Seems Some Rules Don’t Apply to D.A.

Concerning the matter of Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury receiving federal funds to subsidize his mother’s rent, it seems to me that the real issue is not how much money he makes or whether the tenant happens to be related to him, but that he receives any federal funds at all because he evidently does not charge his mother any rent.

Please let me explain: Bradbury, acting as a landlord, set a monthly amount of rent which, in turn, determined the monthly amount of federal subsidy he received even though he never intended to collect the balance of any rent due from the tenant. If the amount of rent he intended to collect from his tenant was nothing, the amount of the subsidy, if any, should have been nothing as well.

The purpose of federal subsidies is to help disadvantaged people pay their rent, not allow a windfall to the landlord. The factors of wealth and relationship may be relevant to the question of entitlement in the first instance, but to focus this inquiry on the relationship or even the wealth of the parties seems to miss the real crux of the matter.

I ask, rhetorically, what action would Bradbury take against a landlord receiving public funds to subsidize “payments” which in fact did not exist? Did you say that the name of Bradbury’s ranch was “Hang ‘Em High?”

Well, we can only hope that the outcome of all of this will be what needs to be: An actual end to such hypocrisy, and the beginning of a state of awareness in this rather hardhearted county to appreciate and understand the needs and hardships of others to the ultimate end that true compassion will become realized and practiced for those deserving.

It would be better, as I am sure Bradbury would agree concerning those accused by his office, to admit to the humanity of his error and humbly ask for a second chance to serve those who have placed their trust in him. Unfortunately, instead, we find more schemes and maneuvering in the hope to save face.

JAMES BROWN, Esq.

Westlake Village

*

Michael Bradbury stated that he as a “landlord” doesn’t collect the renter’s payment portion of $211 per month from his renter. How does that work? Is he paying (absorbing) that money? Does he then declare this $2,500 per year lost rental income as a deduction? Doesn’t this $2,500 a year gift to his mother count in her reportable income? How many other landlords just collect the 75% federal taxpayer subsidy? Is this an acceptable practice to U.S. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo?

Mr. Tapking with the Area Housing Authority’s response to the discovery of this abuse--which seems to be: “I intend to find out who blabbed”--is typical of most agencies and officials throughout Ventura County looking out for our homeless and nearly homeless population.

Here’s just one more example of how our systems of laws and government don’t apply to the Bradburys of the world because their positions of influence make them immune to rules created for the rest of us. If you or I were in Bradbury’s shoes, our Section 8 vouchers would be cut off so fast it would make your head spin and we’d be prosecuted for fraud and forced to pay all the money back or do jail time.

The fact that our district attorney doesn’t see his decision to allow this abuse to continue as wrong puts into question his ability to determine what constitutes fraud and when or who should be prosecuted for similar deeds.

Bradbury chose to abuse the system that was there for his mother, sending the message “Damn the needy, we got ours.”

It’s time affluent abusers get treated like the rest of us and like his ranch “Hang ‘Em High.”

CHRIS BUCKETT

Thousand Oaks

*

Re “Verdict Against the D.A.” by Bill Overend, Aug. 17:

Some day--I hope not--I will stand against you, Michael Bradbury, accused of bloodthirsty murder or high treason or welfare fraud or whatever. Then remember, Mike, I’m just a man. I bleed, I cry like you.

Allow me to quote the Three Saints of Welfare Reform:

* Ronald Reagan: “There he goes again!”

* Pete Wilson: “My road to the White House is blocked by welfare cheats who try to deprive me from glory.”

* Newt Gingrich: “The Republican revolution is smashing the foundation of the Welfare State, Big Government and Personal Enslavement.”

Yes, Mike, you’re a great attorney and splendid politician; you smell a loophole miles away. Otherwise, you would not be D.A.

To me you are an A.D.--another closet Democrat--another human symbol of nothing but his own humanity and vulnerability.

ADOLPH DONINS

Oxnard

*

Michael Bradbury, a very visible law-and-order public official paid by taxpayers to the tune of $131,084 not counting a generous array of perks, finding his hand caught in the cookie jar, now laments that he is being singled out for pocketing federal subsidies of $639 per month to house his 77-year-old mother on his $550,000 ranch and estate.

There cannot be a clearer case of the rich robbing the poor while several thousand impoverished families with little mouths to feed live in cramped shacks.

The good hard-working people of Ventura County must remain grateful to The Times for this excellent expose of greed and legalized grand larceny. No small wonder that so many are outraged at this hypocrisy from our local leaders who moralize about public ethics and good and honest government. The all too familiar defense of our political scoundrels is if it’s legal it’s OK. This is a tragic infection on our body politic.

If there is anything more disconcerting, it is the comments of Rep. Elton Gallegly who sees nothing wrong here! Yet this is the same congressman who votes to deprive legal residents living on subsistence wages of federal medical benefits when these individuals strain their last dollar to support their parents, grandparents and children.

Is it too much to ask the good citizens of this county to put aside their political differences and kick out these two elected officials the next time around?

DON SCHEIMER

Ventura

*

As I read the newspaper article regarding Michael Bradbury receiving money from HUD for his mother, I was particularly troubled by Elton Gallegly’s support of Bradbury on this issue.

Gallegly has lambasted “welfare queens” and welfare abuse in the past. Clearly, Bradbury’s receipt of HUD monies contravenes the intent of the program--to assist those people with housing expenses who are in need. I know that if I had a six-figure salary and my mother needed assistance for housing, she would not be receiving HUD assistance.

Moreover, if the newspaper article had mentioned a so-called Latino activist similarly receiving HUD funds, Gallegly would be lambasting him or her for abusing the system.

Gallegly has previously indicated that individuals should look to themselves or their families rather than depend on public assistance. Gallegly’s support of Bradbury’s receipt of HUD monies once again demonstrates how he will sacrifice principle and leadership for the sake of political expediency. It is a shame that our so-called elected leaders lack the backbone to lead and be true to their principles.

FIDEL GUEVARA

Simi Valley

The System, Not D.A., Is to Blame

The day-to-day hits against Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury are unfair and distort the real threats to society which warrant our serious attention.

How many of us can tell our 77-year-old mother what to do? She is usually stubborn, tough and still the boss. I’m sure Bradbury’s mother is no different in this respect and he should not be held accountable for her actions, only for his.

Where we should focus our attention is to the problems of our government which would allow a white female with three highly educated, successful sons to get on the welfare roles for more than 20 years. This is a disgrace to our society, should be an embarrassment to the recipient and should make us look deeply into that very welfare system that Congressman Gallegly has been diligently trying to overhaul.

Out of love for his mother, Bradbury said, “Mom has pride.” Unfortunately, so many of the welfare recipients plead pride while stepping up to the public support trough for a free handout and never leaving. We all pay and pay and pay for these citizens.

The press about Bradbury is indeed misdirected. It is government and those who abuse the system who should be lambasted. The welfare system should be thrown out. Perhaps if government was not there with free money each and every month, a majority of the recipients would be left no alternative but to seek support from their families or even get a job.

Bradbury did what every good son would do. He supported his mother pursuant to her legal direction. This proven generous, kindhearted, conservative law enforcement officer has shown himself to be a public benefit to Ventura County for many, many years. To say otherwise is a slap in the face to fairness and will only serve to weaken Ventura County.

Welfare reform is indeed needed and we should open our eyes to the abuses that are on all sides of us every day.

LOUIS J. PANDOLFI

Simi Valley