Author: William

Credit Theft: A Victimless Crime?

I recently got a new bank card because my bank said I had purchased something from a store that had a security breach. In this case I think it was Wendy’s. I was told that the card I was using would stop working on August 25th and needed to activate the new card before then. So I dutifully activated the new card on August 24th.  The new card had a different account number and expiration date than my previous card.

On Labor Day morning (September 5th ), my wife comes into the bedroom saying the bank is calling with a fraud alert. Every few months I get a call like this because my purchasing habits go outside their normal parameters but I did nothing that would trigger such a call. I went on the Internet and sure enough several fraudulent charges had been made using my brand new bank card.

The second attempt at Rite Aid is likely what triggered the fraud alert.

Being that Labor Day is a bank holiday, all I could do was cancel my bank card. I had to wait until the next day to dispute the charges.

After the payments posted on the first three transactions, the declined withdrawal dropped-off the bank record and only the pending Walmart.com remained. The transaction said it would not post until September 7th. (I could only dispute the charges that successfully removed money from my account and not the pending Walmart charge.)

On September 6th, I contacted Walmart and my bank, hoping to thwart the last remaining transaction by these thieves. Even with the date, approximate time of the fraudulent purchase, and confirmation number of the purchase, neither was able (or willing) to help me.

Walmart said that without the actual order number that they could not stop the transaction. My bank said that they not only couldn’t block it but they couldn’t even tell me how much the final transaction would be until it posted. The lady at the bank couldn’t even see the pending charge until I pulled up my account on my cell phone and showed it to her.

Furthermore, they told me not to take money out of my account because they couldn’t promise me that any of my pending transactions would go thru if I did that. In short, I was told to take it in the shorts and just let the fraudulent charge happen and then I would get the money reimbursed from the bank in about ten days.

Being that my mortgage payment and other large transactions had not yet cleared the bank, this charge at Walmart.com could have been very substantial and depleted my bank account to the point that everything would bounce anyways. Faced with this nightmare scenario, what would you do?

The more I thought about it, the more violated I felt. As often happens in our country, you are first violated by the criminal and then a second time by the system.

I left the minimum amount necessary to cover all the outstanding checks that I had already mailed in my account and transferred the rest of the money to my wife’s account. Early this morning, I awakened to find that all pending transactions except Walmart had posted. At that point, I further reduced my bank balance to $75. When I got up to go to work, I decided I needed to transfer an additional $200 to my checking account. My bank separately posted one check later in the morning. They did ding me for a fee to cover the check but as of this writing, Walmart has dropped off my account.

I’m hoping that the worst is behind me now. It appears that the Walmart purchase was aborted; probably overnight. If the thieves had spent a small sum on my card, the transaction likely would have gone thru but I have the feeling that they “went for broke” or more literally tried to make me broke.

Of interest to me is the fact that two of the fraudulent orders that they charged to my account were intended for delivery at a physical address. The food order and Walmart order both had to go somewhere. A reasonable person would think this would make it easier to catch these guys but neither my bank nor Walmart indicated that law enforcement be notified of the fraud.

It reminds me of the time we got robbed and the policeman asked if we had insurance and as soon as we said yes, they were done looking for the crooks.

It really bothers me that such fraud is tolerated and so commonplace that nobody even seems interested in pursuing the thieves. For my bank, it is just an allocation in their general ledger and a cost for doing business.

My final thought on this is that God is watching and our family has asked Him to mete out a little justice now on these thieves and not let it wait until the next life. And yes I do believe that divine intervention prevented this from being as harmful to us as it could have been.

SEIU Rattling Sabers

This week, the SEIU is again pushing for members to be prepared for battle. However, I have still heard nothing about asking members to vote to authorize a strike.

Is this their “October Surprise” or do they want folks out of work in time for the holidays?

If they do pull the trigger on a strike then just wait ‘til the media starts talking about “non-essential” government workers striking. I think calling SEIU members “non-essential” government workers will bring a swift end to this folly.

City Fathers Tell Us to Vote Early and Right

I get bombarded with a plethora of junk mail each week. The other day I spotted a slick, glossy publication from the City of Elk Grove in amongst my pile of mail. On the cover are two items that together make what can only be an underhanded “in kind contribution” to the YES on Measure B campaign.

First was an article that claims that California now has early voting. Really? Until recently, I have been involved with various political groups that claim to be the guardians of public good—at least from a Conservative point of view—and I have never heard a peep out of anyone that California was adopting early voting. I know that in two years, we will have same day registration but early voting too? This is a bombshell announcement; however, the usual suspects are mute on this.

California seems to want more voter fraud to be committed more easily—at least as long as it benefits the party in power.

Next to this voter news on the newsletter was a plug for the Measure B campaign.

So we are told where to vote and what to vote for, seems like a plug for Measure B in my book.

UPDATE 08-31-2016

Sith Lord says that this is not a Texas style, full blown Early Voting System. Instead, Sacramento County Elections is trying voting at three locations in the county during week-ends. Voters will get one-time absentee ballot. They can then either vote on the spot or take ballot and return via snail mail or drop at a polling location later. Sith Lord was concerned about ballot security and county elections was not forthcoming about any chain-of-custody issues.

