Published: July 02, 2009 07:45 am      

Letters for July 02, 2009

Delaware County occupied by NYC

Recently, Delaware County hired the Downeast Group to study the effects New York City's land acquisition program and the Memorandum of Agreement are imposing on our county. It did an excellent job pointing out inflated land values, job loss and hindrance to development. However, it didn't point out something that should be obvious to all of us as residents of this county.

We are occupied! We have a government working outside its geographic boundaries, garrisoning an armed force and enforcing its regulations on a population that has no representation within that government. I ask you. Is this legal? What would happen if our county purchased land in New York City and sent our police to patrol it?

Our State Appellate Court judges decided to overrule our state constitution, in that they allowed New York City police officers to be here without registering with our sheriff.

Unlike normal landowners, New York City will not go to grievance day. I predict that soon it will stop paying taxes to local governments. Instead it will put this money in an escrow account while it fights its assessments in court, as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement. It has this right after 20 years. What do you think will happen to the rest of us if the city does this?

I believe its intent is to depopulate the watershed. I also believe that when it is finally required to filter its water, as it will be required to do by law, it will declare much of the land it has purchased surplus and offer it for sale to finance the filtration systems.

Some supervisors feel we should work with the city. I disagree! Local residents vote for these supervisors, not the city of New York. Please remember, New York City is not here for our benefit.

Scott E. Eckert

Walton

Gillingham made his own reputation

I am appalled at Rev. Messner's misguided attempt to restore Justin Gillingham's "reputation." Let's not forget that Justin wasn't judged to be not guilty. Like O.J. Simpson, he was not "exonerated," he was acquitted for lack of evidence. Acquitted doesn't mean not guilty.

It was Justin's word against his victim's, and she was the victim. While Justin was proved to be a liar, there is no evidence that the young woman lied.

Perhaps she bit Justin's tongue by mistake or to defend herself. Even if she bit him on purpose, what normal, decent male would respond by punching a woman in the face three times, running away and then lying about it? Is it possible that after being punched in the face the young woman perceived that Justin was attempting to rape and kill her?

Here are the facts, and The Daily Star had the legal, moral and ethical right to accurately report them _ Justin: is a high school drop-out; admitted using illegal drugs the night of the crime; punched the woman in the face; fled the scene of a crime; obstructed justice by hiding evidence (bloody sweatshirt); lied to police during a criminal investigation, claiming HE was the victim; has been convicted of assault; has a court order of protection against him (he still poses a threat to the victim); and cannot possess a firearm.

Reverend, you are wrong. Justin was not falsely incarcerated. He deserved to be in jail. He earned his "reputation" and he is not worthy of your erroneous defense. Forgiveness is at the discretion of the victim; it is not yours to demand in a public forum. Your imprudent judgment and counsel calls into question your competence as a minister. I suggest you use your credentials and your office to support someone who deserves it.

Gavin A. Ralston IV

East Meredith