Home > California, Eureka > Contractor sting nabs sex offender, elder abuse suspect

Contractor sting nabs sex offender, elder abuse suspect

A sting targeting unlicensed contractors netted an elder abuse suspect and a registered sex offender in Eureka Tuesday.  Below is a press release from the Contractors State License Board.

###

SACRAMENTO – A man awaiting trial in Butte County for felony theft from an elder and misdemeanor unlicensed contracting was one of 14 suspected unlicensed contractors nabbed during a Contractors State License Board (CSLB) Statewide Investigative Fraud Team (SWIFT) sting in Eureka this week.

The undercover operation in cooperation with the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office (DA) was held in a Eureka home on February 2, 2010.  CSLB and DA investigators also conducted sweeps of construction sites on February 3 and 4, 2010, to ensure projects are being undertaken by licensees with the proper workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

During Tuesday’s sting, SWIFT investigators posed as homeowners, seeking bids for projects including painting, tile, flooring, concrete, and fencing.  They invited suspected unlicensed contractors who advertised online, in local publications, the phone book, or business cards who were in violation of state advertising guidelines for contractors.  California Business & Professions (B&P) Code requires contractors to put their license number in all advertisements.  Those who are not licensed may do work valued at less than $500 for labor and materials, but their ads must state that they are not a licensed contractor.

Twelve suspects received Notices to Appear (NTA) in court for contracting without a license; eleven face additional charges for illegal advertising.  Their court date is set for March 1, 2010.  Two other suspects received administrative citations; one for contracting without a license and illegal advertising, and the other for illegal advertising.

One of those suspects receiving an NTA, Michael Bluthardt, 52, of Eureka was taken to the Humboldt County Jail, where he was booked and released.  His Butte County trial is set for March 5, 2010.  Another suspected phony contractor, Nelson Henry Guy, 68, of Hydesville, is a registered sex offender.  Guy was one of those issued an NTA for contracting without a license.

“This operation points out the importance that consumers check to make sure a contractor they hire is state-licensed,” said CSLB Registrar.  “Some of these are people you would not want in your home, around your family and valuables.”  Since 2005, CSLB has conducted criminal background checks on all new applicants for licenses and those adding to or changing their license classifications.

CSLB provides many helpful consumer publications that can be downloaded or ordered from its Web site http://www.cslb.ca.gov or http://www.CheckTheLicenseFirst.com, or by calling, toll-free 1-800-321-CSLB (2752).

CSLB urges consumers to remember the following tips when hiring a contractor:

  • Be especially hesitant when approached by someone offering home improvement services door-to-door.
  • Verify the contractor’s license by checking online at http://www.cslb.ca.gov, or http://www.CheckTheLicenseFirst.com, or via CSLB’s automated phone system at 1-800-321-CSLB (2752), and ask to see a photo identification to make sure you’re dealing with the correct person
  • Don’t pay more than 10% down or $1,000, whichever is less.  There is an exception to this for about two dozen contractors who have special bonds for consumer protection that are noted on the CSLB Web site.
  • Don’t pay in cash, and don’t let the payments get ahead of the work.
  • Check references, and get at least 3 bids and a written contract before your project begins.
  • Contact CSLB if you have a complaint against a contractor.

The Contractors State License Board operates under the umbrella of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. CSLB licenses and regulates about 310,000 contractors and is regarded as one of the leading consumer protection agencies in the United States.  In fiscal year 2008-09, CSLB helped recover nearly $36 million in ordered restitution for consumers.

Tags:
  1. Smile
    February 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Some of them!!!–guys trying to make a living…

  2. Andrew Bird
    February 4, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Was the press release from Venus Stromberg, Heraldo?

  3. Andrew Bird
    February 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Trying to make a living….by ripping people off?

  4. February 4, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Was the press release from Venus Stromberg

    Yes. Did she send it to you?

  5. Andrew Bird
    February 4, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    She’s my sister-in-law.

  6. February 4, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Cool! Tell her I said thanks for putting the Herald on her media list.

  7. Andrew Bird
    February 4, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Even before the earthquake, we were getting complaints about unlicensed contractors going unchecked in Humboldt County. It’s unfair to licensed contractors who pay for workers comp insurance for their employees and incur all the expenses of being licensed professionals to let unlicensed contractors get away with breaking the law. From what I understand, the CSLB hasn’t conducted a sting up here in more than 15 years. It was overdue – even without an earthquake.

