Blogging Bayport Alameda

March 22, 2012

All in the family

Filed under: Alameda, Crime — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

I have to say I’m disappointed, but not wholly surprised at some of the reaction to the news — and the decision to post the news — about the domestic violence allegations against David Howard.   Let me just say that the decision to post the information did not come lightly and  I know I struggled with it.   But even my struggle to post about it bothers me too.   Because that tells me that domestic violence, while I recognize is a crime, somehow still manages to occupy a place in our society that still makes it untouchable in some people’s eyes.

If the victim had been a stranger on the street that had similar injuries inflicted, there wouldn’t been these protestions of the issue being a family problem or a personal problem.   Much like what happened to a certain individual who was running for office, it would be newsworthy.   Folks wouldn’t be making excuses about it being a personal problem and I wouldn’t have hesitated to write about the issue.

The fact that the alleged assailant was David Howard made the decision to write about this — for me — more difficult as opposed to gleefully reveling in his woes.    Because of the incredibly personally destructive behavior David Howard has peddled in over these past few years, anything written about him is sure to bring cries of political payback.   Think John P. was the only person to receive a Christmas Eve letter from David Howard’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit?   Think again.   At least four other individuals received letters, my household received two sets.

When a political blogger, who actually wrote the story about Joel Young’s domestic violence issues, dismisses domestic violence allegations as “not news”

That’s when you know that the public perception about the severity of domestic violence as a criminal act has a long way to go.

The issue of domestic violence is a tricky one because it involves someone very intimate in someone’s life.   But these cries that exposure will make it more difficult for the victim and the family to heal is exactly the type of reasoning that has kept domestic violence issues out of the spotlight.   Telling domestic violence victims that it’s a personal problem or a family matter tells them that they shouldn’t have involved anyone outside the family and should have handled it within the family.   That, personally, is less helpful to the victims of domestic violence because then they feel shame for involving outsiders in what some have termed a “family problem” instead of what it is: a criminal act.

What we should be saying to these victims is that you are supported and you did the right thing.   I can’t imagine the courage that it takes to call the police on your spouse or intimate partner.   Then to have to go through the process itself and navigate the criminal justice system must be equally agonizing and difficult which is why many victims end up not cooperating with prosecutors.

I brought up the situation with San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi because it parallels well with this one.   If anyone had been tracking the discussion around the whole saga, there were many allegations that the inquest into this was politically motivated as well, but what elevated the shock-worthy factor was that incredibly flippant statement that minimized a serious crime to something that should be handled within the family, from the SF Weekly:

[T]he language Mirkarimi has used to describe the situation has deeply troubled legal scholars with an expertise in the state’s domestic violence laws. For a top city law enforcement official to describe abuse allegations in which a police report has been filed and an investigation is under way as “a private matter, a family matter” — as Mirkarimi did — is both legally incorrect and sends the disturbing message that accusations of domestic violence are to be kept behind closed doors.

In fact, Nancy K.D. Lemon, a lecturer at U.C. Berkeley’s Domestic Violence Law Seminar, notes that one of the questions on her recent final exam was “Give some examples of how we are moving away from seeing domestic violence as a private, family matter.”

The notion that allegations of domestic abuse belong out of the public eye is “a very antiquated view of domestic violence,” Lemon says. “A century ago we thought it was a private, family matter. We found a lot of people were hurt — or killed.” Rather than treat domestic violence as a domestic problem, Lemon notes, it is now seen as a crime against the state. That’s why prosecutors can move ahead with charges, even if the alleged victim refuses to cooperate, or even actively opposes the process.

To classify domestic violence as a problem for families to sort out on their own exposes a mentality “predating the 1970s,” says professor Marisa Cianciarulo, the director of Chapman University’s Family Violence Clinic. The nation’s first Domestic Violence Protection Act was enacted in Pennsylvania in 1976; California followed shortly thereafter. Prior to that time, an attack that, by a stranger, would constitute battery could go uncharged if it was received in a domestic attack.

