Sound Off! (June 10)

There are 38 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Jun 10, 2011, titled Sound Off! (June 10). In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

The county Democratic chair doesn't understand why Judge Schultz didn't come forward until Martinez was elected.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Martin

Las Cruces, NM

#24 Jun 10, 2011
Sarcastic Bombastic wrote:
<quoted text>
You stand corrected: The woman was put in jail for failing to respond to previous court summons (plural) which stemmed from failure to maintain her yard and/or ensuring that a "maintenance company" was doing so.
Then you will stand corrected again: It isn't the "codes people" who say as you claim. Codes enforcement are hired & trained to uphold the municipal statutes/codes by enforcing them & ensuring that all violators will comply with the laws. The "codes people" didn't just decide on a whim what is to be addressed. There are existing city & county statutes, and some of them were put into place by the city council and/or county commission. Codes enforcement officers just get the bad rap, just as LCPD and DASO for enforcing the laws of the land.
I don't believe you are 100% correct... I don't remember reading in the article that the woman had been "served" with a summons; only that she had been "cited", with the citations being mailed to her and claims that her mail was not being forwarded to he temporary out-of-town address.(I wish the original article was still available for free reading...)

So, if one does not respond to citations, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail, for weeds, is it justifiable to arrest them and book them into jail? I think not; particularly considering the reputation of the postal service in Las Cruces. More fundamentally, is this an infraction of such magnitude justifying a judge to issue a bench warrant for arrest when the claimants (Codes Enforcement) can't prove that a citation has been personally received by the party being cited.

Before you jump to conclusions - please stop and think about this for a while. Your very own civil liberties may be at stake.
Spell It Out for Me

Las Cruces, NM

#25 Jun 10, 2011
wassup wrote:
Sound Off!: "Here it is June 6, D-Day, and the Sun-News seems to have forgotten about the anniversary of that horrific day."
Horrific? More like heroic! It led to the winning of the war in Europe.
Heroic? Definitely. Horrific? Ditto. There are no firm numbers, but estimated D Day casulties (both sides) are probably somewhere between the population of Deming and Gallup. That is pretty horrific, especially when you consider that the players are all now US allies.
DesertPaine

Albuquerque, NM

#27 Jun 10, 2011
Sarcastic Bombastic wrote:
<quoted text>
You stand corrected: The woman was put in jail for failing to respond to previous court summons (plural) which stemmed from failure to maintain her yard and/or ensuring that a "maintenance company" was doing so.
Then you will stand corrected again: It isn't the "codes people" who say as you claim. Codes enforcement are hired & trained to uphold the municipal statutes/codes by enforcing them & ensuring that all violators will comply with the laws. The "codes people" didn't just decide on a whim what is to be addressed. There are existing city & county statutes, and some of them were put into place by the city council and/or county commission. Codes enforcement officers just get the bad rap, just as LCPD and DASO for enforcing the laws of the land.
Codes enforcement do uphold muni codes. There is no such thing as a municipal statute. Codes people cannot ensure that violators comply with laws. They are not law enforcement officers. Codes are not laws. For that matter, statutes are not laws. Laws are laws. Statutes are codifications of law duly enacted by the legislature -- the only body in New Mexico with power to pass laws applicable to the general public.
Highly doubtful that any LCPD or DASO officer has ever seen the law of the land that they enforce. They are thoroughly and pretty expertly versed in statute and code however.
Change

Farmington, NM

#28 Jun 10, 2011
Interesting column by Pat Buchanan. For all the whining by Obama about following Bush, I pity the poor soul who will inherit the Obama economy and other problems:

How did the richest and strongest country in history, triumphant in World War II and the Cold War, approach so soon the condition of the late Spanish and British empires as they began their precipitous declines?

Answer: We overextended ourselves. We bankrupted ourselves.

We undertook the defense of nations all over the world having little to do with our vital national interests. We fought unnecessary wars. We doled out trillions in foreign aid to ingrates, incompetents, opportunists and thieves.

We promised all our seniors Social Security and subsidized medical care for the rest of their lives and failed to put the money away to pay for it. We dropped half of U.S. wage earners off the tax rolls while creating a mammoth welfare state to dwarf anything Norman Thomas and his Socialists dreamed of in the 1930s.

Not only for the United States but also for the West, the days of wine and roses are over.
Spell It Out for Me

Las Cruces, NM

#29 Jun 10, 2011
Change wrote:
Interesting column by Pat Buchanan. For all the whining by Obama about following Bush, I pity the poor soul who will inherit the Obama economy and other problems:
How did the richest and strongest country in history, triumphant in World War II and the Cold War, approach so soon the condition of the late Spanish and British empires as they began their precipitous declines?
For one, a lot of people got very greedy. As to where we go from here, I still have a lot of faith in the american people, their ingenuity and strength. The world has changed, but I would not count out the USA just yet.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30 Jun 10, 2011
"How did the richest and strongest country in history, triumphant in World War II and the Cold War, approach so soon the condition of the late Spanish and British empires as they began their precipitous declines?"

Just a few causes:

Forgot about Ike's warnings about feeding the defense industry.

Bought into the conservative crap about tax cuts for the wealthy and believed that labor is 'just a commodity' like corn and beans.

Loss of the fairness doctrine that allowed for the Birchers to fund the right-wing hate machine.

So-call Christians joined forces with the Birchers and oligarchs. Racism and bigotry causes a lot of irrational behavior.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#31 Jun 10, 2011
"Interesting column by Pat Buchanan." One of the original highly effective homophobic racist and bigoted fundamentalist.

Right there at the beginning.

And that homophobic racist and bigoted fundamentalist is a paid 'consultant' for what is suppose to be the 'liberal' media!
OrvilleWyatt

Santa Fe, NM

#32 Jun 10, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
"Forgot about Ike's warnings about feeding the defense industry.
Jebus - so when YOUR stupid team buys bullets to give to the NATO child-maiming missions, they're made where ... Whole Foods?

R = D

A D-president nuked Japan. A D-president f'ed up relations with the good neighbor Cuba could have been, a D president is supporting the Euro-rot nations stockpiling orphans in Lybia and Yemen TODAY.

That monster Ike talked about funds your stupid puppets too.

Warmonger.

“Your DQCC Limit is Maxed!”

Since: Sep 08

In Utero (originally)

#34 Jun 10, 2011
Martin wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe you are 100% correct... I don't remember reading in the article that the woman had been "served" with a summons; only that she had been "cited", with the citations being mailed to her and claims that her mail was not being forwarded to he temporary out-of-town address.(I wish the original article was still available for free reading...)
So, if one does not respond to citations, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail, for weeds, is it justifiable to arrest them and book them into jail? I think not; particularly considering the reputation of the postal service in Las Cruces. More fundamentally, is this an infraction of such magnitude justifying a judge to issue a bench warrant for arrest when the claimants (Codes Enforcement) can't prove that a citation has been personally received by the party being cited.
Before you jump to conclusions - please stop and think about this for a while. Your very own civil liberties may be at stake.
Having read the article back in early May (??) it clearly stated at the onset of the article that she was jailed for failing to respond to court summons. If you have issue with that take it up with the journalist. If you want to debate that issue, by all means, I'm certain someone on that forum will oblige you.

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/las-cruces-...

Had I been inclined to debate the issue, I would have participated on that forum but a few people made comments that best reflect my sentiments. These being among a few of the several that reflected my sentiments as I can relate...

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/las-cruces-...

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/las-cruces-...

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/las-cruces-...

Just quickly reviewing that forum, I can't help but notice you sound just like "Dagobert II". If you're name is Martin & if per chance you're a local atty, you might just be my cousin. ;-)~Red

“Your DQCC Limit is Maxed!”

Since: Sep 08

In Utero (originally)

#36 Jun 10, 2011
DesertPaine wrote:
<quoted text>
Codes enforcement do uphold muni codes. There is no such thing as a municipal statute. Codes people cannot ensure that violators comply with laws. They are not law enforcement officers. Codes are not laws. For that matter, statutes are not laws. Laws are laws. Statutes are codifications of law duly enacted by the legislature -- the only body in New Mexico with power to pass laws applicable to the general public.
Highly doubtful that any LCPD or DASO officer has ever seen the law of the land that they enforce. They are thoroughly and pretty expertly versed in statute and code however.
I'm well aware of what their duties/job descriptions are as they pertain to coded enforcement officers and to LCPD/DASO officers. I also recall from previous exchanges quite sometime back that you're not much of a fan of LCPD/DASO. Furthermore, I opted not to use legal jargon for a reason...to many people already misconstrue my statements either because of a comprehension issue or because they just choose to distort what I was saying, so I opted to keep things simple. In doing so, I'm sure you noticed my use of a / between certain words, as based on reading the forum to which LCPD & DASO Codes Enforcement Officers were coming under scrutiny, people were using all the words interchangeably. I was trying to avoid them opting to address me regarding my word(s) of choice. Being that you did, I'll just state that I'm quite familiar with the differences in the legal arena; however, even WEBSTER's dictionary would beg to differ with your distinctions regarding the terms code, statute, and law.

Definition of CODE
1
: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2
: a system of principles or rules <moral code>

Definition of STATUTE (noting #1)
1
: a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
2
: an act of a corporation or of its founder intended as a permanent rule
3
: an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority

Definition of LAW
1
a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3): the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : control, authority
2
a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : pentateuch, torah see bible table
3
: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4
: the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5
a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence c : legal knowledge
6
a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

Hence, now I'm certain you'll understand why I opted to use the slash to accommodate those who use the terms loosely. Furthermore, I'm sure in reading the definitions...you will spot your own errors within your comment above.

Lastly as for this, "Codes people cannot ensure that violators comply with laws. They are not law enforcement officers...", your spin on what I said are two totally different things. "Codes enforcement are hired & trained to uphold the municipal statutes/codes by enforcing them & ensuring that all violators will comply with the laws." You're trying to insinuate that I'm suggesting that LEOs & Codes are equivalent, and I didn't state that. The spin is amusing.
DesertPaine

Albuquerque, NM

#37 Jun 10, 2011
Sarcastic Bombastic wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm well aware of what their duties/job descriptions are as they pertain to coded enforcement officers and to LCPD/DASO officers. I also recall from previous exchanges quite sometime back that you're not much of a fan of LCPD/DASO. Furthermore, I opted not to use legal jargon for a reason...to many people already misconstrue my statements either because of a comprehension issue or because they just choose to distort what I was saying, so I opted to keep things simple. In doing so, I'm sure you noticed my use of a / between certain words, as based on reading the forum to which LCPD & DASO Codes Enforcement Officers were coming under scrutiny, people were using all the words interchangeably. I was trying to avoid them opting to address me regarding my word(s) of choice. Being that you did, I'll just state that I'm quite familiar with the differences in the legal arena; however, even WEBSTER's dictionary would beg to differ with your distinctions regarding the terms code, statute, and law.
Definition of CODE
1
: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2
: a system of principles or rules <moral code>
Definition of STATUTE (noting #1)
1
: a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
2
: an act of a corporation or of its founder intended as a permanent rule
3
: an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority
Definition of LAW
1
a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3): the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : control, authority
2
a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : pentateuch, torah see bible table
3
: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4
: the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5
a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence c : legal knowledge
6
a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
Hence, now I'm certain you'll understand why I opted to use the slash to accommodate those who use the terms loosely. Furthermore, I'm sure in reading the definitions...you will spot your own errors within your comment above.
Lastly as for this, "Codes people cannot ensure that violators comply with laws. They are not law enforcement officers...", your spin on what I said are two totally different things. "Codes enforcement are hired & trained to uphold the municipal statutes/codes by enforcing them & ensuring that all violators will comply with the laws." You're trying to insinuate that I'm suggesting that LEOs & Codes are equivalent, and I didn't state that. The spin is amusing.
Your point about your objective with the writer is well taken, and I agree with you. In the context of being a corrective, it seemed that a bit more clarity was in order. Because while you are pretty well versed in these matters, people who read you aren't always so.

Webster's for legal citation? That's a tough one, even for an informal forum.

I've tried to understand your point regarding Codes ensuring that violators will comply with the laws. Your words and your point seemed pretty clear and still do.

Thanks for your time.

“Your DQCC Limit is Maxed!”

Since: Sep 08

In Utero (originally)

#38 Jun 10, 2011
DesertPaine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point about your objective with the writer is well taken, and I agree with you. In the context of being a corrective, it seemed that a bit more clarity was in order. Because while you are pretty well versed in these matters, people who read you aren't always so.
Webster's for legal citation? That's a tough one, even for an informal forum.
I've tried to understand your point regarding Codes ensuring that violators will comply with the laws. Your words and your point seemed pretty clear and still do.
Thanks for your time.
No, I don't use Webster's for legal citation. ;-) However, the point was that others resort to Webster's for definitions that aren't educated, versed, employed, or familiar with the legal arena and the definitions that apply within that arena. Furthermore, even by the most basic of standards (if you choose to consider Webster's something to poo poo about), it still knocked some of your brief remarks topsy-turvy.

I don't see anything difficult to comprehend what the mission of a Codes Officer and how they go about "enforcing" or "ensuring" people are compliant. They are required to play by the rules of the system and performing their duties, just as those violating codes, which is ultimately how the violators wind up in court.

If you have a need to try and cast a shadow of "ignorance" upon me, I can assure you...you won't succeed. You might find a new target. ;-)

“Your DQCC Limit is Maxed!”

Since: Sep 08

In Utero (originally)

#39 Jun 10, 2011
I did vote your comment funny, Desert Paine, as I did find it amusing again.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#40 Jun 10, 2011
What the heck SB? Did you declare war on the Sun News that all your comments are being removed? Is it no longer accepted to criticize the LCSN?