  8. Andrew Bird
    February 4, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Heraldo – I will. No, she didn’t send it to me. She didn’t even tell me about the sting until it had already happened.

  9. Lodgepole
    February 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Contractor sting nabs cons.

  10. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 4, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Workers Compensation = Yes, yes, they are soooooo innocent tooooo? Hmmm, now I’ll have to find a certain little somethin’ somethin’ article for the reader’s pleasure.

    I found this quote amusing when related to the politics at play (not the vicitimized cutomers):

    “This operation points out the importance that consumers check to make sure a contractor they hire is state-licensed,” said CSLB Registrar. “Some of these are people you would not want in your home, around your family and valuables.”

    Response = I kept thinking voters, voters, voters……;and, then – so many elected officials, so many elected officials, so many elected officials, etc…

    One thing this sting CAN’T do is prosecute these people for a Workers Compensation violation. Why? One can’t be prosecuted under State Workers Compensation requirements for having “no employees”.

    Well publicized story – actually, the last few days, the stories seem molded around the upcoming elections which is a good thing!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th Distriuct

  11. February 5, 2010 at 6:33 am

    t’s unfair to licensed contractors who pay for workers comp insurance for their employees and incur all the expenses of being licensed professionals to let unlicensed contractors get away with breaking the law..

    People should be able to hire whoever they want.

  12. February 5, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Fuck the government and their thirst to send debt service overseas by taxing your God Given Labor.
    The same government uses china to rebuild the bay bridge, same clowns who can’t even feed themselves without eating off your plate, same fools who only can pick on poor people trying to survive their looting of the occupied country’s ashes of an economic system.
    If you feed yourself through taxation- you are a money changer and will burn in Hell for your crimes against Man.
    The line is being drawn as to who is AMERICAN and the filth that is english- and you’re going back for being dirty fuckers!
    USA FOR USA!

  13. Plain Jane
    February 5, 2010 at 6:46 am

    You can hire whoever you want, Fred. But a contractor has to have a license. If you want to hire just any guy standing on a street corner with a sign asking for work, you can; but you then have to pay him hourly, insure him against injury, pay the employer’s share of SS and withhold his share, etc.

  14. Emperor Norton
    February 5, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Exactly so Plain Jane. If you really don’t care about the end result and don’t cared if you get screwed, you should hire whomever you want. I don’t recommend it though.

  15. Walt
    February 5, 2010 at 7:50 am

    “People should be able to hire whoever they want.” Like children and illegal aliens. They work cheaper so the “contractor” can charge less. Uh huh.

  16. February 5, 2010 at 7:57 am

    If you don’t like that sort of thing, Walt, don’t hire someone who uses children or illegal aliens.

  17. Plain Jane
    February 5, 2010 at 8:05 am

    No Fred, we don’t like anyone exploiting children or illegal aliens and that’s why it is illegal for anyone to do it, even those like yourself who think you should have that right.

  18. Chris a
    February 5, 2010 at 9:10 am

    “…hire whoever they want”. Fred, what about senior citizens and others who are often victimized by unlicensed/uninsured contractors? one of the reasons for the licensing laws is to protect these folks as well. use some common sense

  19. Plain Jane
    February 5, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Common sense and Fred don’t belong on the same page.

  20. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 9:25 am

    A Contractor does not “have to have a license”. There are exceptions to the rule: Homeowner builder/Contractor, any person contracting for less than $300 improvement, etc..

    Plain Jaine does discuss the general idea and scope; and, she is correct. However, it is the aspect that labor be “taxed” before the laborer even sees his or her paycheck which causes the situation at hand to evolve even broader.

    Sorry to inform people, but labor producing SSI is next on the “hit list” that currently is being practiced upon “Health Care”-medicare & medicaid.

    As I have said before often, I am against all income taxes AND favor only a national sales tax or a combination of State only sales taxes. Who is going to “earn” money AND, then not “spend it”. There is way too much fraud and political shell games with YOUR HARD EARNED LABOR. I feel sad for those who falsely believe that American government, especially local American Government, is and has been For all of the People – because for decades, government at almost every level has not been for all of The People!