But the pendulum has shifted. Lemon notes that a lower standard is necessary for a felony charge in domestic battery than in a general case. “Police often tell me it’s seven stitches or a broken bone,” to garner felony charges in a battery case, she says. “In domestic violence, on the other hand, even something as minor as a bloody nose, a scratch or bruise, or a black eye could result in a felony arrest.”

What’s more, the old “she started it” defense doesn’t hold. Police now look for the “dominant aggressor.” Who started the fight “is irrelevant,” Lemon continues. “The real question is, who responded appropriately or who overreacted?”

In short, the law has changed a great deal since allegations of domestic violence truly were a family matter. To claim the same today “sends the message that it’s okay for the head of the household to be abusive with his or her spouse or partner,” says professor Wendy Seiden, Cianciarulo’s colleague at the Family Violence Clinic. “It says violence is okay if it’s in the family.”

And while someone mentioned there are two sides to every story, that is absolutely correct, but as the experts note, it doesn’t matter who and how the argument started, it matters who responded appropriately and the message that should be sent is that violence is never okay.


  1. David Howard is a very public and bombastic figure who has no problem using the legal system to try to get his way. That is different than reveling about his current encounter with the criminal justice system. What he did was “news” and in some rough justice sort of way he “deserves” condemnation, but it does not appeal to the best part of us to do so.

    Domestic violence is a serious offense and is not a “private matter.” let’s take a deep breath and hope that this experience gives him some insight into how his own actions cause chaos and disruption in the lives of others. if not, then at least he will be distracted from his many crusades for a while and his community credibility significantly diminished.

    Comment by Really? — March 22, 2012 @ 7:00 am

  2. You also should not have ridiculed Gail DeHahn for thanking Doug at the last city council meeting. You looked very petty

    Comment by Dr Poodlesmurf — March 22, 2012 @ 7:17 am

  3. Well done, Lauren.

    Comment by Linda Hudson — March 22, 2012 @ 7:53 am

  4. My goodness, one would think this incident between a citizen, his wife and the police was important to the survival of western civilization. I hope our hostess provides a weekly police report on other threats so we can all shake our heads and swear to make others do better.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 8:38 am

  5. Sorry Jack, but you don’t get to play this down or blame it on our hostess. it happened and now people are dealing with it, that can’t be changed.

    Comment by John P. — March 22, 2012 @ 9:01 am

  6. Yes, Jack, why talk about a public figure’s domestic violence charge when we could listen to your stories of playing with a third world woman’s breasts with your toes — at bargain rates? (See your post last night on “By Design.”)

    I mean, what’s really important about women anyway? Their welfare or their status as sexual play things?

    Comment by Also anon so I don't get sued, stalked, or otherwise harassed — March 22, 2012 @ 9:02 am

  7. not western civilization, but it’s the self proclaimed sheriff of the shadow government of Alameda. But we now know what the basic fact there was an incident and the legal system can deal with the rest. However, I wonder if the sheriff will resign. His reaction to the Measure C was something about how he was personally insulted about people thinking HE was stupid. Nothing about taking the community for granted, all about the individual.

    Comment by M.I. — March 22, 2012 @ 9:12 am

  8. 6.Comment by Also anon so I don’t get sued, stalked, or otherwise harassed
    1. You didn’t listen and you didn’t have to read my comment.
    2. I didn’t play with her breasts, I brushed against her blouse. She did the rest.
    3. The price was the going rate…plus.
    4. Concerning your other two questions:
    a and b. What’s really important about women is their fertility rate.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 9:41 am

  9. John, short clip I shot riding in cart with Frank and Ernest. Red shirt Patrick supporters.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 9:57 am

  10. Again Jack Richard minimizes the incident. Reminds me of Ross Mirkarimi’s statement that domestic violence incidents like these are a “private” matter.

