Why did U.S. attorney cut Kenny deal?

To the editor:

With all the political ruminating about the legitimacy of Daniel Bogden's ouster as Nevada's U.S. attorney, I believe he deserved instant termination if for no other reason than the ridiculous deal he either cut or approved in exchange for former County Commissioner Erin Kenny's vertigo-influenced testimony in your local corruption case.

Kenny was the crook-in-chief; she drove the commission's corruption. Yet the feds seem to have low-balled this investigation. Kenny knew her foie gras was well done and opted for the deal. But, the question lingers: Why, with such a convincing case on Kenny, would the feds cut her a deal?

Especially one in which she has no real financial penalty in light of all her ill-begotten gains.

All they needed to do was prosecute her first, get the obvious conviction, sentence her accordingly, then apply that evidence to strip club owner Michael Galardi and former commissioners Mary Kinkaid-Chauncey, Dario Herrera and Lance Malone. She certainly has earned a zero in terms of testimonial impact.

Additionally, her continued payday from local developer Jim Rhodes bodes poorly for any expectation of her help if it is determined that the two of them colluded vis-á-vis her other corrupt associations.

Mr. Bogden dropped the ball on this case and deserved to be shown the door, even if this never occurred to the White House.

MIKE AULT

NOLAN, TEXAS

Doesn't care?

To the editor:

After reading your July 16 editorial about California requiring pets to be neutered, I quickly glanced to the top of the page to see if I was reading the Los Angeles Times or some other California paper. No, it was the Review Journal.

Every several months, the R-J contains an editorial complaining about some California regulation or proposal. But what the people in California do is none of the R-J's business.

What is your obsession with California? I'm sure the citizens of California couldn't care less what the R-J thinks. Even Las Vegans don't care what the R-J writes.

If you don't like what's going on in California, don't go there. I'm sure you won't be missed.

JOSEPH HUTCHINSON

HENDERSON

Family plans

To the editor:

I have watched and read about the case of Tamara Schmidt and her daughter Brittney Bergeron intensely from the beginning ("Custody standoff continues," July 18). While adoption cases are by no means easy nor to be taken lightly. This one is no exception.

There is, however, a sensible solution to this case.

First of all if Tamara Schmidt loves Brittney as much as she says she does, then by all means consent to the adoption. She can ask for an open adoption. I realize that the law regarding open adoption in Nevada is rather weak, but I hope she would then be able to know the status and welfare of Brittney.

By allowing the adoption of Brittney, Tamara would prove that she has no interest in any money that Brittney would be in charge of. She should just remember to tell her that she does love her daughter and that is the reason she is consenting to the adoption. It would also empower Brittney and allow her to plan for her future -- which this is all about.

Secondly, why in the world does Judge Gerald Hardcastle not listen to Brittney? I am sure that a case worker would be able to inform Tamara of Brittney's status, as is her right. To ignore what the child desires of her life in this case is a travesty, let alone questionable.

Allow Brittney to move forward instead of being stuck in the position she is in now. Show some wisdom.

DARREL WELCH

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Sun stroke

To the editor:

After reading David R. Durling's rant in the Wednesday Review-Journal about having to put up with the inclusion of the Las Vegas Sun in the morning paper, I had to respond.

Mr. Durling doesn't seem to appreciate having to read any opinions that he doesn't agree with. He even complains about the size of the Sun's crossword puzzle. Mr. Durling feels he is subsidizing Sun publisher Brian Greenspun's hobby.

I would like Mr. Durling to know what I don't like. I don't like people who want to stifle the choices of others. When the papers merged, we lost a great deal more, as you can imagine. When a paper has to cut back to eight pages during the week and 10 pages on Sunday, a lot of favorite things have to go.

Not only did we lose favorite things, the price we have to pay is about triple. But that's fine with me. I would rather pay more than lose everything.

So I want to thank the powers that be at the Review-Journal for delivering their paper along with mine.

Jacki Weil

LAS VEGAS