Dear Editor,

I am a mother of two children and would like to say how very proud I am with Sheriff Handte and his decision to clean up Mineral County. I as a mother can send my children to school without a worry of their physical safety. While I can imagine it not being a very easy job to do, Sheriff Handte has stepped up and done a very good job to date.

Citizens’ complaints have taken a front seat instead of a back seat like they have in the past years. Sheriff Handte has directed his staff to take the same complaints as seriously as he does.

Cleaning up Mineral County has been wanted by many citizens for a very long time and now that it is actually happening there are people who wanted it afraid of the change. I understand that change is hard to get use to but if the change is for the better why not let it go? What is the worse that could happen? Mineral County could be a safe place for everyone and who doesn’t want that?

For the first time in a very long time our sheriff’s department is working together to make Mineral County a well-respected county, again. Sheriff Handte is enforcing the law without prejudice. Sheriff Handte does not care what your last name is or who you are related to if you break the law, you go to jail. No if’s, and’s or but’s about it.

I am personally glad we now have an arrest report printed in our weekly paper. The community is kept informed on what is going on in our community.

Good job Mineral County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Handte. For the first time in a long time I am going to vote and I am behind Sheriff Stewart Handte, 100%.

Sheriff Handte has been in office since December 19, 2013 and has put more time in at the office and at the department and on our streets than I have seen in all my years here.

For what it’s worth, well done Sheriff Handte.

Amie Clarke


Dear Editor,

In response to the article in last week’s paper “Community Desert Clean-Up”. The County has caused this problem by charging a fee at the dumps and now they’re asking the community to clean it up. As long as there is a fee at the dumps, this is going to be an ongoing problem.

If they will discontinue the fee, the problem will lesson considerably. If the landfill needs a little more money to function, add a few bucks more to everybody’s utility bill to cover it instead of charging those few of us that are able to haul stuff and have to pay the whole bill for everybody. It’s not fair.

For many years I have regularly hauled stuff to the dumps for myself and to help out others that are unable to haul their own. Sometimes I get a few bucks for doing this, sometimes not. I always felt I was helping clean up the community. I can’t do that anymore because it’s costing me. Many of the people I’ve helped are elderly or on fixed income and can’t afford to pay more but a couple of bucks more on their utility bill wouldn’t hurt.

I’m not one of those dumping in the desert, I’m just not hauling much to the dump anymore, but I am filling my garbage can in the alley with stuff I used to haul off myself.

I’m not helping with the “Desert Clean-Up” because the county caused it. Let the “County” clean it up or discontinue the dump fee.

Tom Dickison, Concerned Citizen


Dear Editor,

Sheriff Handte, thank you for addressing the issue of who is going to maintain seized properties.

Harold Dimmick


Dear Editor,

I think it is time that we step around the propaganda and discuss the reality of drugs. To do this we must first look at alcohol and prohibition. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment for thirteen years. So with the legislative process it took the United States Government and the citizens of the United States less than thirteen years to figure out that they could not stop alcohol.

Now let’s fast forward to the present. The United States has been fighting the so called war on drugs for over forty years, using the same tactics that they used during prohibition. These tactics did not work then and they have not worked over the last forty years. The only difference between prohibition and the war on drugs is that it did not take the people back then forty years to figure it out.

The United States has spent billions of dollars fighting drugs. There are a lot of people in the United States and out of the country who do not want to see the war on drugs end, because it would be the end of the cash cow and a lot of jobs would be lost.
There is a plan that will stop drugs and other illegal substances. It consists of two parts. Both parts must be implemented for it to work.

The first part is that all borders are sealed. By this I mean that all people, cars, trucks, trains, boats, planes, shipping containers and cargo will be searched before entry into the country. NO EXCEPTIONS! An example of no exceptions is if Air Force One takes the president out of the country. When it brings them back, the plane and everyone on it will be searched. This includes the president. There can be no exceptions or the plan will not work.

The second part is that every person in the United States from the president down to infants. Regardless of status, legal, illegal, diplomat or visitors, will be tested once per week for illegal substances. NO EXCEPTIONS! When I say no exceptions, this means everyone, the president, members of congress, all the alphabet agencies, law enforcement and everyone else. No one is exempt. There can be no exceptions or the plan will not work.

For all of you people who want drugs of the street, I suggest that you contact your congressional representative and get them to implement this plan. Make sure that they do not exempt themselves like they did with the health care reform act.

But before you do, remember this old saying. “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

Personal, I don’t care if people use drugs or not.

Harold Dimmick

Dear Editor,

Hello Charlie, if we can give our children liberty and freedom we’ll do good Charlie. For that life is worth living. Perhaps giving its possible to win my case without resorting to trying to make you look foolish to the people these newspaper columns.

So far I’ve tried to make you look foolish and you’ve tried to make me look foolish because if we can then we win the argument.

Because you and I, Charlie, both like to win our arguments and we both know that’s true and we both know making someone look so works.

It looks to me like you want to belong to a group that likes to exercise power and authority over others and allow them worthy of only those pursuits of happiness you and your group decides.

In other words Charlie, basically, deny them the proud feeling of thinking liberty and justice for all is true when pledging allegiance now and today.

Please don’t play dumb Charlie; we both know that it’s kind of a lie.

Will Jones

Dear Editor,

In my letter last week, the word folks was printed as the word o-l-d-s, a simple misprint, I guess?

Steve LeBeau


Dear Editor,

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. These words, spoken by President Kennedy more than 50 years ago are a reminder that it is through our shared responsibility to the community that ensures our right to our own personal freedom. My, my, my, how things have changed!

Some seem to think their freedom has no cost. They think the government (You and I) owes them a living and has no say in how they live their lives. They have either grown up with a sense of entitlement or they learned that hard work has no more reward than scamming the system.

Another group thinks that their work affords them a freedom that is totally unencumbered by responsibility to their fellow man. They seem to think of their own corner of the world as being totally isolated from those around them.

What does this have to do with the Nuisance Ordinance? Both of these groups have lost sight of what it means to live in a society. Although they may have different views on how to live, they each feel that what they do in the confines of their own property is nobody’s business but their own. The drug lord growing marijuana, the junk collector with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the preacher all arrive at the same conclusion from different points.

But they are wrong on one key point. They do have a responsibility to their community. John Kennedy was right about that. Sadly, since so many people have lost sight of that sense of collective responsibility, we have to have laws. The previous ordinance did not give the community the tools to police itself. The new ordinance does.

Scare tactics seem to work well in national politics and some are hoping they will work here. I’ll not address specific paragraphs of the ordinance because I have addressed them before to no avail. The fears others wish to stir up in you have no basis in action. The thought that upholding this ordinance on November 4th, will cause immediate dire consequences for the poor and needy is not borne out by what has occurred under the ordinance since June 2013.

God Bless America

Charlie Morris

Walker Lake

Dear Editor,

I am the “gentleman” who allows my dog (Angus, an Airedale rescue) to defecate and urinate on private property, at least according to Theresa Dillon. I do not allow my dog on private property in Hawthorne for fear he may step on a nail from a collapsed structure or get a disease. What the Dillon’s consider to be their private property is actually a city easement. Mrs. Dillon did not witness my dog’s heinous act, which amounted to a shot glass of urine in the dirt, not against their green fence. He was at the far edge of the fence by the telephone pole at the entrance to the alley.

Mr. Dillon got in the act and said that the next time he would shoot my dog. Since I would be in the line of fire I would be shot at too. Now, a lot of people have shot at me and I am still here. The last time I was shot at was in Kern County, CA in 2005. A Mexican thought I was spying on a methamphetamine cook operation in an almond grove when I was just walking the dog I had then (walking a dog again!). He used a shotgun as I heard double 00 buck go swoosh swoosh overhead. I didn›t call the Sheriff›s department since they were afraid I was spying also. I did, however, grade the shooter. He was firing from 300 yards away, well beyond a shotgun›s effective range, so points were deducted for that. The rounds were fairly close so the Mexican ended up with a B. Mr. Dillon should think twice about shooting at me and my dog as I deduct points for poor form.

Deputies arrived at my house within two minutes of being notified of the outrage. They were quite professional and agreed that my dog had been on a city easement. There are two stash houses on my block where children can buy drugs, but I doubt I will ever see deputies swoop in on the dealers. Nor will anyone scream in the streets about drug trafficking the way they do about dogs urinating.

Daryl Tucker