    What good are complaints when they fall on the deaf ears of the voters who voted into office the very same back-stabbing power grabbers who use children and the elderly as tools; or, who use the homeless or the jobless as tools WHILE USING other people’s money to “propagandize themselves” for an alterior purpose which is far and away from any promises, goals, asperations, dreams, etc…. Let us just call these types of people what they really are >>>>>>> SELL-OUTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  21. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Chris,

    on insurance – don’t you believe that insurance is a “protection fund”, I do! In fact, the protection is not so much for physical injury – nope, more so than that. Protections are for profits, not injuries.

    Also, if a General Contractor has never, and I truly mean never, had a claim, why is that Contractor paying more than his or her “fair share” – which should be minute in figure.

    Insurance – private or General liability, flood, earthquake, workers compensation, vehicle, etc… it is ALL FRAUD! If everybody paid into it equally, insurance still would not work out. Why? The costs and valuations of society render insurance incapable of 100% pay-outs (always has been this way realisticly, except for those insiders who were treated more favorably). So, if no 100% pay-outs, then why profits and why corporate bonuses and why, why, why? Answer – Selfish Greed occurs in ALL economies. So, no need to discuss socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, etc… Greed happens regardless!

    Time for voters in a majority to “act on the truths” with the stroke of their penmanship!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  22. Chris a
    February 5, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Uhh..ok…well, I respectfully disagree with your basic premise. There are many reasons why people buy insurance ranging from “they have to” (like in this thread) to “peace of mind” (like Life insurance) and since most insurance can be shopped around for the best product/price/etc. then it is up to the individual to decide, no? Insurance is a product and like any other product you pay for something and you get something in return. Most folks are not wealthy enough to self-insure their house, car, life, etc. And, if someone is opposed to buying mandated insurance then they can choose a different profession that does not require it. What I am opposed to is any government forcing me to buy insurance (like the new health care proposals).

  23. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Chris,

    First – Insurance is not “a typical product”! Heck, I would not even call insurance a product – it is a Pyramid Scheme

    Second, I agree that “forcing” one into a plan is wrong AND unconstitutional. Yet, I too respectfully disagree with your lack of understanding of what insurance is really about. So, is it o.k. for you (it is not for me) to “force” others to pay for burdens not their own? In other words, if I live a less rambunctious lifestyle, then why should I be “forced” to pay a higher rate for another’s burdens; AND, not even get a 100% return on my protection fund expenses/premiums? Insurance does not work out on paper, even if profits were not being taken. So, the next time you drive down the road and see damage caused by an insured motorist, ask yourself this thought, “Why did the government not “force” the insurance company to pay for 100% of the repairs necessary to the public infrastructure because their insured motorist caused THE DAMAGES? Yet, the taxpayers and over-insured foot the bills down the road financially.

    Again Chris, INSURANCE IS FRAUD. I can see it now – A Hatian event in America and a bunch of insured filing claims paperwork. Yes, I am sure you will feel respected when it is all said and done. Keep pissing your money down the drain on false protections and negotiations that you thought the “product’s explicit contractual language” implied.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  24. Chris a
    February 5, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Jeff, you need to calm down…you’ll have a heart attack at your young age if you keep this up. Insurance plays a useful role in our society like a lot of other monetary products and I agree that some insurance is not as good as others but that is what makes this Country great…people have a choice.

    “First…I would not even call insurance a product – it is a Pyramid Scheme”
    –OK, so then why does the FBI not investigate and the US-DOJ prosecute all the insurance companies?

    “Second,…”
    –You obviously did not read what I said earlier so let me repeat. No one is ‘forced’ to buy insurance (yet) so what is your point? If you disagree with the way that an insurance company is figuring out how much to charge you versus someone else then don’t buy the product. If you are ‘forced’ to buy insurance because of some law such as being a Contractor, well, no one is putting a gun to your head and ‘forcing you’ to be a contractor.

  25. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Chris,

    I am as calm as a breezeless day.

    Anyhow,

    Choices – in so far as “burden comparisons versus flat out monolithic pricing” not really a choice when limitations are designed to maximize profits for NOTHING while still forcing a consumer to choose from really nothing!

    FBI – FBI, government and insurance companies re: investigations. Hmmmm, good question actually. Kinda like why the SEC and Madoff; or, The Fed and Wall Street Bankers and Insurers, etc…Maybe, when the people get a clue, it will happen; however, more money will have to be pissed down the drain before people figure it out.

