Letters to the Editor

I am writing in response to recent comments made by Ed Mitchell, Lupas’ campaign strategist.

He said that when it comes to putting criminals behind bars, Lupas is “far superior” than attorney Tom Marsilio, and implies that this one facet makes him more qualified for a judgeship.

When Tom Marsilio was in the district attorney’s office, he had an extremely impressive record, a 100 percent homicide trial conviction rate and five were life sentences.

He also didn’t have problems with remembering important dates, like Lupas.

(I won’t even mention the Hugo Selenski fiasco).

In addition, Tom has prosecuted on three levels of government, something Lupas hasn’t done.

Criminal work is not the only type of work that a judge must deal with on a regular basis.

A judge should be someone who is familiar with many types of law and not just one.

When it comes to every other aspect of the law, Tom Marsilio is very qualified and much more so than Lupas.

Marsilio has done just about everything when it comes to civil and criminal law and has done it exceptionally well.

Lupas is a one-dimensional attorney.

He has only ever been in the DA’s office, unlike Tom.

I would like to see Mitchell boast about Lupas’ divorce, custody, business law, personal injury, zoning, adoption work. Etc.

Oh wait, that’s right.

He can’t.

On May 15, you must do your homework and vote for the most qualified individual.

In this case, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there is only one choice.

Richard Keiderling Mountain Top