What is wrong with affirming gun rights?
In response to Richard Wendt's March 12 letter, "More important issues than grandstanding vote," I want to thank Supervisor Roger Gitlin for asking members of the Board of Supervisors to affirm their belief that the 2nd Amendment is important to assure American citizens have the right to own weapons without all the creative ways liberals are trying to impede our rights of ownership.
The question that comes to mind is: Since there is no harm in affirming this Amendment, why the hesitation? This "president" has no qualms in cherry-picking this amendment as the one to destroy.
Remember Fast and Furious? This "president" refuses to allow the investigation to follow a natural course to determine who is responsible for several thousand guns going from Arizona to Mexico, killing a Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans.
I understand each elected official took the oath to uphold the Constitution but that is a general oath. By specifying the 2nd Amendment the oath becomes specific and personal. Refusing to affirm this right may put into question how strongly Supervisor Martha McClure's belief in ownership of guns by Americans may be.
Why this is grandstanding is beyond me. I have yet to see Supervisor Gitlin do any grandstanding. He has asked honest questions and is a breath of fresh air on the Board of Supervisors.
Marlowe Thompson, Crescent City
Irony in reduced charge, letting the accused work
One need not look to Washington, D.C., for the inscrutable. An imbroglio much closer to home should do; witness a recent vote by the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors reinstating a county official accused of embezzling from an account he was trusted with as vice president of the Law Enforcement Administrators of Del Norte County.
Dues-paying members range from parks to Pelican Bay State Prison, as well as city and county officers. Historically, member dues were augmented by their respective departments. A subsequent investigation by the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office revealed that the official under suspicion of embezzlement, Thomas Crowell, had gambled away $82,000 at local casinos, according to court documents.
Incredibly, county officials lined up like ducks in a row in support ofcontinued confidence for the defendeant. Reduction of charges by the state Attorney General's Office to a misdemeanor provided the board the rationale to reinstate Mr. Crowell as the man in charge of probation.
Ironic? The preceding is my summation of a Feb. 28 article by reporter Anthony Skeens.
Where the Del Norte County District Attorney's Office is in all this it appears to be a valid question.
In stark contrast to the above subject stands the 2011 departure of ardent young Deputy District Attorney Mordechai Pelta, the father of four who left the county over what DA Jon Alexander called "gross misconduct."
Having accompanied my wife daily with her jury duties in the trial of a young drunk driver facing his second charge in May 2011, I was privy to witnessing this young prosecutor face a drunk driver defense specialist from Southern California who may have given Attila the Hun chills.
This barbarian warrior of the courtroom employed a number of bizarre courtroom tactics, including muttering degrading names when passing one another and the calculated and forceful back-swinging of the heavy gate of the spectator railing as he passed through, intending to strike the assistant prosecutor who was immediately behind him as they re-entered the courtroom from recess.
The above are but a couple of many exhibitionist courtroom maneuverings by the defense while the county prosecutor professionally and implacably clung to his principles of courtroom demeanor and presentation of evidence and won his case for the county.
We shall never find an accusation of gross negligence against Mordechai Pelta credible. Will the Board of Supervisors reinstate him?
Dale H. Bohling, Crescent City