    Forced – So now, I don’t read? Hmmm

    Hmmmm, Heraldo, get that cam outta my computer room darn it, lol. Anyhow – good one, even though I did read.

    Force – is a person forced to live life a certain way – economically that is?” Sure, I am not “forced” to have vehicle insurance. Yet, I have it. Why? I have to work to pay bills to live in a society which has been set up to “force” people to live under the hand of government and corporations. Let me see here – I need to carry myself and my baggage, tools, PRODUCTS, etc.. to carpenter a structure; but, I am not allowed to carry myself and my stuff on a road unless certain “insured and registered” conformities are adhered to. Ok, fine. Then, I’ll walk there with my stuff to carpenter that structure; but, where is the connectivity of trails or other routes to do this in a “just as feasible” AND “comparable” manner? So, “forced” is a word that one must use with specificity in a conversation such as we are having – which is good conversation about the pitfalls of insurance (as I see it) and the benefits of insurance (as you see it).

    Lastly – Chris, do you pay insurance on a home? If you do, then why did you so willingly fork over your money for undulating coverages based on “market manipulated” valuations, but now, the valuation pales in comparison to what it was before for which you over-paid on. So, who profited from that? Could it be NOT YOU?

    However you slice it though, insurance is a Pyramid Scheme.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  26. Anonymous
    February 5, 2010 at 11:42 am

    is this guy really running for county supervisor?

  27. Chris a
    February 5, 2010 at 11:48 am

    …scary…

  28. lowblow
    February 5, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    The idea that having a contractors license makes you either ethical, not a rip off etc is funny as hell. The California Contractors Board is so far behind on enforcement, complaints etc. it is unreal. I love people who feel the job of government is to be a nanny to everyone.

    Yes he is running, one thing you have to give him is he walks his talk. More than can be said for carpetbagger out of Arcata.

  29. Plain Jane
    February 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Jeffrey, sales tax is regressive. The less you make the higher percent of your income you pay in taxes. The wealthy may spend more in total dollars, but a lower proportion of their total income so pay a lower percent in taxes. Sharply progressive income taxes work best to fund our government and encourage good wages and benefits for employees. People seem to forget that even under Reagan taxes on the wealthy were higher than they are now and they didn’t cover his budget. The Bush unfunded tax cuts and wars are why we have such a huge deficit now and why our economy is in the toilet. The working classes are the fuel of the economy. When they increase productivity but see a drop in wages, they can’t spend. More tax cuts will only make it worse. The right wing demands that social programs be gutted will only further enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the working classes and the poor.

  30. February 5, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    How much would a policy cost to insure the right candidate is elected to the BOS?

  31. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Hey Plain Jane,

    what you wrote is not at all far from being inaccurate; however, it is my belief that if we were to “lay-out” the pros and cons, examples and positional countering, the “basic needs exemptions” I have had ideas on for quite some time”, etc. sts regarding the Sales Tax only idea, I am pretty sure I could make an appropriate case as to why a “sales tax only” system of public revenue sharing would benefit society the best. I truly believe any taxation should be fair, simple and understandable, not to mention constitutional (which is also why I favor a sales tax only method of taxation for supporting societies’ basic infrastructure needs that we all essentially use in today’s reality).

    Of course, I can’t go without saying that overall, government entities have to reduce their expenditures as well for this country to get going forward again. We really are at a point of priorities in the world even; therefore, not poking and prodding the citizenry is probably a good route to take by any level of government it would seem. I could be wrong, but, there is a whole lot of victims that probably say, “leave me alone already.”

    The thing about Reagan – his financial advisor or rep if you will (famous guy who was an opposite thinker about trickle-down economics – been in the news lately) exclaimed back then the falsities; AND, people did not believe him and rail-roaded him. Yet, Reagan kept him by his side the whole time. Why? Reagan probably knew that his “guy if you will” was accurate regarding t.d. economics.

    Fast Forward – So, now, what we have is more and more economists looking back and saying that this guy was right and they were fools. At least these forward thinking economists are admitting their mistakes!

    As far as tax rates: when a direct tax is not an equal rate upon every citizen, it is an unconstutional tax. If the wealthiest who actually drop down in tax rates paid the same percentage tax rate on the dollars they earn, then yes, the wealthy would pay more in taxes OVERALL because they earned more money AND would be paying the same tax rate as everyone else.