This is reportedly a trial program that will be evaluated later to decide if it should be continued.

Purple People Prepping

Just when you thought it was safe…

Or in this case, too quiet; the SEIU has begun saber rattling again.

My last post, pondering if SEIU was opting for a political settlement via the November elections prior to pursuing contract negotiations, seems to have been nullified by the weekly newsletter that they released this morning.

BARGAINING UPDATE: TAKE THE PLEDGE & GET READY!

We are expressing our commitment to stand up and fight for a strong contract by taking a pledge to participate in all Local 1000 authorized actions.

Contract negotiations came to a halt when state negotiators made their position clear: Even in a time of budget surpluses – and California being the sixth largest economy in the world – they will not make a real, meaningful investment in the people who make California a great place to live.

The message we delivered at town halls was also clear: The state’s offer simply does not value our work or the sacrifices we’ve made. And we’re ready and willing to let them know they must do better.

Your participation makes all the difference. Take the pledge as we gear up for our next actions. Together we are unstoppable.

SEIU Letter August 24 2016

Oh, and the pledge

My question is this, what if people realize that these “non-essential government workers” really are non-essential?

Being this IS California, there’s not much likelihood of that happening.

SEIU and Crickets

Crickets…

This sound is often associated with silence, white noise, or just meaningless background. In the movies as in real life, when the crickets are silent, something very wrong is being foreshadowed.

In like manner, since the SEIU Board of Directors unanimously authorizing a strike vote, all that they have been saying publicly is nothing; just crickets. Nothing distributed to members via public channels even hints to their next move.  Their silence over last few weeks is deafening.

I thought they would jump to calling a strike vote almost immediately. Instead, I’m starting to wonder if they are shopping legislative campaigns in search of sympathetic candidates who will sell their souls for campaign cash from this powerful labor union. Now that California is officially a one party state, it is a possibility worth considering.

I think it is clear that Governor Brown is not supportive of their cry for a 22 percent pay increase over four years for 95,000 state employees. Perhaps they are trying to shore-up their support in the Legislature before entering into further negotiations with the State.

As a recovering Republican, I’m not used to people playing chess in an arena where my side can’t even play checkers. The SEIU playing the long game is something I hadn’t considered until now but if August goes out like a lamb, then it’s likely they are banking on November 8th to improve their fortunes…literally.

Text: My Ballot Argument to Vote No on Measure B

The following was submitted to Sacramento County Elections as a ballot argument in opposition to the increase in local sales tax that will appear on the November ballot. This argument was not selected by the Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County. According to County Elections, several arguments were submitted.

Such arguments can be submitted by individuals or groups. This one was submitted as an argument by an individual. I’m curious what they ended-up selecting. Anyway, here is the text as submitted.

As a resident of Sacramento County, I’m respectfully submitting an argument in opposition to this 30 yearlong sale tax increase. Here are some reasons to oppose this tax.

First, until the state and federal governments restore the taxes they are diverting from roads to other programs, why should we here at the local level be taxed again for repairs we have already paid for but never received? Here are examples:

1. All diesel fuel sales taxes ($620 million) are diverted to public transit. Zero is spent on road improvements.

2. All vehicle weight fees ($1 billion) are diverted to California’s general fund. None is used on roads.

3. 25 percent of the federal Highway Trust Fund is spent on non-highway projects.

Second “transportation” does not equal road repairs and improvements. It can but does not have to. Much of this tax is already earmarked for busses and light rail despite the fact that there is no visible relationship between transit funding and transit ridership.

Third, just because revenue from this proposed tax is designated for transportation does not mean that transportation spending will increase. Historically, when a special tax such as this is passed, a budget swap is done.

Here’s an example.

Suppose 5 million is collected from this tax and given to the transportation budget. Now 5 million that was being spent on transportation is free to be spent elsewhere. The result:  transportation spending is unchanged but 5 million more is available in the general fund thus growing government without fixing anything.

Fourth, government wants to boost the wages of their employees proportional to the increase in the minimum wage. Much of this tax will go to wages and pensions of existing employees and not the promised improvements.

I don’t think I’m under taxed just under served. How about you?

Jail House Vote

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats were desperate to stop Republicans and the quickest way to stack the voter rolls was to create more voters by giving felons the right to vote. The fight to stack to voter rolls with more Democrats resulted in Paul Shanklin recording a parody of Elvis Presley’s Jail House Rock in 1999. The parody, sung by Jesse Jackson was titled Rev. Jackson’s Jailhouse Vote.

This is actually happening again right now in Virginia. In a desperate effort to help Democrats, the governor, Terry McAuliffe —an associate of Bill Clinton’s—is adding 200,000 felons to the voter rolls in time for the November election.

Virginia Governor Bypasses Court Ruling To Help 200,000 Ex-Felons Vote

Yesterday, I went to the Sacramento County Elections office and guess what I saw?
Yeah, the jailhouse voter rights sign.

