Cole Case, Merkley on Social Security and Taxes, Bentz Team for 2012

__

Cole Case
[Edited, 1/31/12]

I heard back in mid-2011 that Brian Cole, a former Baker Economic Development Director, consultant, former County Commissioner, and former Nazarene Sunday school teacher, was being fingerprinted to fulfill one step in getting his arrest record, as it relates to four counts of sex abuse in the Third Degree (Class A Misdemeanor), and one of Providing Liquor to a Person Under 21 (Class A Misdemeanor), set aside in this case, which began on Halloween evening, October 31, 2009. He plead guilty to one count of Providing Liquor to a Person Under 21 (Class A Misdemeanor) on December 15, 2010.

The motion to set aside the arrest on the other counts was filed by Baker City attorney Bob Moon on October 17, 2011. It has been slow to develop, but there is reason to believe that a hearing on the motion may be set in the not to distant future. Former Umatilla County Chief Deputy prosecutor Dan Wendel, now Assistant Oregon Attorney General, is representing the state as a Special Deputy District Attorney for Baker County.

Interestingly, many of the principles in this case have worked in Umatilla County. Cole did development consulting there, Judge Garry Reynolds served there, and Wendel was a prosecutor there.

They say that after a year or so, people's memories begin to fade, certainly mine, so here are the links to my more informative posts on the subject, with the December 1, 2010 post being perhaps the most important (read down below the first two photos of County Courthouse damage issues in that post):

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009
Halloween Happenings: Brian Cole Cited for Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010
Cole Case & Baker County Birds

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2010
Cole Case: Is Justice Delayed, Justice Denied?

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010
Cole Case: Justice Delayed IS Justice Denied: Reynolds Dismisses Sex Abuse Charges Against Cole.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010
Cole Case (18 months probation) & County Court House Damage [Cole was actually given 1 year bench probation]

So now, over a year after now retired Judge Garry Reynolds issued his, in my opinion, infamous decisions in the case, we have Brian Cole and his attorney returning to court to have Cole's arrest record on the dismissed charges "set aside."

I'm no lawyer (who knew!), but ORS § 137.225, Order setting aside conviction or record of arrest allows :

- "the victim to make a statement at the hearing."
- "the court shall issue an order sealing the record of conviction and other official records in the case, including the records of arrest whether or not the arrest resulted in a further criminal proceeding."
- "Upon entry of the order, the conviction, arrest or other proceeding shall be deemed not to have occurred, and the applicant may answer accordingly any questions relating to its occurrence."

Also, under ORS § 181.548 Confidentiality of some records:

- Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) to 192.505 (Exempt and nonexempt public record to be separated) relating to public records the fingerprints, photographs, records and reports compiled under ORS 137.225 (Order setting aside conviction or record of arrest), 181.010 (Definitions for ORS 181.010 to 181.560 and 181.715 to 181.730), 181.511 (Fingerprints, identifying data, disposition report required upon arrest), 181.521 (Transmittal of disposition report), 181.555 (Establishment of procedures for access to criminal record information), 805.060 (Law enforcement undercover vehicles) and this section are confidential and exempt from public inspection except: . . . .
So, despite the evidence produced in this case, if this motion is granted, the public record of what transpired, suppressed as it was by judge Garry Reynolds, and the arrest record for all but one charge, may disappear from the government record, and the "arrest or other proceeding shall be deemed not to have occurred, and the applicant may answer accordingly any questions relating to its occurrence."
__

A Note from Senator Jeff Merkley on Social Security, Taxes, the Afghan War, and the Defense Budget

Tomorrow’s a special day. 72 years ago, Ida May Fuller was the nation's first recipient of a Social Security check.

Also, tomorrow, Republicans in Florida will vote in the GOP presidential primary. But, unfortunately for seniors in Florida and across the country, the candidates are humming an all-too-familiar tune.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have pushed to privatize Social Security.

Surprised? I’m not. For years, Republican leaders have been saying that “reforming” Social Security is critical if we’re going to get our nation’s deficit and debt under control.

Here’s the truth: Social Security is fully solvent, and will be through 2038. So why all the bluster? It’s a giveaway to Wall Street, plain and simple.

Republicans like Romney and Gingrich claim that breaking our promise to seniors will reduce the debt. But I have a few other ideas that are more fair and make more sense:
- End the Bush Administration’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
- End tax subsidies to big oil companies.
- End the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home.
- Reform our outdated tax code that lets ultra-wealthy individuals (like Romney) pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
- Trim our nation’s bloated defense budget by cutting out unnecessary, sweetheart projects that the Pentagon doesn’t even want.