    Yet, to earn more money; then, qualify for a reduced tax rate; and, then moan and groan about how the taxes should be lowered even more because they pay the most taxes cumulatively, is not really claritive of the “real taxation methods” going on that hurt the less fortunate, especially those who “engage in and cut” those public-private quasi contractual deals that use public tax dollars to create profit and a wealthier status for a “select individual”, rather than the individual savings of that individual entity creating that profit based off of their hard earned labors and savings, not free use of another’s money.

    Yes, I believe the tax codes are a huge mess, what can I say.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  32. Jane Doe
    February 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    No Jeff. Tax rates do not need to be the same regardlless of income level to be constitutional so long as everyone at that income level pays the same rate. One could, of course, make a good case that taxing equal income from different endeavors at different rates is unconstitutional. I am, of course, talking about investment income being taxed at a lower rate than regular income using the false justification that it has already been taxed at the corporate level. The money I spend at the grocery store has already been taxed but they don’t give grocers a tax break for “double taxation.”

  33. February 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    “Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder’s Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.

    In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)

    The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.”

    “Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly–by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed–professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%.

    A 2000 estimate by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

    I’ve emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%. But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government’s revenue.”


    Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
    Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?

    By BRUCE BARTLETT
    Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT
    Wall St. Journal

    There’s more at this link:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523

    Saxby Chambliss and Neil Boortz that’s a pair of assholes.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  34. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Jane Doe,

    Direct taxes must be apportioned across the states equally by federal constitutional law as per Article 1, sec. 9 – U.S. Constitution. The 16th Amendment is a congressional / corporate influenced fraud, sadly. Unfortunately too, it is a job destroyer. Therefore, I will plead the 9th!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  35. Jane Doe
    February 5, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Jeff, an amendment becomes part of the constitution and is just as valid as the original unless it is changed by a future amendment. I doubt many of us, especially women and minorities, believe that our founding fathers got everything perfect, although they themselves recognized their own fallibility by making provisions for amendments, difficult as they may be to ratify.

  36. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    O.k. Bill,

    to be fair on the “Fair Tax” – Not yanking out embedded taxes prior to the ultimate sale of the product makes it appear that there will only be an extra tax increase, which is not the case.

    Does reducing the price of your house 30%+ sound good too; especially when you pull out all those wasted taxes on labor that go into the overall product price? Let alone the gains in economic efficiency from having less paper-pushing going around for more taxations of smaller tax increments.

    Additionally, under “my way of thinking”, there would be no sales taxes on your main home. Second homes, vacation homes, etc.. – a tax! Basics for life – no tax; above the basics – a tax! Below a certain income level – tax credit coupons; no sales taxes on “non-new” product purchases (used car – no sales tax). So, really Bill, I see it differently; although for me, I want to see it specifically in a “peoples” contract form through “Black Letter Law” – Statute.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  37. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Jane Doe,

    income taxation through and by the 16th is a fraud because of how it was changed, not to mention that the founding fathers, articles of confederation, Preamble, etc… prove what the people thought about taxation; AND, the victimization of women’s civil rights is not even in the same ballpark as far as “HAVING” to recognize the 16th just because I recognize rightfully so the 19th; or, the 15th, or, or, or.

    Hey Jane, “Why do you think so many so-called tax cheats were publicized after Obama was elected?” Could it be because in order to publicly keep the power, these people who legally did not have to pay the tax just “took one for the gipper”? Afterall, I am sure they will be well compensated to make up for the short term financial nuisance.

    Sales Tax only – I won’t deviate! Let the consumer choose where their taxes are generated and for what reasons, not the government charging you out-the-gate only to misspend and squander your future security.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  38. Jane Doe
    February 5, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    Jeff, don’t you think it is possible that the men who were so completely wrong about such an important issue as the human rights of over half the inhabitants of the country might have been mistaken about taxation? Do you really think it would be equitable for the much smaller population states like Wyoming to pay the same as high population states like California? It’s absurd.

    Thankfully, people like you are in the tiny minority because our country can’t survive any more tax gimmicks like trickle down and your sales tax scheme.

  39. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 5, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Wow,

    I must say JD, that is probably the first time in my entire life that anyone accused me of being a “schemer”. Actually, that kick to the groin from behind hurt. So, with that said, is it possible that thousands of years of evolution might have had something to do with the “ONLY” tangible thoughts about taxation that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had?