    Some “light” reading. Providing insight into survivor’s stories

    Lauren, you are courageous. I can see that it certainly was not an easy decision to blog about this topic. But you are on the right side of shedding light on this issue, versus sweeping domestic violence under the rug. Lauren indeed you are courageous– knowing the previous history of Howard’s behavior towards people who get in his way. Howard is a bully. Sadly his family has to live with violence resulting in his recent arrest.

    Jack Richard continues to stand by this bully–no surprise there. How about the other Action Alameda supporters? What say you? Cat got your tongues?
    Oh, and to save you of keyboard fatigue. You can attack me as stupid, idiotic, and an asshole. etcetera etcetera etcetera!

    Comment by anotheranonymouscoward — March 22, 2012 @ 9:58 am

  11. Get the sense his misuse of the courts is coming back at him in a big and righteous way. Many would think it ideal for him to be locked up for a few years.

    Comment by Just as Vigilant — March 22, 2012 @ 10:01 am

  12. Comment by anotheranonymouscoward

    I neither minimize or maximixe said incident. Far as I’m concerned, the person in question (whom I do not know, have never met, do not support, and could care less about) is innocent until proven otherwise.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 10:04 am

  13. Lauren- There are plenty of us out here in cyberspace that remain unconvinced that your motive here was to shed light on the problem of domestic violence. That is entirely disingenuous. The fact is – there were 9 names of arrested individuals in that police report – none is an elected official who discharges a duty of the public trust. You opportunistically called out a public rival in order to discredit him, and have in fact harmed the cause you purport to defend as a consequence (by cloaking it within a political drama with a nemesis). I can only guess that you’re blogging about this a second time in order to rile up your echo chamber of supporters because while the rational part of your brain understands it was a mistake, the emotional side wants reassurance that your empathy for victims of abuse outweighs any unseemliness in bashing Howard.

    Comment by local — March 22, 2012 @ 10:23 am

  14. 13. David Howard is discrediting himself thru his actions resulting in his March 16th arrest for violence toward his wife. Resulting in visible bruises to her neck. As noted in the Alameda police March 16 activity log.

    Another anon blaming Lauren again and questioning her intentions. What are your intentions?

    Aren’t you yourself acting as an “echo chamber” for Jack Richard? Pot and kettle name calling? LOL

    Comment by anotheranonymouscoward — March 22, 2012 @ 10:54 am

  15. There is no question that this is a public matter, and Lauren’s posting of the factual information is appropriate. The courts have deemed Howard as a “public figure” when he tried to sue everyone for slander who disagreed with him. Of the 9 names on that PUBLIC list, he was the one that has been quoted by Michele Elleson and other news media. If deHaan’s wife chooses to compliment her husband in public because they are a public family, that is fine, as the deHaan family and their holdings would be at risk if he was sued.

    Comment by BarbaraK — March 22, 2012 @ 11:17 am

  16. I used to volunteer for a battered women’s shelter many years ago and it’s amazing how many times we received phone calls from women who were afraid for their lives and the lives of their children. When women find the courage to pick up the phone and call for help – she begins the process of taking control of her life and the life of her children.

    During their stay at the shelter, they receive food, shelter, and counseling. The counselors are there to help women make that transition from being a victim to self empowerment. In many cases, several organizations blend their services so they can help these families with housing, employment, health services, and on going counseling once the family leaves the shelter.

    And for those who choose to participate in support groups, they must agree to a confidentiality agreement in order to create a safe place for sharing. Sharing is part of the healing process.

    Thankfully, there is a safe place for women and children who suffer from domestic abuse and a society and laws that are less tolerant of this type of behavior.

    Comment by Karen Bey — March 22, 2012 @ 11:18 am

  17. When I saw the intiial report earlier this week on Alameda Patch, I wondered if you, Lauren, would also post. I thought such a post, when the information is publicly known, would be both pointless and classless. Well, I guess I have my answer…

    Comment by Neal_J — March 22, 2012 @ 11:24 am

  18. some people I honestly dislike (David Howard), some people just have an opinion that is different than mine (Jack Richard). I like Jack and hope that he continues to give us liberals hell for a long time to come. Jack thanks for the clip I hope you have more of them to show us.

    Comment by John P. — March 22, 2012 @ 11:25 am

  19. I am actually on board with Lauren on this posting. Her article has some really interesting information about evolving (devolving?) views of domestic violence and in the current national climate of down grading women and their rights- I found it pretty interesting. I appreciated that she was trying to move the discussion on to the greater issues here. Perhaps this situation could produce some positive results for some other family struggling with this situation (which is way more common than we like to admit and I had the bruises to prove it at the time).

    As for everyone who is running around with their hair on fire about David Howard and trying to point fingers a dozen different directions: I am sad to say but he pretty much brought this on himself (and his family) by his actions in more ways than one.

    As the saying goes: Karma is nasty (paraphrased).

    Comment by librarycat — March 22, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

  20. #16:How did you volunteer-stuffing envelopes? When–before women got the vote? Your post makes sweeping generalities, apparently designed to soothe & reassure, that couldn’t be farther from reality! Not all battered women have children nor have been thrown out of their homes to become street waifs! Many abused women in fear own/rent their residence, are from upper & middle-class backgrounds, &, more than food or shelter, need a restraining order & a lawyer to get on with their lives! Most of all, they need the POLICE TO BE ON THEIR SIDE, a situation which has been sorely lacking in Alameda, & has yet to be improved. Your emphasis on confidentiality deflects from circumstances that really need improvement. Confidentiality breeds shame & perpetuates bad situations. How, after all, is anyone going to help you defend yourself or your property against the bad guy IF THEY DON’T KNOW WHO IT IS? You have not walked an inch in our moccassins, so don’t you dare try to invalidate my life experience! Someday it may happen to you or someone you love.

    Comment by vigi — March 22, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

  21. Vigi, you haven’t walked in Karen Beys shoes so maybe you should try not to invalidate what she has to say, and calling people idiots doesn’t further the conversation.

    Comment by John P. — March 22, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

  22. #16 Thank you , Karen for your service to other women. Any one who goes into that environment and works to provide help with the struggles that women of all types go through in difficult situations deserves kudoes from the community.
    Confidentially is a critical part of the process to those that need it to make their way through.

    I applaud you and the help that you have tried to provide.

    Comment by librarycat — March 22, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

  23. Vigi, my post comes from my own personal experiences and is not meant to invalidate yours. I worked at a domestic abuse crisis center on the crisis hotline and participated in some of the support group sessions. The crisis hotlines are there for women experiencing domestic abuse, and are looking for support.

    Domestic abuse effects women from all walks of life, and you’re right not all women need all of these support systems, but its good to know they’re in place for those that do.

    Comment by Karen Bey — March 22, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

  24. If anything happens to David Howard, John P., you’re partly to blame. You should all be very proud of yourselves, gleefully kicking someone when they’re down.
    This is, unfortunately, one way this blog makes Alameda worse. It is, however, a fascinating study of the pathology of a small town!

    “…cuz this is just a little Peyton Place & you’re all Alameda hypocrites..” apologies to Jeannie C. Riley. That’s probably over your heads.

    Comment by vigi — March 22, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

  25. Karen……It Not only effects Women it also Effects Men. Alot of Not so Happy Campers out there.

    According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1% of women and 7.4% of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime

    Violence against men

    Determining how many instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for a number of reasons. Another study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by women of aggression against men.[128]

    Some researchers have found a relationship between the availability of domestic violence services, improved laws and enforcement regarding domestic violence, increased access to divorce, and higher earnings for women with declines in intimate partner homicide by women.[129]

    Straus and Gelles found that in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man struck the first blow; in 24% of cases, the woman initiated the violence. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.[135] The simple tally of physical acts is typically found to be similar in those studies that examine both directions, but some studies show that male violence may be more serious. Male violence may do more damage than female violence;[136] women are more likely to be injured and/or hospitalized. Wives are more likely to be killed by their husbands than the reverse (59% to 41% per Department of Justice study), and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined.[137]

    Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses that appear to demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.[138] In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that “…consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as expected—women are more likely to be injured than men.”[

    116] However, he noted, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which “extreme aggression” is used. Fiebert additionally noted that his work was not meant to minimize the serious effects of men who abuse women.

    Comment by John — March 22, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

  26. post #24, Vigi, you need to get back on your meds.

    Comment by John P. — March 22, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

  27. Jack

    Thanks for sharing your Video…..RLOL at your comment ” Those Catholic Girls have quite a Reputation” I hope Churchlady turns off the sound.

    Comment by John — March 22, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

  28. Thanks John, I was thinking of the churchlady when I made that comment. Couple other clips with Frank and Ernest have relevance here but it’s getting so antagonistic in this neck of the beach, I think I’ll pass.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 6:22 pm

  29. Jack

    Yes sometimes you have to go to another Country to Really be able to laugh and see how Beautiful America is.

    Off to the funnies.

    Comment by John — March 22, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

  30. You are right, John. The default position by many in the US is that this country is despised around the world. I’ve found just the opposite. I can show you clips from Brazil to Vietnam and from Marrakesh to Nagasaki that shows American English is the language franca and American people are respected and loved throughout the world.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

  31. You may have noticed, John and Jack that the churchlady has not weighed in on this subject, even though I have been a victim of Mr. Howard’s anger, as has an organization I am identified with. He is our neighbor. I am saddened and concerned for his family and I hope that he gets help. I don’t think an open discussion of the parallels between his public anger/behavior and this action does much harm to him, but I am concerned about the effect it must be having on his wife and kids. As a churchlady, I am praying for the whole family, including Mr. Howard. Maybe that is what would be most helpful to them right now.

    Comment by Kate Quick — March 22, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

  32. It did not pass my attention that you had not commented on this subject and that is why you are held in esteem by we who placed the mantle of holiness upon you, Kate, and I mean it.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

  33. #29, John, John, John, your so bad.

    Comment by John P. — March 22, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

  34. Lauren,

    I’m really glad that you posted what you did on this topic.

    I am saddened that, at least from many of the comments here so far, not many people are up to speed on what domestic violence is, what it really costs us, and what it means for the victims as well as for society today. Like Kate, I am praying for everyone involved and for all victims of domestic violence. I am also going to work harder for a society in which men, women, and families have more options and more incentives for breaking the chain of abuse, seeking safety, healing, education, and justice in a world that does not value violence quite so much.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — March 23, 2012 @ 9:30 am

  35. #31 — I would not automatically assume that the wife in this instance is troubled by the blog comments (if indeed she is even aware of them).

    In many cases, victims can be relieved to learn that other people know what the abuser is like. It can be quite validating, especially if the abuser tends to blame the victim for his bad behavior.

    Comment by Also anon so I don't get sued, stalked, or otherwise harassed — March 23, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

  36. I’m not “praying for” anybody because it’s not something I do. Among other reasons, some folks might not want to be prayed for, but that’s a digression. Contrary to some impressions I’m not a completely insensitive asshole either. As a bit of strategic over sharing, at a pretty formative age I endured a period of serious domestic chaos which included episodes of domestic violence. I’m actually glad my parents stayed together, but it was a long strange trip and even after their passing, still is. Unfortunately, a lot of baggage from that period is front and center in my life in many ways defining who I am and it’s no picnic. I am totally sympathetic to Howard’s spouse and particularly his child ( children?) and don’t really want to dwell on the case at all. That said, I have serious differences with Mr. Howard’s methods in advocating for his causes and though I don’t wish to bash him gratuitously because of this situation I’ll also not desist in continuing the same criticisms I’ve made of the guy all along. I completely reject Vigi’s utterly insane notion posted on another thread that I am somehow accessory to Mr. Howard’s action based on my expressing my aggravation with his methods or for any other reason, but I’ll post on that directly at a later time. I do believe in collective responsibility but if the transference of responsibility was as Vigi described we could all be off the hook for ax murder by blaming anybody else who contributed to making us ill at ease.

