Letters to the Editor, March 29, 2012

Need to clear matter up

Dear Editor,
I’m trying to find an attorney that knows Washington State Constitutional Law as well as the permit system. I can’t find an attorney that knows anything about permits. Most lawyers avoid anything to do with permits because they are full of yes or no situations.
Seven years ago I couldn’t find a lawyer that acknowledged the Okanogan Planning Department. When I represented myself concerning a bridge and access to Highway 20 East, the judge said we will get to the permits later and forced me to break the laws that have been set forth in the planning department with WAC’s and RCW laws. I submitted letters from the DOT and the planning department that stated if any change is made to permit #4078 current standards must be met. I complied with the courts. I paid the planning department $700 for a bridge permit. The permit was not vested because I do not own the property.
I was found in contempt so the judge decided to sell my home so that I would pay for the damages I had caused. Please consider A: Current Standards. B: There is no way to improve the sight distance. C: Mandatory relocate. Selling my home does not change any of these things and why should I pay for the developers 60 homes? Access? Two sheriff’s sales later, the sales were canceled because my home is not worth enough money to sell. Had they sold my home they would not have been able to build their proposed road because of the permits.
I have suffered major damages because of the lack of integrity of the courts and negligence of the permitting systems. Because I sold the bridge site property in 1980 I need the property owners signature to change anything. Only the property owner can apply for the permits. The DOT could never even inspect the proposed road site. Rather then face lawsuits the DOT and the planning department dodge all responsibilities and blame the courts. So, the courts blame me.
In 1980 I was advised by an attorney to sell the bridge property. I would now be homeless had I not done so. These judges and lawyers all know how to use or not use the system. The planning department is set up to help property owners, but when court ordered it gets very expensive. $1,000 an hour to chat with the planning department and a couple of lawyers gets to be abusive. “Can I get you a cup of coffee?”, “Odd weather we’re having.”, “How are the kids doing?”
When the sheriff sold my home they sold stolen property. When they said my home was off my property they had no proof. I corrected that survey back in 1997. When Mr. Reinbold took me to court he used the same wrong legal description as the first lawsuit. I knew it was wrong, I told the judge it was wrong and that I pay the property taxes on my home and have for over 30 years.
If you think you know someone that might be able to help me please put us in contact. I need to clear this matter up before I die. I can’t pay for an attorney and my children can’t pay to correct the bogus lawsuits.
Roger Rylander

One man offers redemption

Dear Gary,
After reading the article on the killing of Frank Motta and then your editorial titled, “Is life really worth so little?” My question has been “is our culture honest enough to explorer the question you asked?” If we look at the number of people we have “legally” killed since 1973, and then examine how science uses fetal tissue in the production of everything from makeup to soft drinks…, it might be concluded that in the world of chemistry there is a fine line between fetal matter and fecal matter, from the stand point of our philosophy on life, as it relates to the possibility of discovering something that “may benefit” mankind.
We also now have a president who can boast of the ability to “push a button” on an American citizen, anywhere in the world, without due process, because of “alleged” terrorist ties. This same guy holds the view that if a baby survives a saline abortion, then that child should be left to die; he also has no problem with the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. These views are promoted as “rights” we bestow on ourselves. These views should place him at a disadvantage in a presidential debate. With this in mind, our culture went “viral” with the Project X party mentality you described long time ago. Today, it seems that the values of life, liberty, and property are held with increasing contempt by those who govern the nation, as well as those educated in its institutions in the last 30 years.
As our culture develops this growing hostility towards life, not only in the womb, but now toward the aged (as revealed in our new mandated government “health” care plan) can our American Idol, self-esteem inflating, Me mentality grapple with the question of the worth of a life, as we jettison the only reference point that gives us the right answer. The Bible speaks to us from an eternal perspective, not from what a man has, did, or was. Matthew 16:26 whispers the same question you asked, and then answers it by placing the value of man, on the soul given him by his Maker. Through Grace, one Man offered Redemption for that soul.
Steve Lorz

Not a ‘Catholic’ issue

Dear Editor,
Regarding your editorial on 3-22, I’m not aware of any politicians talking about whether someone should be taking birth control or not. There has been quite a bit of discussion though about the issue of the federal government forcing religious institutions to pay insurance companies to provide free birth control and sterilization for their employees.
Fertility is not a disease. It is a sign that a person’s body is healthy and working as it should. If a couple does not desire to conceive a child, then that is their own private business, not something their employer should be forced to subsidize. There are many people who because of health problems, cannot bear children. One might think that adoption would be covered under Obamacare before a requirement to make a person’s body work improperly through artificial contraception or sterilization would be required. At least the inability to have a child is actually related to healthcare when a person’s body is not functioning in a normal and healthy way. Yet, this HHS mandate attacks religious freedom at its core.
The Catholic Church believes contraception is a very serious and dangerous moral evil that because of its widespread use has added to the breakdown of the family and leads to a number of social ills such as divorce, domestic violence, abortion, child abuse, poverty, and rape. To force a religious institution to violate a fundamental belief in order to provide a way to artificially manipulate a person’s body to work improperly all in the name of healthcare, is beyond logic and reason. There are many people in this country who are very concerned for the inalienable right to conscience and religion. This HHS mandate is just the tip of the iceberg. If we ignore this very important violation of freedom of religion now, we may not have a chance to get it back.
This is not just a Catholic issue. This is an issue for all Americans who value liberty.
Christie Whiteaker