Little Missy Autumn Maire should get her facts correct. Kristen Hageman did not say she didn't do the things with regard to her license suspension. She merely indicated the matter with which they were revoked was wrong. When a person tells you something is alright to do, you take people for their word (the lady at Shaffer's office) and this is what she did. When she was told (since she phoned) it would be okay to bring in the money for her fine a few days later and it would be noted, this is what she did. So, Miss Maire ­ if you are going to school for Criminal Laww maybe you could get this particular DJ to get his staff and himself up to par with what the standards and laws should be. If an official tells me something and I know they've had schooling and training in this subject, then I will be apt to believe and trust them. At least I used to before all of this happened.

Funny thing, Kristen got a report and some of the things on the report had been cancelled out, so from all indications she should have never lost her license in the first place. PennDot and traffic court officials should get their heads out of the sand and get with the program. As far as the DUI's and the leniency these people receive, yes Kristen is very correct. Not only in the DJ courts, but also in our main courtroom. What about the "pharmacy" drunk who killed the young pregnant lady out on Bonniebrook ­ let's just let him get another DUI (whatt would this make -5?) and smack him on the hand. Poor fellow, he has a business to run. A motherless child and the family involved apparently mean nothing next to this businessdrunk. Heaven help anyone who injures anyone I love by committing a DUI in any way. Let's get our priorities straight Miss Maire ­ DUI's are more dangerous than someone whho didn't pay their fine on time and the domino effect happened, wouldn't you say?

By the way, my DAUGHTER Kristen is trying to provide for herself and her young son. As indicated by a letter you wrote to the Eagle some time ago (in '05), you were a full time student (you haven't graduated yet?) and a part time employee. You and a friend went to the assistance office to receive help and were refused. You stated "I believe that those who are trying to help themselves should get assistance ahead of someone who refuses to work." Couldn't you apply this to Kristen's situation whereby she is trying to work and get her license back to drive back and forth to work? And if Kristen can't work, she would have no choice but to go on the welfare rolls to support her son and herself. "All taxpayers should know that their tax dollars are not helping those trying to help themselves, but rather those who refuse to help themselves." ­ this was your quote.

Fact ­ I went back to school after being out of school for 20 yearss, worked full time and went to school full time while raising a family. So it can be done without the help of the assistance office. This is what Kristen is trying to accomplish.

Holly Hartzell