Westward HO-sed by it's employee.

The Argus is reporting tonight that the Westward Ho country club is going after it's employee for hundreds of thousands the person supposedly absconded with over the course of several years:
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been stolen from the Westward Ho Country Club, and the club is now trying to get the money back.

A longtime employee is accused of taking the money, club officials state in court documents obtained by the Argus Leader.

Club officials accuse their former office worker and general manager, Nancy Frerichs, of making off with the money during the past several years.

and...

Frerichs has not been charged with any crimes.

The allegations against her are contained in a lawsuit filed against her by the country club, near Sherman Park on Sioux Falls' west side.
Read it all here and tomorrow in the Argus Leader.

The sad thing is, this crap happens every day in South Dakota. And I cannot tell you how much it steams me every time I read about this. Why? It happened to a business belonging to one of my parents.

And I'm not sure what I feel more victimized by. The person you thought was a trusted family friend who had been robbing you blind? Or by a grossly inadequate system to ensure restitution by the victim.

When you have over $160,000 stolen, and the limp-wristed system South Dakota has for restitution allows it to be paid back at $250 a month.. Well, lets just say that you often find yourself noting that we should all steal that kind of money. My home loan for about that much costs me about $1300 a month (about $1000 absent insurance and other sundries) . With $250 a month terms - why wouldn't you go find someone to rob blind?

One of these days, I'd love to see the system revised to favor the victim, as opposed to the victimizer. Then - maybe we'll have a sufficient deterrent to keep people's hands out of the cookie jar.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Ummm....PP, I don't think you can say that word anymore. Is there a difference between westward hoes and nappy headed ones? First Imus, now PP!
Anonymous said…
o gezzzzzzzzz...poster 1:09
But i get the point and humor.
Anonymous said…
Another policy position based soley on self-interest.

Par for the course from PP lately...
PP said…
Sorry. I thought it was more important to protect the victim than the offender.

It's not like I'd have a different opinion otherwise.
Anonymous said…
You could't be more right PP. A couple years back Scott Heideprim defended a businessman in Southern MN who falsified financial information to get millions in dollars of bank loans for his business. He got lucky and his business went well enough that he could pay back the loans.

Little Scotty got him off with probation saying "nobody got hurt, after all, and he paid it all back"

Geez, since when is stealing not stealing? Don't we all wish we could lie to the bank and get huge loans to run a business. What about all the many thousands of honest people who get turned down for a loan?
Anonymous said…
This is simple!

There is right and there is wrong.

That is the only question, so the answer should be simple.
PP said…
3:28 and 6:07, I can personally attest to the fact that those are quite libelous... and henceforth gone.
PP said…
And don't think I don't have your IP addresses.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over