    Comment by M.I. — March 23, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

  37. So you believe in ‘collective responsibility’ but reserve the right to choose the collective that’s right for you? Ax murders you opt out of and apparently the domestic abuse situation discussed here, any ideas on the ones you opt in?

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 23, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

  38. Oops, I meant to sign that thusly…

    Comment by afraidtousemyrealnamebecausesomeonemightbeatmeup — March 23, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

  39. Did you notice, John, that the Churchlady has a partner in the pew?

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 23, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

  40. RLOL…She is Never alone in the Church……Thats why we don’t call her Mother Kate…..Well some have used the term Mother ….. But I like Churchlady.

    Comment by John — March 23, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

  41. All in the family
    On beach in Danang…

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 24, 2012 @ 9:34 am

  42. Jack, I love these clips, you were working that poor lady better than she was trying to work you. You are my Rick Steves.

    Comment by John P. — March 24, 2012 @ 11:26 am

  43. Jack World Class Video.You might have been a little too tough on this deal. If it was Rare Date you might have been able to pay for trip and a few Red Shirted Massages.

    What she was Trying to sell you was a British Trade Dollar.She had her finger over the Date and where it was minted. The Silver content alone was worth about 30.00 american. If it was rare date even in that condition the prices could bring those listed Below.

    Catalog values for most of the British trade dollars in the series which ran from 1895 to 1935

    worn condition: $30 to $50 US dollars catalog value
    average circulated: $40 to $80

    There are many ups and downs in values for this series of coins. That’s why we specify a range of catalog values in the list above. There are, however, some particular dates and mint marks that really stand out as extra valuable coins. There appear in the list below, with the value corresponding to coins in average circulated condition. The mint mark ‘C’ can be found in the ground between the left foot of Britannia and the base of the shield, while the mint mark ‘B’ is located in the centre prong of the trident.

    1895 $150
    1895B $160
    1896B 180
    1900 $175
    1900C $150
    1934B $300
    1935B $3000

    The British Trade Dollar was issued from around 1895 to 1935. This coin was quite popular and used in Singapore and Hong Kong to stop other countries’ silver dollars from being circulated in British colonies. This coin was known as Ringgit Tongkat in Malaya.

    The British Trade Dollar appeared in China as a result of the Opium Wars (1839-1843, 1856-1860), when China tried to stop Britain from selling opium to its citizens. The looser of the Opium War, China, opened up a number of ports to British, including Hong Kong. As a result foreign banks were established, and large silver coins from all over the world began arriving to pay for tea, silk, and Chinese porcelain to be shipped abroad.

    The British Trade Dollars, minted exclusively for use in the Far East. On the one side of dollars is Britannia standing on shore, holding a trident in one hand and balancing a British shield in the other, with a merchant ship under full sail in the background. On the reverse of dollar is an arabesque design with the Chinese symbol for longevity in the center, and the denomination in two languages— Chinese and Jawi Malay. The British Trade Dollar was a silver coin. It is 420 grains in weight, composed of 90% silver and 10% copper, as opposed to the 412 grains of a standard US silver dollar of the time period. The diameter The British Trade Dollars were 39.0 millimeters.