Starting with Ida May Fuller in 1940, our nation has a proud history of rewarding a lifetime of hard work with the promise of financial security in one’s golden years. It’s been the most effective anti-poverty program in the history of the world.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Would you join me on Facebook and tell me: How is Social Security important to you and your family? Let’s have a conversation about our nation’s priorities.

All my best,

Jeff

__

Representative Bentz's Team for 2012

Bentz Assembles Ace Team for 2012 Session
SALEM--Representative Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario) has assembled an excellent staff for the 2012 Legislative Session, which convenes Wednesday, February 1.

Andrea Goodwin, originally from Claremore, Oklahoma, will join Rep. Bentz as Legislative Director. She holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of Tulsa--College of Law, and a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Science from the University of Kansas. Ms. Goodwin has previously worked as a Legal Intern for the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, sat on the Executive Board for the Energy Law Journal, and served as the Student Editor-In-Chief for the American Bar Association's Year in Review: Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources publication.

Ms. Goodwin will be a full-time employee. One half of her salary will be paid from Rep. Bentz's campaign account (money donated by supporters of Rep. Bentz), and one half will be paid by the state. Ms. Goodwin will focus on legislative analysis, hearings, policy issues, and strategy.

Cheryl Williams of Dallas, Oregon, will manage the Salem Capitol office as Receptionist/Scheduler. Mrs. Williams holds a Bachelor's degree in Office Administration from Eastern Washington State University. She most recently worked as an Administrative Assistant for Home Aid Northern Virginia and the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association before retiring in 2008.

Although Mrs. Williams will be a full-time employee, all of her salary will be paid from campaign contributions received by Rep. Bentz. She will schedule meetings, email correspondence, and help manage mail and paper flow.

Andrea Dominguez, of Ontario, Oregon, will act as Rep. Bentz's Chief of Staff for the 2012 Session, and will continue to manage the day-to-day operations at the district office in Ontario. She has been a member of Rep. Bentz's staff since August 2009. Mrs. Dominguez holds a Bachelor's degree in Media Arts with a concentration in Journalism from Eastern Oregon University and an Associates' degree from Treasure Valley Community College.

Mrs. Dominguez is a full-time employee. Her entire salary is paid for by the state. She will continue to work on research projects, constituent concerns, and Eastern Oregon issues.

William Newell, a junior at Willamette University originally from Newton, Kansas, will join Rep. Bentz's staff as a volunteer Legislative Intern. He has previously worked for Rep. Vicki (R-Salem) Berger writing and researching legislation, and is currently attending Willamette University on an academic and debate scholarship.

Andres Oswill, a native of Pleasanton, California, and a freshman at Willamette University, will also be joining the Bentz staff as a volunteer Legislative Intern. He is a founding member of the Willamette College Republicans, and wrote Congressional panel simulations and case law for the "We the People-Unit 6" organization in California.

Mr. Newell and Mr. Oswill will both focus on bill research, policy analysis, the legislative process, and committee research.

Each legislator is allocated funds for 1.5 FTE positions during the one month Session. As indicated, Rep. Bentz will use contributions made to his re-election campaign to pay for additional staffing.

Rep. Bentz said, "Having these great employees working in both Eastern Oregon and Salem will provide District 60 with a significant advantage in the legislative arena. Not only will we be able to research and develop informed positions on issues during the 2012 Legislative Session. We will be able to get a head start on the 2013 Legislative Session. I truly appreciate the fact that money contributed to my campaign account can be used to better serve the constituents in my District and Eastern Oregon."

"I welcome you to stop by my offices in Salem or Ontario during the Session to say hello and witness our legislative team in action."

258 S. Oregon St., P.O. Box 1027, Ontario, OR 97914
900 Court St. NE, H-475, Salem, OR 97301
rep.cliffbentz@state.or.us

__

Representative Bentz Responds on Local Stimulus Jobs

In the Sunday, November 1st blog http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/obama-stimulus-and-anybody-seen-rep.html, I posted a letter to Representative Cliff Bentz that outlined the concerns of a friend in the neighborhood (as well as some my own observations) concerning local stimulus jobs going to people who didn't live in Baker County or even in adjoining counties. The briefest drift of the issues raised was "We thought the stimulus money was supposed to help stimulate the economy and put people to work in the areas where the projects were taking place--not people from cities several hundred miles away or people in neighboring states. To the best of our knowledge, the people just referenced don't shop much in Baker County.

