Letter to the Editor, March 2, 2014
Problems with laws
EDITOR: The two most repugnant laws passed in the last many years has caused unimaginable grief and both should be repealed or changed drastically.
Foremost of the two is placing a "protection from abuse" or better know as a PFA against someone. The other is "no fault divorce." I cannot pinpoint when PFA's were first implemented but I do know no fault divorces have not been on the books more than a few decades. Both laws when implemented had never really considered the ramifications in the long term. Let's look at issuing a PFA to a husband or boyfriend who is generally a stable person. Being rational and he will abide by its decree and desist and come to terms and work something out. PFA's work both ways as some men place them on women.
In my lifetime I've heard or read about thousands of men, women and whole families wiped out because one or the other was enraged when served a PFA. You can be sure that most killed were women.
I would suggest that if you are going to be a target when you push to serve an unstable person with a PFA, you had better before hand, find a weapon you know how to use. I'm too old and have seen enough killings and whole families lost because issuing PFA's as if it some how is going to settle anything is nuts. I would suggest when one feels threatened with bodily harm one should be able to get in touch with the proper authorities before a PFA is implemented. Then authorities should accept the complaint as a legitimate possibility that the recipient of said complaint will react in an explosive manner. This is generally the normal reaction when one is served these papers especially if it involves children being kept from litigant or one being served.
What would I suggest that should be done if one is to issue a PFA on someone who is especially prone to violence? I would have the person or persons issuing such papers to get in touch with proper authorities. Those in charge would get in touch with the future recipient of the PFA and school him or her on grievances. Give this person a heads up on ways to work things out and or what penalties will be implemented if common sense does not prevail. The recipient of the restraining order must be openly cognizant of jail time or recriminations from those whom you wish to harm. If those you wish to harm are themselves armed as they should be, then you've got a problem.
Let your voice be heard
EDITOR: How about it! Chesapeake decides how they will make deductions from "Royalty Checks."
It must be nice, what if our employers starting doubling our deductions when ever they felt like it? This month's checks from Chesapeake have outraged the local community and nearby counties. For the same gas produced in January, has now increased $800 dollars more in so-called transportation fees for February. How can they do this? Well, I started digging and ticked off Senator Yaw by asking questions.
However, he has finally jumped on the bandwagon to help. What took so long? I contacted Tina Pickett and she was very helpful and personally called me to let me know what she was in Harrisburg at that time trying to get Bill 1684 moving and if everything went right it will be up for 2nd consideration and another vote on March 11. Yaw says he will support it now too! We need everyone affected to contact Governor Corbett and Attorney General Kane and let them know we want the matter investigated and demand our minimum 12.5 percent in Royalties. (No Post Production Costs or transportation fees) Contact information: Attorney General Kane www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice and for Tom Corbett: www.facebook.com/gov.tomcorbett or 717-787-2500 let them both know were fed up with Post Production costs and allowing the Supreme Court to change the law in favor of the gas companies. What they deduct is outrageous to say the least. Another way to fight is join the "NARO" National Association for Royalty Owners. There are two Attorneys trying to assist land owners.
The only way to stop this injustice is to join in make phone calls; join in on the lawsuits; and keep contacting the above. The above were elected to protect our rights, but it's going to take us to get them back. Other districts are slowly getting involved now that they are drilling in more areas and finding out the same.
Yes, I have a personal interest in seeing this through (20 acres producing) But if I could go back, I would never have signed a lease and I would bet 50 percent of the county residents or more would never have signed either. Maybe this is one thing we can change.