Opinion

Details

Written by: Phil Smoley

Published: 01 March 2012

The nature of the Glenn Neasham case presents a problem. There are laws that prohibit any form of discrimination due to race, color, religion … and age. So unless someone is determined by law to not be competent, vendors are forced to do business with everyone, regardless of age.

The reality is that many older people have lost  some or much of their faculties, but can still legally make decisions for themselves due to insufficient family intervention or other factors. So in some cases it can be “damned of you do, damned if you don't.”

If Neasham said, “No, you are old and seem to my untrained eye to not be able to make a sound decision,” he could have been held to violating a myriad of anti-discrimination laws.

If a vendor does business with the elderly, and they choose a product that others may deem inappropriate, then the vendor may be accused of taking advantage of the elderly, or abusing them, as with what happened with Neasham.

The Neasham verdict, if it stands, will send a chill out to all businesses who cater to the elderly: Sell to the elderly, go to jail. Don't sell to the elderly, go to jail.     

How is your typical business person, untrained in the science of mental degeneration, going to be able to make the right call in every case regarding a persons mental state?

It puts an impossible burden on the vendor to determine whether the elderly client is of sound mind or not, and if they make the wrong call either way, they face losing everything, including their liberty.  

With so much risk related to having elderly clients, who in their right mind will still want to work with them? Could this effort to protect the elderly actually do more harm than good?

I was not at the trial, and I got most of my information from the local news, so I am in no position to say if the verdict was right or not. But the papers reported on some disconcerting elements, including possible jury misconduct, the report that the alleged victim's investment made her over $40,000 and the prosecution allegedly withholding an audio recording of the victim taken soon after the incident until  nearly the end of the trial.  

These reports made me wonder if there was overzealous prosecution. There has to be more clear-cut examples of elder abuse out there that should be dealt with, and the possibility that Neasham was railroaded should be considered by all fair minded people.

Perhaps he is guilty and he is getting what he deserves. But from my limited perspective, this looks more like a travesty of justice and a warning to everyone who treasures a fair and just due process.

Phil Smoley lives in Lakeport, Calif.

Details

Written by: Jeannie Markham

Published: 27 February 2012

With the persistent spectra of continuing funding cuts to California’s public schools, the community may be wondering what they can do to help.

L.E.E.F. has good news for our community. As an organization, we are currently in the final preparations for our only fundraising event of the year.

This is our 20th consecutive year of infusing funds into the Lakeport Unified School District. Last year alone, we provided over $26,000 to upgrade and provide consistently good programs for our students.

Since 1992, we have provided more than a quarter of a million dollars to support quality education in Lakeport.

None of this would be possible without the commitment of local businesses and concerned parents. Our business communities know very well that a town that doesn’t take care of its kids is not a good place to raise families and create a vibrant, local economy.

L.E.E.F. is truly grateful to all of the people and businesses that support us in our mission to ensure that our public schools are providing state of the art opportunities for our children.

Please visit www.LakeportLEEF.com to see what we are accomplishing.

Support our local businesses and attend our Big Band Event March 3!

Jeannie Markham is a member of the L.E.E.F. Board of Directors. She lives in Lakeport, Calif.

Details

Written by: Frank Hodges

Published: 26 February 2012

I was called for jury duty on a Thursday along with about 50 other Lake County residents.

We were ensconced in a smallish court room designed for less than 50 and they had to bring in extra chairs for the overflow.

I had the extreme displeasure of seating myself in the old-style, fold down, straight back, narrow, less-than-comfortable 1920s theater seats.
 
My first thought was that they didn't want folks to just hang out for long periods of time in the audience section. This also would have the benefit of eliminating folks from falling asleep and snoring during the trial. This same seating is provided for the jurors at the front of the courtroom, perhaps to the same end.
 
After about two hours in one of these diabolical torture devices I began to experience pain in my posterior, back and leg. I had managed to make it through six hours of this discomfort when we were dismissed until the following Friday.

As my pain carried through to that night and the next day I was forced to call in damaged and missed the final jury selection process.
 
I would think that if enough of us retired antiques are eliminated from the juror pool in this manner, this county will lose folks who are willing and have the time to stay the course – folks who have life experience, patience and understand human behavior often clearer than younger crowd.
 
So it has occurred to me that we will have a large population of baby boomers retiring in this county soon. Most of these folks will in all probability have the same age-related pains that many over age 60 experience.

My thoughts are that perhaps that this county could set aside a few extra funds for truly comfortable seating.
 
Frank Hodges lives in Lucerne, Calif.