Taxes, Lies, and Silence

A few years ago (2010), the City of Elk Grove put forward a ballot measure that claimed to reduce the local utility tax by .25 percent. The ballot argument submitted by the city attorney put this forward as the chief reason to support the measure.

Measure J: Shall an ordinance be adopted to reduce the existing Utility User Tax from 2.5% to 2.25%; modernize the current ordinance to treat taxpayers equally regardless of technology used for telecommunications and video services; to preserve funding for essential general municipal services, such as public safety?

FISCAL IMPACT The legal and technology issues could reduce the City’s projected General Fund revenues by as much as $600,000 per year. The General Fund pays for most of the City’s police, code enforcement, animal control, financial and administrative services, and some transit services. Some or all of these services could be affected by the lost revenue. Measure J would prevent the loss of those revenues.

www.elections.saccounty.net/ElectionInformation/Documents/sac_025024.pdf

There was no opposition to the measure. This tax argument was based on a willful lie or—as the Catholics call it—a sin of omission. The tax was technically a reduction; however, it more than doubled the amount of devices that were covered by the tax so in reality it was a huge, multi-million dollar tax increase. This was a textbook case of bait-and-switch.

The measure passed 76.57 % to 23.43 %

Since that time, many of us have vowed that no local tax measure would go unchallenged on the ballot. Unfortunately, those groups in our community that claim to stand for lower taxes and less government have failed to act. With both elected Republicans and Democrats acting in concert to raise taxes, these advocacy groups have ceded the argument and the fight.

Sacramento County is now trying to pass a sales tax increase for transportation called Measure B. Measure B—an 8.5 billion dollar tax over 30 years—will be on the November 8th ballot. As of a month ago, none of the so-called conservative leaders in the Elk Grove area knew anything about the measure and were surprised to hear it was going to voters. Furthermore, none plan to do anything about it.

Thanks in part to the work of one of my friends, the Elk Grove City Council decided not to go after a local sales tax after they had paid for all the groundwork to get it on the ballot in November. Prior to the vote he sent each Council member a letter outlining the spending excesses of the Council and some of the things they had foolishly done with taxpayer money. Since the total amount he listed was several times the amount they hope to get from the tax, the motion died with only one YES vote. Again no local groups did anything to oppose the tax.

But never fear faithful readers, yours truly promises that some sort of argument against Measure B will be on the ballot. Thus far, two arguments have been submitted in opposition—including mine—and as of yesterday no argument in favor had been submitted.

I will keep you updated on what happens. Arguments must be filed by close of business on Thursday and rebuttal arguments are due on Monday.

CDCR: Pledges No Assisted Suicide for Inmates

Department of Corrections opts out of physician assisted suicide law in California.

Below are excerpts of the proposed response to this new California law.
www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/NCDR/2016NCR/16-10/NCR_16-10_Notice_of_Proposed_Regulations_Posting.pdf

Jack “The Dripper” Kevorkian (1928-2011) with his suicide machine

3359.8 End of Life Option Act Exemption

New section 3359.8 is adopted to read:
All terminally ill inmates remaining in the custody of CDCR will receive health care appropriate and necessary to their situation, including counseling, hospice and palliative care. Inmates in the custody of CDCR shall not be provided aid-in-dying drugs under the End of Life Option Act (California Health and Safety Code, Division 1, Part 1.85, Sections 443-443.22). Employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, shall not participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act on premises managed by or under the direct control or management of the Department or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the Department.
Page 5

Confirming that individuals requesting end of life medication have made an informed and voluntary decision is the most significant factor in the End of Life Option Act. Its provisions describe the specific content and timing of the required oral and written requests for the medications. Confirmation of the request to the attending physician is required from a consulting physician and from a mental health specialist if there are indications of a mental disorder. Even within those safeguards, it is unclear how an inmate could make a voluntary decision in light of the influence and effect of confinement. The degree that inmate decisions are influenced or coerced, directly or indirectly, by the conditions of confinement or by the remaining length of sentence cannot readily be measured or alleviated.

Given the custodial status of terminally ill inmates, the End of Life Option Act creates a potential conflict of interest for CDCR staff and contractors responsible for inmates’ safety and welfare. In California, CDCR determines where inmates will be assigned and determines their housing restrictions in the prison; it decides who can visit them and for how long; and their access to food, clothing and personal property. Health care is provided to inmates by CDCR employees or through contracts with CDCR. Prison health care staff determine what care is offered to inmates, when and which employees or contractors will provide treatment. Finally, the State of California pays for inmate care and treatment of inmates, including end of life care.

Once the aid-in-dying drugs are prescribed and delivered to the patient under the End of Life Option Act, the individual is free to choose when and where to ingest the medication. Alternatively, the person may decide not to end his or her life. The abuse of both illicit and prescribed medications in CDCR is a major safety and security concern. If a terminally ill inmate were allowed to possess aid-in-dying drugs, significant operational and administrative controls would be required to manage access to the self-administered medications. Prison staff would have to play an unacceptable role in managing and supervising the inmate’s end-of-life actions.
Page 6-7