    The British Trade Dollars had different marks depending of the mint center. Thus, dollars with the mint mark “B” were produced at the Bombay mint; dollars marked by “C”, were struck in Calcutta. The mint mark “C” can be found in the ground between the left foot of Britannia and the base of the shield. And the mint mark “B” is located in the centre prong of the trident. The 1921-B dollar was struck but never released for circulation, and only a limited number of 1934-B and 1935-B coins were released. Certain dates are found with a new date being over-struck on another; these include 1897-B over 1896-B, 1900-B over 1894-B, 1901-B over 1900-B, 1909-B over 1908-B, 1904-B over 1898-B, 1903-B over 1902-B, 1908-B over 1903-B, 1904-B over 1903-B, 1929-B over 1901-B, 1908-B over 1907-B, and 1910-B over 1900-B. The British Trade Dollar was demonetized on August 1, 1937 numismatic history where a coin of the realm has been demonetized, although that was changed in 1982 when the coin again became legal tender.

    The quantity of produced British Trade Dollars in 1911 having the largest number issued of any year, 37.5 million.

    Comment by John — March 24, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

  44. You are right, John. I kicked myself in the ass later that day for not buying the coin. At the time I thought it was an American script dollar from the war but it obviously wasn’t.

    Went to Marble Mt later on and bought a half-ton marble Budda to atone for my ignorance (wouldn’t fit in my backpack so had it shipped home)and to make up for screwing up on the coin. Getting Budda home is a whole story in itself, but it did get here about a year later.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 24, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

  45. Comment by Jack Richard — March 24, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

  46. Jack

    You might enjoy this . on Marble MT

    You are not alone in making bad decisions ……Long story short….We were doing turnarounds on companies and was given 50,000 shares of Company for Christmas Bonus. Wife at Time says lets cash it and go to Cancun. Great Idea. Stock worth about 10k at time .20 cents a share. We had Great time..LOL

    I get call from my Old secratary about 15 years later looking for one of my old Managers I gave 10,000 shares to for Christmas . She goes we haven’t been able to locate S—– B——- but he still holds 10k original shares . Someone wants to do takeover. That 10,000 shares is worth 49 million now..The Stock had split 5 times….Do you know where I could find him.

    Comment by John — March 24, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

  47. Interesting clip, John, I didn’t go through that part of Marble Mt. but did go through many caverns along the Mekong in Laos.

    I’m glad you went to Cancun, though. You darned sure wouldn’t be wasting your time here with 250 mil in your pocket.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 24, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

  48. It’s ok Jack I’m still holding Enron and Lehman Bros. Never know when you need to start bon fire to stay warm.LOL

    I’m outta here..Off to the funnies….Have a Great weekend.

    Comment by John — March 24, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

  49. Jack……Also that company remained in BK for a long period…..20 cents was the high for about 10 years and fell to a fraction of a penney and felt like Genius going on vacation with money. I had watched so many investors get hammered trying to turn it around losing hundreds of millions. Until someone came in with Huge Pockets and could sit thru some severe pain were they rewarded. It’s not a easy game. The behemoths make playing the game almost cost prohibitive at times to compete.

    Really out of here..LOL

    Comment by John — March 24, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

  50. we interrupt the Jack and John show for this public service announcement…not really. just responding to 37.

    I believe there is collective responsibility for murder of Trayvon Martin because of shitty gun laws and delusions of post racial society. Collective responsibility for slaughter of 17 Afghan civilians because we expect too much of volunteer military and don’t give them enough support. Collective responsibility for Daniel DeWitt because we don’t do enough to recognize and help metal illness. I have a harder time extending that to anybody else taking personal responsibility for Mr. Howard’s bad decisions beside Howard.

    Comment by M.I. — March 25, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

  51. If you would bother noting, Mark, the time the last entry of the Jack and John show was almost 24 hours ago so you are welcome to put your two bits in without concern of interrupting anything but the silence.

    Unfortunately your comment doesn’t fit the weekend atmosphere which tends to celebrate a certain freedom from lock-step dogmatism. So pardon me for restraining my response until the normal work-day which begins tomorrow morning (I do appreciate the fact that you did respond).