    This taxation discussion has nothing to do with the “human rights” denials of women or “non-white people” and the reasons why those amendments were created, imo. In fact, history suggests that our U.S. Constitution is mostly based on a system of mediation style governance that “white people” learned from certain “Native Indigenous Peoples of North America” which did not desire money for political, especially nefarious political means to run their social environment.

    Time to jam with the cry baby wah wah pedal before I get some zzzzzzzz’s. That reverse kick stung!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  40. Jane Doe
    February 6, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Don’t feel bad Jeff. It’s not as if it was your idea. You just fell for it. Lots of people do. In the immortal words of PT Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

  41. Jane Doe
    February 6, 2010 at 5:25 am

    The reason that what the framer’s thought about women and minorities is important is that it shows they were flawed men, not gods. What they believed about taxation then is of no more relevance today than their beliefs about the inferior status of women and people of color. They were 100% wrong on both.

  42. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 6, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Jane Doe,

    no need to defame my character or define my soul. Your attempts to obfuscate my words are not surprising. Look, it is no secret to those who understand that the interests who HATE the SALES TAX methodology are: The wealthiest of the wealthy; AND, those who WON’T fend for themselves WHEN they are capable to work instead of burdening others selfishly and in a greedy form by doing nothing and getting tax dollars to do nothing.

    A sales tax only however DOES benefit THOSE who WANT to WORK HONESTLY for a living deciding how and where their taxes shall be generated while retaining the most value of their “hard earned labor”. Further, when more people can work for small businesses OR create their own small business to do business with other small businesses, then there is more opportunity for “the little guy”. Less people working for large corporations is also a good thing – it levels the economic playing field back down to within reach of the real laborers of this country!

    The 16th Amendment was nothing more than a backdoor conversion back to womens sufferages and slavery of men of color or race or economic level different than that of those who held the wealth when the 16th Amendment was fraudulantly passed. Economic slavery is no different. So, shall we include Pelosi, HealthCare, commerce clause – art.1,sec.8, supremacy clause and a few other tidbits to discuss too in so far as the relationship to “civil rights violations and the 16th Amendment”? I don’t believe the Constitution was to be elastic. I believe that yes means yes; AND, no means no – I despise those who play on words to victimize others. The Constitution was not to be something that would be so hard for so many to understand; yet, it is only that way now because certain leaders, judges, private sector lawyers and wealthy corporate elitists have conspired together to create this mess for an alterior set of reasons. This is no surprise when it is smack dab hitting you square in the face.

    As ESPN’s Tom Jackson could say in a politically correct form – “C’mon Woman” (politically correct for C’mon Man).

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  43. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    If the constitution wasn’t meant to be elastic they wouldn’t have included Article 5.

  44. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    As to who favors the sales tax method, you couldn’t BE more wrong. The wealthier you are, the more you benefit from the sales tax method because you spend a lower percentage of your income than the working classes, invest and save a larger percent. All the tax schemes like flat tax and sales tax are pushed by the ultra wealthy because it would shift most of the tax burden from them onto lower income people.

  45. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Hey H or J.D. – since you saw my IP hit on the Herald,

    Elastic to the basic premises of Human Rights. The forefathers were frauds to say Native peoples were savages and that women were unequal and that slavery was humane. Get off the boat while you can, you are drowning in your own pool of sweat!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  46. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    You would think, then, that they would have limited Article 5 to amendments dealing only only human right then, Jeff. But they didn’t. Amendments have the same procedure for ratification as the original constitution and the founders had no more right to make constitutional law then than our current elected politicians do today. It is a work in progress, as it was intended to be.

  47. February 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    since you saw my IP hit on the Herald

    ?

  48. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    I didn’t get that either, Heraldo.

  49. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    P.J.,

    The discussion does not rely solely on “procedure” per se, unless that is the direction you now want to drive. Again, basis and intent: basis; and, intent.

    Forefathers were building a “fair society” for white men (maybe not all forefathers, but most) – this is undeniable and is the fraud I speak of because of not acknowledging everyone as being “human beings”. When human rights issues and amendments affected the ability of the “back then” upper-class elitists, aristocrats (if you will) guess what, they could not get for “as free in monetary or production terms” the very LABOR they gained through persecution of human beings being treated like expendable material.

