are still a society heavily dependent on petroleum. And until Detroit can efficaciously install windmills and solar panels on our cars, we will remain so.

There’s a plethora of anti-oil-sands and anti-”megaload” material being produced by radical extremist groups available on the internet and in print form. Some of it is downright entertaining, as they seek to block the “megaload” shipments because of global warming, “contamination” of the scenic byways, adversely affecting fishing, and even George W. Bush. As is always the case with such extremists, facts and economic realities are at sharp odds with their myopic, idyllic, and narrow ideology.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Could this be treason? Idaho, China is coming to town. The Communists are coming and not by stealth but by open invitation from our Governor whom I have strongly supported…until now. I was personally able to thank Governor Otter for standing strong against the federal government regarding the unconstitutional health care law. Using his own example, I now am taking a strong stance against “the Communist-Connection” that he has invited to Idaho.

Our state officials during their taxpayer funded 2010 June trip, have “courted” and “won the hand” of the Chi Coms…and we won what? So, what does Idaho get from this deal? We get a 10,000-30,000 acre self-sustaining community of Communist who will be hiring “their own”…and yes, I’m sure there will be some crumbs for Idahoans. Will they be flying the Red China flag? I wonder.

While I realize that money is the “raison d’etre”, let’s set financial considerations aside for the moment. What do you think will be the unintended consequences (or perhaps “intended”) to the culture and sovereignty of our Idaho. This very day, China’s president is conferring with Obama about a “post-America” world. They are coming and they won’t be leaving.

In fact, Governor Otter has arranged “fast track” citizenship for them. Are we selling our much coveted “American citizenship” for financial gain…you know, the one that people are willing to die for while trying to come to America for the freedoms that only Americans enjoy? Is American citizenship being used as a pawn much as the pull-string game at a carnival to which a Chinese-made toy is attached? It certainly cheapens the coveted “prize”, doesn’t it?

Come on folks…remember about the Communist Chinese…where throughout history people have been rounded up and then disappear, or where educators have been sent to the fields to labor, or where tanks run over dissenters, where people routinely starve to death, where forced abortions occur…you know…that China. This is the China that steals our secrets and pirates our intellectual property. The China that makes over 16,000 attempts each year to hack into our security systems. The China whose environmental record is a disgrace even to the most indifferent of environmentalists. The China which literally stuffs crates with small dogs then cruelly “skins them alive”. You know…Wal-Mart China.

So, tell me again why we are allowing this? Oh, that’s right…it’s the money “stupid”.
America is in the crosshairs of Red China and they are out maneuvering us by quantum leaps condoned by our pro-Communist administration. This is about the best shot that China has ever had to make their long-awaited goal come to fruition. Tell me, why would you invite a stated enemy into your home? Could this be treason?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

You know…I’ve rescued animals for decades now…and I’ve never known one to be cruel or neglectful towards humans no matter how poorly it had been treated or cared for. Never have I seen a cat leave a human to survive on its own dealing with parasites, disease, and never-ending pregnancies all while expected to provide for its own food and shelter.

Not one horse have I known expected a human to live in a small pen standing in their own filth year after year and with absolutely no shelter from the bitter cold and snow or blazing hot sun and inadequate food and water.

Having dealt with hundreds of dogs, not one of them chained a human up leaving them exposed to the elements with crappy food (have you checked what you’re feeding your dog…if it is loaded with corn and wheat, maybe you should feed it to a cow), and periodic water (yes, animals become dehydrated in cold weather as well as summer). Nor have I seen a dog chain a human and allow, as my cousin says, “any male who happens to wander by” to rape her.

Perhaps we should learn some lessons from the creatures over which we’ve been given dominion.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

There are fundamental principles upon which our republic was founded that are so critical that they are inviolate. Principles so primary, that the elimination or subordination of them diminishes and minimizes the nation, and even our community. Individual property rights are among those.

Our Declaration of Independence, which codified the Lockean Creed, declares, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Lockean Creed substitutes “pursuit of Happiness” with “property.” Ownership and control of private property are at the very core of these principles, without which people are not citizens, but are merely subjects of whatever government is in power over them.

The Idaho State Constitution in Article 1, Section 1 embodies this when it declares in Article I section I, “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are … acquiring, possessing and protecting property…”

In the context of the current debate over open spaces and completion of the Portneuf Greenway, that one line, “acquiring, possessing and protecting property” should discourage the city fathers from following the recommendations of special interest groups in the city from forcing greenway completion through the exercise of eminent domain. Especially when coupled with Idaho Code Title 7 chapter 7 section 701a which specifically prohibits the transfer of private property through eminent domain when it is used as a pretext to transfer that property to any private organization.