Do you think these projects should be putting more local people to work? Would it be possible for your staff to look into this?"

Mr. Bentz has responded, and he is in fact looking into the matter to see if he can get some changes made. He asks that if people have other examples that they get those concerns to him soon. You can send them to Representative Bentz at the address and e-mail at the bottom of his letter, or you may e-mail them to me at refugee2000@gmail.com, or phone 541-523-2376.

Here is his response:

Dear Mr. Christie,

I raised the issue of ODOT's contracting and hiring practices with ODOT Director Matt Garrett yesterday during my radio show here in Ontario. He was my guest. He indicated that ODOT was making an effort to "unbundle" the project so that local contractors would be hired. I also asked him if ODOT was aware of the approach Idaho and Washington were using (in other words, are Idaho and Washington discriminating against Oregon contractors). He indicated he had heard nothing like this. I have, and I will be following up with him in this regard also.

I have also spoken with the local ODOT personnel regarding the hiring of more local people.

I will be traveling to Salem for the Legislative Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009. I will raise the issues that you have shared with me once again at that meeting.

If you have any other suggestions (or examples that I could share) could you please get them to me sometime next week so that I can use them in my conversations with ODOT.

Thank you very much for your help.


Very Truly Yours,

Representative Cliff Bentz
District 60

Eastern Oregon Office:
258 S. Oregon St., Ontario, OR 97914
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1027, Ontario, OR 97914
Phone/Fax:
541-889-8866
E-mail:
rep.cliffbentz@state.or.us
________________________

Obama, Stimulus, and Anybody Seen Rep. Bentz?

As part of my continuing effort to provide cognitive therapy for struggling Obamakins, I'm posting the following segment from Saturday Night Live. Some will have already seen this as I am not one to keep up with what's playing in the boob-tube waste land, but it might be worth a second look.



Change We Can Believe In: Nothing!
______________________________

Obama Stimulus: How Many Dollars per Job Saved/Created????

Link on stimulus job creation in Baker County:

http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/pages/home.aspx?ZipCode=97814&datasource=recipient

Ah ha, $4,279,471 spent for 19.37 jobs. Hmmmm--That's $220,933 per job. Oh well, at least there is a new sidewalk in front of Commissioner Warner's place on Main Street at "D" and Main.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis calculates "Obama creates 640,329 jobs at a cost of $323,739.83 per job" for the entire stimulus thus far. See http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-creates-640329-jobs-at-cost-of.html
__________________________

Has Anyone Seen Representative Bentz?

A month ago I sent the following e-mail to our state Representative Bentz:

from Christopher Christie
to Rep Bentz
date Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM
subject Stimulus not putting locals to work?
mailed-by gmail.com Oct 2
October 2, 2009

Dear Representative Bentz:

I am taking time to write you this letter on behalf of a friend in my neighborhood, and other qualified workers here in Baker County, who are struggling to make ends meet.

It was our understanding the the federal stimulus projects were meant, in part at least, to stimulate the local economies, and to put people to work in the local areas where the projects took place. While our "D" St. and Birch Street projects have helped one of our local crushed rock producers, as well as a local campground, and probably a bar or two, my friend tells me that probably 85 to 95% of the on-the-ground Knife River workers here in town and on the I-84 project are their own people from Bend. He told me that he had referred several qualified young people to them for the work, but none of them were hired. I myself have driven the by the local projects to witness several spanish speakers. To the best of my knowledge they are not local people. He also says many of the truckers working on the freeway projects are from Idaho, even though there are local truckers available and willing to do the work. He says he knows this because he was working as a trucker on one of the projects and was placed well back in line behind Idaho truckers. This meant that he was unable to work many days when they only needed 20 trucks instead of, say, 40.

When he called the State to see if they could do something to get more local people working on these stimulus projects, they essentially told him that there was nothing they could do about it.

Is that right? We thought the stimulus money was supposed to help stimulate the economy and put people to work in the areas where the projects were taking place--not people from cities several hundred miles away or people in neighboring states. To the best of our knowledge, the people just referenced don't shop much in Baker County.

Do you think these projects should be putting more local people to work? Would it be possible for your staff to look into this?