    Sadly, women only were allowed to vote when the 19th was passed because of politics, not really human rights. I am not saying that many people did not die fighting for women’s rights, no, not at all. What I am saying is that the sick part was manipulative public officials and electorates that used it politically as votes – enough men really “pulled faces” when shooting their retoric off to the media and the victims that they were supportive of the movement, but quietly and secretly still victimizing in reality, albeit a shift of sorts. We should have had womes rights all along, but who am I to say that the forefathers made mistakes rather than flat out abusery.

    As far as work in progress – I never said it was not. I am saying that the Bill of Rights, The articles, the Pre-amble, The articles of confederation, etc… clearly discuss and emphasize clearly about “direct taxation”. The 16th defies that; it abrogates that; it circumvents that; and, when I say that, I mean that. Again, I won’t deviate!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  50. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Article 5 lays out the LAW regarding changing the constitution without restriction on which articles are allowed to be changed. AGAIN, the men who wrote the constitution had no more authority to make our laws than any group of politicians since then. Nothing in the constitution can’t be changed with a constitutional amendment which takes 2/3 of either the congress or 2/3 of the states to ratify it, just like ratification of the first constitution. You may not like some of the amendments but that doesn’t make them invalid or unjust.

  51. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    You should brush up on what Jefferson had to say about inherited wealth, its dangers and what should be done to prevent massive wealth accumulation which could endanger the republic, Jeff.

  52. "HENCHMAN OFJUSTICE"
    February 6, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Hey P.J.,

    I am sure there exists many things I should read up on; but, understanding the basis and intent on “direct taxation” is not one of them; nor, is understanding how human rights CAN be violated.

    So, I am driving around here, expending gasoline on this unpaved road called “Process Drive” – which somehow I was re-routed upon to sidetrack “the real discussion and emphasis”. The Sub-Division is named “The U.S. Constitution” and whether I am being led out of the city to the rural country, I am unsure. Is there a storage shed and a block of wood nearby? Anyhow, I am not deviating ……..

    Hey, specifically by reference and author, what would you like me to read and I’ll read it – fair?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  53. Anonymous
    April 16, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    To insist on licensed contractors is a holistic approach to reducing the on-going facilitation of crime and tax evasion. Standards and codes should be met to improve the the value of a property rather than a sub standard cover-up job. To hire an unlicensed, un-taxed person with no money going into the system for the “contractors” retirement is close to slavery. Un-licensed workers are often hired to do the criminal or anti-social activities of unscrupulous employers. It is irresponsible to facilitate sub-standard working conditions and materials which a licensed contractor would not be able to accept by law. Un-licensed contractors are usually USA citizens who are paid far below minimum wage. The employers should get the same fine as the “contractor”. It is the employer that is taking advantage of the situation and not simply employing the person and paying a tax while misrepresenting the status of an employee. The employer should be the respondant superior. In motels we see, it is the unlicensed “independant contractors” that facilitate the on-going sales of methamphetamine and other dangerous public nuisances so the motel management can deny responsibility for the facilitation of heart attacks, strokes and death. Much more work needs to be done to bring on holistic change which can certainly begin with the licensing of contractors in/on commercial premices. It is Americans that are not having money put into thier retirement funds. Look around and try to see forest and not the individual trees from another part of the world. Address the licensing of contractors regardless of national origin.

  54. Locke Smith
    April 17, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I haven’t heard that argument for licensing contractors before, anon. It’s interesting. I think I agree with part of it and disagree with part of it. It’s great food for thought, though.

    I’m of two minds regarding these periodic stings. On the one hand the contractors don’t want to have to compete with unlicensed handymen to provide a needed service at the lowest possible price. The consumers knows (or should know) he is not getting yhe protection of bonding and licensing when he hires the handyman. The bottom line is that the contractors and the government are working together to prohibt a free market from working.

    On the other hand, it’s not unreasonable for licensed contractors to want everyone to play by the same rules. Most of them invested considerable time and money into obtaining their licenses. The unlicensed handymen will disappear if something goes wrong instead of having to face the music. It’s even worse if the unlicensed worker is an illegal alien.

    It would be interesting to hear differing views on this.

  55. Kay
    May 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Well………….I think that licensing a contractor
    is just weird. All it does is make a bunch of money for people who want to follow other people around. In another century, my father was one of the best contractors around and they did not license people back then. Oh – he died about 30 years ago, so you can’t drag him off to jail!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s