I'm figuring that #10 was yours because I saw this on #15.
Sarcastic Bombastic wrote:
This comment which made it into the hard copy edition as well the online edition just confirms my statement about LCSN Editors & Topix Administrators hypocrisy in what was conveyed to me by a LCSN Topix administrator via email. He/she claimed that the LCSN forums have become more bickering and insults; yet, they are responsible for selecting what is posted in the hard copy & online editions.
Hypocrisy at it's finest LCSN. Read the letters to the editor forum from today, as I left you a message there too highlighting your mind boggling hypocrisy and inconsistency.
What was so bad about this that it needed to be removed. You weren't saying anything opposing Jim Harbison. The Sound Off Caller was not you, but they printed his comment.
Notsofast

United States

#41 Jun 10, 2011
OrvilleWyatt wrote:
Home prices are substantially below 2002 prices.
Adjust for inflation - and I mean actual value of those pieces of paper, not Big Brother's BS reported inflation number
"Big Brother has increase the chocolate ration to 30g ... "
(If you don't get that reference, you're illiterate to participate in either side of ANY discussions about government size or intrusion into your life, go read)
Orville, been saving this for you. A little more insight to the import of the book 1984.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1...

Since: Jun 10

Las Cruces

#42 Jun 11, 2011
Sarcastic Bombastic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't use Webster's for legal citation. ;-) However, the point was that others resort to Webster's for definitions that aren't educated, versed, employed, or familiar with the legal arena and the definitions that apply within that arena. Furthermore, even by the most basic of standards (if you choose to consider Webster's something to poo poo about), it still knocked some of your brief remarks topsy-turvy.
I don't see anything difficult to comprehend what the mission of a Codes Officer and how they go about "enforcing" or "ensuring" people are compliant. They are required to play by the rules of the system and performing their duties, just as those violating codes, which is ultimately how the violators wind up in court.
If you have a need to try and cast a shadow of "ignorance" upon me, I can assure you...you won't succeed. You might find a new target. ;-)
Your Webster's cites equate code with law. You yourself acknowledged the distinction. You are right; people unfamiliar with law will reasonably go to Webster's. In doing so, they will come away with the idea that the two are the same. If they were, then in this state only the legislature could write code.

You originally stated that Codes ensures compliance with the law. Now you adjust your observation to correctly note that they ensure people are compliant with code. That was my point in the first place. I'm glad we agree on this.

You are not ignorant. Quite the opposite. I, and others, have no desire to cast you as ignorant or anything else. I've got better things to do with life than embarrass people in public with the kinds of comments that routinely populate this forum. But I DO have time to learn from the expertise of others and what you have to offer is often worth that while. Unfortunately, as others note, you have long since grown exceedingly bitter and defensive, making the furthering of the often valuable ideas, observations and experience you have an unproductive exercise. When you teach, people who listen often benefit. When you can learn, you see it as some sort of personal weakness, or a conspiratorial plot whose only purpose is to 'get' back at you vindictively.

I have never once been disrespectful to you. I do not offer the kinds of unfounded suspicions and pithy comments that you give to people and receive from people. We're all in this thing together, supposedly making for a better community fibre. Defensive battle and smack-downs are not the way to achieve this.

Have a great weekend, SB.
In a Haze

Albuquerque, NM

#46 Jun 12, 2011
Catwoman wrote:
It's too bad that people have to get on here and not talk about the issues, but instead go on and on ranting about what comments were removed, etc. Sad indeed. What's more pathetic are certain people that make comments on any and every subject under the sun as if they're experts in every field out there, and then they go around and rate their own comments as "brilliant" and "agree" to try to convince everyone else they're intelligent. Whatever happened to just stating your opinion about something, then shutting up?
Be nicer to those English majors.
Enough Already

Las Cruces, NM

#49 Jun 12, 2011
Catwoman wrote:
It's too bad that people have to get on here and not talk about the issues, but instead go on and on ranting about what comments were removed, etc. Sad indeed. What's more pathetic are certain people that make comments on any and every subject under the sun as if they're experts in every field out there, and then they go around and rate their own comments as "brilliant" and "agree" to try to convince everyone else they're intelligent. Whatever happened to just stating your opinion about something, then shutting up?
Some of you people are so transparent and many of us are sick of your childish antics. Actually that is an insult to children. Some of you are very troubled and can't control your 'vindictive' behavior. That's exactly what it amounts to. Instead of becoming part of the nonsense, it's just easier to vote a comment favorable or unfavorable because we're sick of you people taking over the forums. To come here and say it is the person or persons speaking out against censorship is downright stupidity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mesilla Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 2 hr Jerry L 6,394
affrique (May '12) May 24 gab 230
News The devil is in the application (Apr '09) May 21 Yin Simons 5
News Fred Brito fired again for using a false name (Mar '07) May 21 jacobcasselberry 23
News Las Cruces man charged for biting girlfriend, h... (Mar '11) May 18 juanita 54
News Las Cruces robbery suspected located, charged May 15 King Joe Zarate 2
Gang problems in Las Cruces (Sep '07) May 15 Poser Buster 194
More from around the web

Mesilla People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]