Thank you for any help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher Christie

No reply a month later, will keep you posted.
_______________________

Obama Goes Wobbly Over More Stimulus

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23852.htm

By Mike Whitney

November 01, 2009 "Information Clearing House' -- The recession is over. Yesterday's report from the Commerce Dept. confirmed that the economy expanded in the third quarter by 3.5 percent, better than most economists estimates. GDP had contracted in the four previous quarters in the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression. Massive government stimulus, cash for clunkers, and inventory restocking accounted for most of the surge in economic activity. Consumer spending grew at 2.36 percent while consumer credit continued to contract at a near-record pace of 4.5 percent. Unemployment swelled to 9.8 percent, "with nearly nearly 26 million workers—17 percent of the workforce—unemployed or underemployed," according to economist Mark Zandi. The economy remains extremely weak and is expected to lapse back into recession if the Obama administration fails to provide a second-round of stimulus.

But President Barack Obama hasn't requested more stimulus and recent polls indicate that a majority of people are against more deficit spending. The administration has done a poor job of explaining the advantages of reducing the output-gap or--for that matter--the overall objectives of Obama's economic recovery plan. Many people heap the bank bailouts (TARP) with the fiscal stimulus. This is a mistake that's easy to make. But the point needs to be clarified so more people don't needlessly suffer. It's up to Obama to articulate the differences in policy so the country can muddle through the tough days ahead. The problem is, Obama is afraid to use his skills as a communicator, because he thinks his message will offend financial industry constituents who wield tremendous power at the White House and on Capital Hill. The bankers and brokerage mandarins are more than happy with the present arrangement, which means that the conveyor-belt connecting the US Treasury to Wall Street will continue to operate at full-throttle diverting ungodly sums of money to broken banks and financial institutions rather than for unemployment benefits, work programs, and state aid.

Obama supporters who think that the president is right to treat the banks with kid gloves, should consider how Franklin Roosevelt dealt with the same situation 70 years ago. His first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, sums it up pretty well:

"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men....Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish." (Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933)

Or, this from FDR:

“Appraising the situation in the bitter dawn of a cold morning after, what do we find? We find two-thirds of American industry concentrated in a few hundred corporations…We find more than half of the savings of the country invested in corporate stocks and bonds, and made the sport of the American stock market. We find fewer than three dozen private banking houses, and stock-selling adjuncts of commercial banks, directing the flow of American capital. In other words, we find concentrated economic power in a few hands…We find a great part of our working population with no chance of earning a living except by grace of this concentrated industrial machine; and we find that millions and millions of Americans are out of work, throwing upon the already burdened Government the necessity of relief…We find the Republican leaders proposing no solution except more debts, more conferences under the same bewildered leadership, more Government money in business but no Government attempt to wrestle with basic problems…I believe that our industrial and economic system is made for individual men and women, and not individual men and women for the benefit of the system.” (Thanks to counterpunch contributor Pam Marten for FDR quote http://www.counterpunch.org/martens10312008.html)

Clearly, FDR understood the type of people he was dealing with.

Obama needs to stop pussyfooting and toughen-up. This isn't the time for grandiloquent oratory or Utopian claptrap. People have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings. The shelters are bulging, the food banks are maxed out, and the unemployment lines are stretched from one coast to the other. Here's a clip from the New York Times making the case for more stimulus:

"The economy is going to need more government support, or it is bound to be very weak for a very long time — and vulnerable to a relapse into recession. Unemployment is expected to worsen well into next year, exceeding 10 percent. Foreclosures are expected to rise, which will push home values down further. Hundreds of small and midsize banks are likely to fail in coming years. State and local governments face budget shortfalls in 2010 that are as bad or worse than this year’s.

Yet Washington is not providing a coherent plan for effective stimulus. The Senate has been hamstrung for nearly a month over the most basic relief-and-recovery boost: an extension of unemployment benefits. ... Lawmakers in both parties fret that large budget deficits preclude more stimulus, lest the burden of debt outweigh the benefit of deficit spending. ... Deficits are a serious issue, but the immediate need for stimulus trumps the longer-term need for deficit reduction. A self-reinforcing stretch of economic weakness would be far costlier than additional stimulus." ("The Case for more Stimulus", New York Times editorial)

Sure, the public is worried about the ballooning deficits; they should be. But that shouldn't stop Obama from doing the right thing and making the case for another round of stimulus. His job is to strengthen demand and put the country back to work. The rest is just politics.