The ultimate determination in the issue should be the Idaho Constitution itself, which states in Article 1 Section 14, “RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The necessary use of lands for the construction of reservoirs or storage basins, for the purpose of irrigation, or for rights of way for the construction of canals, ditches, flumes or pipes, to convey water to the place of use for any useful, beneficial or necessary purpose, or for drainage; or for the drainage of mines, or the working thereof, by means of roads, railroads, tramways, cuts, tunnels, shafts, hoisting works, dumps, or other necessary means to their complete development, or any other use necessary to the complete development of the material resources of the state, or the preservation of the health of its inhabitants, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state. Private property may be taken for public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefor.”

There is no allowance within that article that can be construed to include completion of a bicycle and pedestrian path! The property owners along the Portneuf are fully supported by the Constitution to preserve and protect their private property rights. As a blogger on the Journal website recently stated, “A nature walk doesn’t trump private property rights.”

Ours is a country of laws, and the primary codex upon which those laws are founded are embodied in the Constitution. That document, along with the State Constitution, clearly explicates and delineates the minimal authority of a government, and whatever powers of government were not identified in the Constitution were reserved unto the states or the citizens collectively.

George Swenson’s letter to the editor earlier this week provided great insight into how these unconstitutional concepts can grow and trump fundamental principles of property ownership rights. Based on his experience in California, before “escaping” to Idaho, he “had direct experience with this concept. Yes, it starts out innocently enough, an advisory board to recommend purchases of small amounts of land for nice things, like bicycle trails, parks, and other wonderful and popularly supported uses of land.”

“But, by design and not by accident, the concept grows. Large tracts of land are bought to preserve, you guessed it, open space. The “advisory” board is given taxing authority, special assessment districts are contrived in a way to force homeowners to pay for more purchases, and soon the Open Space Authority (so much for advisory) has more land than can be maintained — so fences are put up and the public is kept out.”

He concluded his letter, “I would strongly urge the mayor and City Council of Pocatello to reject this cute little reptile before it grows into the monster it was bred to become.”

This is just one more example of government, at any level, overstepping their constitutional and legal bounds for the sake of a “good idea.” Is the greenway a good idea? Yes, of course, but good ideas don’t trump legality and fundamental constitutional principles. It’s imperative that all levels of government revert to doing what is lawful and principled and not acting simply on “good ideas.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

I read this week’s Jefferson Star article entitled “County investigation draws to a close”. I had to smile. Recently I received a letter from our County Clerk. Due to the investigation and the complaint in the petition that county residents were having a tough time getting information, a new policy was instituted promising a 3-day turn around for information requests.

When my letter arrived in response to my request for the costs related to my prosecution for “trespass by agency” (involving the Mud Lake dog with broken legs) that was dropped 6 months later after multiple hearings and motions and discovery expenses, I laughed out loud.

To cite the letter: “Sheriff’s Office: Did not track man hours used, therefore no way to calculate cost. Prosecutor’s Office: There are no recorded hours. Prosecutor is salaried. Court Clerks: Do not track hours per case, only all encompassed caseload numbers per year. Judges-paid by state.”

I must admit, the response was timely…72 hour turn around, as promised.

So, since the county is unwilling to come forward with any reasonable information, let me see if I can estimate an approximate figure. My attorney expenses were approximately $12,000 and I’m sure that Prosecutor Dunn who was inextricably involved considers his time equally important. The Deputy Prosecutor has indicated that she was the lead prosecutor in my case, so shall we say around $10,000 for her involvement? I have a “trial notebook” loaded with Motions that I’m sure encompassed many “man hours”. Let’s guess 25 hours at about $8 an hour…about $200. And the multiple 1 1/2 hour round trips that the deputies made from Rigby to Mud Lake….hmmm, I’m guessing the deputies’ pay equals a teacher’s salary. I’ll low ball it…$20 an hour at maybe ten trips. And then consider the gas/wear and tear/benefits and “opportunity lost” on time dealing with criminals and then there were the hours that were spent in court. I’m thinking it was around 6 court hours and we’ll say the judge makes $50 (I’m guessing here)…so that’s another $300 plus all the clerks and deputies present. So, I’m thinking that we’re looking at close to $20,0000-$25,000 total cost to Jefferson County taxpayers.

I am also thinking that we could have better used the time and monies elsewhere. What do you think?

Andi Elliott

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.