Jan. 30 Letters to the Editor | RecordCourier.com

Jan. 30 Letters to the Editor

Binoculars and tripods were the tools of the day during Saturday's Eagles and Agriculture tours. It didn't hurt that it was sunny with a high around 60 degrees.
Kurt Hildebrand

Please fix bingo rules

Editor:

Are Nevada legislators and Gaming Control Board members aware of the hardships they have placed on the fund raising of charitable organizations throughout the state by passing Assembly Bill 117 and the establishment of new rules within Gaming Commission Rule 4A? Many charitable fund raising groups were forced to cancel charitable lottery/raffle and charitable gaming fund raising for January. This was due to the lack of notification by the Gaming Commission to the charitable fund raising community that the rules had changed as of October. Charitable fund raising groups were notified only after having their annual application requesting permission to continue their charitable lottery/raffle and charitable gaming for 2020 being rejected by the Gaming Commission or being informed by other charitable organizations that there were new rules in effect.

Not all charitable organizations can meet the requirements of being a “qualified organization,” as many are not non-profit 501c3 organizations and/or do not have tax exempt status as provided by the Nevada Department of Taxation. Changing the fee from $5 for annual permission for charitable games to the newly established fee of $25 per event is exorbitant and will majorly impact the amount of funds available to Charitable organizations providing funding to their community and citizens, not to mention the Gaming Commission’s added burden of countless costly staff hours of processing these innumerable and constantly reoccurring applications.

For example, the Young at Heart Senior Citizens Club, Inc., of Douglas County has had charitable lottery/raffle and charitable gaming for many years providing funding for the Douglas County Community & Senior Center and the senior citizens of Douglas County.

Richard Towner

Young at Heart

What’s best for all

Editor:

This is not a letter to the editor but a letter to the citizens of Douglas County.

There are many issues before the commissioners and all others this year within this county including growth, traffic, infrastructure, family support, housing (new areas and old), rents, land swaps, costs to upgrade sewage (septics included), water and first responder services, refuse pick up, NDOT, the roundabouts, (and who knows how to use them correctly), re-elections, community overall issues.

These issues are not a matter of personal choice, but a question to all who live in Douglas County. Plan for the future with a common goal of what is needed for this county or question how we as citizens try to control what the future will become. Growth will happen but question is how do we control it (if possible) and do right for the county and the overall bottom line (ROI) for each and every one who lives here?

Gary Oien

Gardnerville Ranchos

Letter writer just wrong

Editor:

Mr. Justus’ letter of Jan. 16 is his most ignorant and biased yet. He is correct that the Constitution requires the chief justice of the Supreme Court to preside over Senate impeachment trials. However he skipped reading Federalist 65 on topic:

“The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.” – Federalist 65, Hamilton.

The construct of an impeachment hearing in the Senate absolutely was designed for senators [large number] to have a far greater role than jurors in a criminal or civil court [small number or one as in a judge only ruling on motions]. Impeachment, as rabid Democrats have shown us, is purely political in nature.

Mr. Justus also opined, “…do well to consider our existing judicial concepts as a guide to what is fair and just rather than that which the Senate majority may decide.” Again, see Federalist 65.

Mr. Justus, I did not see your letter demanding the same imaginary process, rights, and fairness during the House impeachment hearing where witnesses were blocked, interviews held with only Democrats present in military-grade secure rooms and Rep. Schiff, the lead prosecutor, lying by misreading transcripts in hearings. Where was your admonishment of that process?

By Mr. Justus’ rationale, the “indictment” or impeachment articles passed in the House are flawed and the Senate is duty-bound to dismiss them immediately with prejudice to protect the accused.

The incessant Trump Derangement Syndrome pounding our President Trump is sick and offensive, and yet provides a ray of light in that Americans have a fundamental dislike of liars beating up on someone doing their best, especially when it yields results all Americans are enjoying.

Democrats clubbing President Trump will be a strong constituency causing reasonable moderate Democrats to #WalkAway from their ignorant, hate-filled, rabid party’s center.

People pretending to teach constitutional principles should do so, not shovel ignorance and opinion as such. No wonder our American republic is in such trouble.

Shawn Meehan

Minden