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 25, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

  52. 50
    My take on Justice Irons’ justice regarding collective responsibility.

    The four examples mentioned by Justice Irons have at least one important factor in common. None has been tried in a court of law so guilt of any of the individuals involved has not been determined through any official justice process. Each then is currently presumed innocent under our legal system. However this ‘innocence’ factor does not, apparently, extend to society at large, according to Justice Irons. Except, that is, in one case. That case is the one case Justice Irons finds the defendant guilty as charged.

    Shitty gun laws and delusions of societal post racism absolves one individual’s alleged responsibility and transfers it to the collective. Another’s responsibility for the alleged wanton slaughter of numerous parents and children is transferred to the collective because the collective expected too much from the individual because he volunteered to defend the collective. The third is absolved because the collective didn’t recognize the perpetrator’s ‘mental illness’ which led the individual to allegedly commit murder.

    That leads us to the last alleged perpetrator in Justice Irons’ four examples, the only one who’s alleged deed is not transferred to the collective. Examination shows this case differs starkly from the others mentioned because of the level of alleged violence and one other important factor. That factor being the numerous times on this blog Justice Irons has mentioned the individual charged.

    Justice Irons states he has a harder time extending responsibility to anyone (collective or not) other than the alleged perpetrator in this one case but none of the others. No reason is given for this so the instructions to the Judge’s jury is anybody’s guess.

    One last quote from Justice Irons that totally confuses the murders mentioned in his #50 comment:

    “I do believe in collective responsibility but if the transference of responsibility was as Vigi described we could all be off the hook for ax murder by blaming anybody else who contributed to making us ill at ease.”

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 26, 2012 @ 9:35 am

  53. 52. “….after all it was you and me. Ooo-whooo!


    while we’re at it… rock on daddy-o

    Comment by M.I. — March 26, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

  54. Mark, now that you and your wife are retired how about joining my wife and me on a 8 day trip to Cuba? As far as I can discern, Cuba requires an escorted tour for Americans. I’ve had a trip through Cuba on my mind for years, primarily because I don’t like the Gov telling me where I can or cannot travel. I’ve used Intrepid Travel for other trips, it’s out of Austrailia, and we really like it. Let me know…?

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 26, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

  55. Oh if only. I’m ten years behind you, at least. Me esposa mas. I have affinity for Asia, but Cuba I could dig. Me esposa ella esta encendiado por ensenar. Pero no esta edad de jubilacion. My Spanish is shit.

    Sure you wouldn’t prefer to hang with fellow pledge “John” at the old cyber frat house?

    Comment by M.I. — March 26, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

  56. Too bad about you being overworked, but on second thought what would I tell the folks back home if you sought asylum.

    Probably any one of our three Johns are too busy, one is running the city, one is running this blog and the other is care-taking the base. One other possibility might be the John without an ‘h’. He’s a cycle fan and Intrepid has this trip…

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 27, 2012 @ 10:03 am

  57. Make that ‘are’ collectively and ‘is’ individually.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 27, 2012 @ 10:09 am

  58. Jack, I would love to go to CUBA , but I’m afraid if I left to go to CUBA some jerks would develop the base while I was gone. I need it empty for my dogs and my own safety when we are walking or riding there.

    Comment by John P. — March 27, 2012 @ 10:24 am

  59. John P, maybe could talk to Castro while we’re there and swing a Base lease with CUBA. After all, SanFrancisco needs defending.

    Comment by Jack Richard — March 27, 2012 @ 6:50 pm

  60. Hey John, I was going through my foreign money to see if I had any juan for the trip and ran across this. Guess I bought from her after all. It’s a 1930

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 26, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  61. I should have said ¥.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 26, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

  62. Jack

    Nice Buy……Looks like you had alot of fun bargaining… You might be a little easier on the girl next time..She might know some of the divers that found one of the many trading boats that sank full of them….Those were some interesting times when they were using those coins for trading.

    Comment by John — April 26, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: