Skip to content

State Representative Jeffrey Wood Must Resign, Get Real Help

October 22, 2009

Watching someone’s life spin out of control is difficult to witness.  Worse yet is when a person’s downward slide has the potential to injure or even kill others.  Sadly, that is the case of  Wisconsin State Representative Jeffrey Wood.

There has been no joy for anyone as we witness the police videos again and again of an intoxicated member of the Wisconsin Legislature being arrested in various parts of the state.  Each time it happens I look at the face of Representative Wood and he seems to be so lost.  I do not mean ‘lost’ in the sense that he is so intoxicated, but rather that he is in a lot of internal angst, and seems unable to get free from it.   In the videos Wood never seems to shy away from what by now he knows to be a camera in the squad car, or even seems embarrassed by what is happening.  He just seems resigned to it all.  Clearly he needs help.

On Wednesday Wood was arrested the  fifth time for driving while intoxicated, the third time that has happened in less than a year.  There are two issues that now must be addressed.  The first is that Wood can no longer be allowed to serve as a member of the legislature.  There are some standards that must be met, and lines that can not be crossed, while serving the public.  He has not only brought embarrassment to himself, but also to the entire State Assembly.  That must not be allowed to continue. 

While Representative Steve Nass has introduced a resolution for the expulsion of Wood from the Assembly, I think it would be better if  ‘the gentleman from the 67th’  showed a little honor and resigned.  After all that has transpired this year there is no classy way to exit the stage.  But, one way or the other Representative Wood must now leave the Legislature.  By resigning Wood can at least conclude this public episode by doing the right thing for his constituents, and the Assembly he was elected to serve honorably in when the public placed their faith in him.    If  Wood does not resign at once, there is no other option than to support Nass and vote for the resolution.  To pretend, as some Democrats are doing, that Wood needs to be convicted before expulsion can take place shows a lack of common sense, and good judgment.   Democrats need to be reminded that  there is no way to pick a piece of dog crap up by the clean end.  It just can’t happen.

Second and just as important,  I wish that after Jeffrey Wood resigns he enter a treatment facility and stay there for a period of time.  I want him to get counseling and the treatment that he so desperately needs.  As I have stated before on my blog I wish that Wood could bounce back from this time in his life and work to show others the problems of too much alcohol in our society.  If he were to do that then this year, and all the problems he has faced, will have served a purpose.

We all wish the best for Jeffery Wood as he fights his addictions.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. Michael Saari permalink
    January 21, 2010 4:36 PM

    DUI THIRD vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:

    VICTIMLESS CRIME & VOID OF INJURED PARTY
    Current law Eternally Removes the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on a drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions when the Crime is victimless & Void of any injured party. (Cannot be restored)

    INDIVIDUAL STATE LAWS
    The states impose the felony laws for DUI 3rd, 4th, or even 5th offenses (Depending on state) however, it is the Federal Law of Title 18 922 that eternally cements and debars the individuals right to possess a firearm regardless if the firearm is for hunting, self-defense or for personal protection. (The federal government has enslaved the people for non-violent offenses)

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

    THE TRUTH
    Regardless the number of DUI convictions, driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely NO relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms if there is no injured party.

    The states “Including Michigan” contend that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk to society and should establish a “Felony” on there record that by federal nexus of Title 18 922 inherently & eternally removes the citizens “Right” to keep and bear arms for as long as that person shall live upon the face of this earth.

    Shouldn’t the states and the federal government first eternally remove the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before eternally removing a “Protected Right” of the people to posses a firearm?
    (Which removal would tend to actually save lives?)

    Currently the states reinstate the citizens “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle yet federal Title 18 922 (Felony Laws) eternally & forever block the citizens “RIGHT” from ever possessing a firearm for THE EXACT SAME DRINKING & DRIVING OFFENSE of DUI 3rd CONVICTIONS: DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

    Drunk drivers “KILL” thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers second amendment” Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever!

    In Fact, Debarring the persons “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of the people to bear arms!

    THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT:

    The state “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For DUI 3rd convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision by the state for “Absolute & Full Reinstatement” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

    The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” and “is NOT just simply a mere Privilege”:
    For DUI 3rd convictions this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement based on the federal law of Title 18 922. (THE STATES NEED TO ALLOW TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT FOR DUI 3RD OFFENSES BY REMOVING THE FELONY)

    Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for constitutional “Rights” of the people to keep and bear arms THE SAME as there is a TIME FRAME provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege for the EXACT SAME drinking & driving offense of DUI 3rd convictions especially when there is no injured party.

    THE OPERATORS STATE “PRIVILEGE” TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IS TIME FRAME REINSTATED: THE DRIVERS RIGHT TO POSESS A FIREARM SHOULD ALSO HAVE THIS EXACT SAME TIME FRAME FOR REINSTATMENT OF THEIR RIGHT, BASED ON THE EXACT SAME OFFENSE.

    PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT

  2. s humphreys permalink
    October 28, 2009 9:40 AM

    A bigger issue is WHY did this man still have a driver’s license? He should be stripped of ANY driving priviledges. Especially after receiving FIVE DUIs. Clearly the man needs help. It’s a wonder that he hasn’t killed anyone while driving under the ifluence.

  3. Michael Saari permalink
    October 26, 2009 7:35 AM

    DUI CONVICTIONS vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:

    Is the second amendment Right really an inalienable Right when the government eternally Debars the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on one’s drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions? (Felony) A Victimless Crime & Void of any injured party.

    QUESTION: What prevents the government from debarring the peoples “second amendment right” based on acquiring 10 or more points on a driving record as they have for acquiring 3 drinking while driving convictions?

    How can lawmakers remove an inalienable protected “Right” such as the Second Amendment rather than another protected right, such as free speech, choice of religion, speedy trial or right to counsel? (What does protected & inalienable mean?)

    Driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely no relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms or to be secure in their homes regardless the number of DUI convictions.

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

    The government contends that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk factor to society and should therefore have their “Right” to keep and bear arms eternally debarred void of any chance of future restoration.

    Shouldn’t the government first eternally debar (Remove) the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before they debar (Remove) the drivers protected second amendment “Right” to posses a firearm void of reinstatement? (Think about this) Which removal would tend to save lives?

    The government currently reinstates the drivers “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle, yet eternally & forever debars the drivers “Right” to ever own or possess a firearm for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 dui convictions. (HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE AND WHERE IS THE SOUND REASONING?)

    Drunk drivers kill thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers protected “Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever. Yet the laws allow for reinstatement of the driving “Privilege” (which is not even a “Right”) and does not have the protections of a “Right” (Is the governments concern with saving lives or removing gun rights?

    In Fact, Debarring the “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of any free man! Eternally debarring the right to possess a firearm has not saved a single life and utterly tramples upon our inalienable God given & Constitutionally protected rights of all free men!

    THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT: (RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION)

    The “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For 3 drinking & driving convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision for absolute & full reinstatement & restoration of the driving privilege.

    The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A Right” and “is NOT a mere Privilege”:
    For 3 drinking & driving convictions, this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement. (SHOULDN’T THIS BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE?)

    Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for the guaranteed inalienable protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms as there is positive provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege of operating a motor vehicle for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 drinking & driving convictions. (Do you agree?)

    This usurpation of the people’s second amendment right should unequivocally be re-evaluated with this clear & sound reasoning of facts. If this were not so, why wouldn’t the government eternally debar the privilege to the driver from ever operating a motor vehicle which would save countless lives instead of going after the removal of the second amendment right which has never saved even a single life?

    Shouldn’t Constitutionally Protected Rights take front seat to a privilege?
    PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE & LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

  4. Trevor permalink
    October 22, 2009 12:11 PM

    Thanks for putting this matter in such a caring and yet forceful post. This is a painful episode for Wood, and you present it as such, and yet also it is one that the Assembly needs to deal with honestly. This should get a reprint in the newspaper, it is that good!

  5. October 22, 2009 7:55 AM

    Won’t he lose his health insurance if he resigns? Or have to make COBRA payments? Seems like a strong disincentive…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: