Regarding the story, "Surfer Hangs 10 on the Legal System" (Feb. 7): How can the state attorney general's office justify the use of taxpayer money to pursue a 17-year-old driver who had already fulfilled the terms of his uncontested sentence?
How many hours of taxpayer time did Steven H. Zeigin, the supervising deputy attorney general, spend on producing his "officious brief" because the defendant was one day late?
Has the prosecution's attorney never missed a deadline? Never had to ask the court for an extension? I doubt it.
I know from personal experience that when the city attorney, acting on behalf of the state of California, misses important deadlines and asks the judge for additional time to prosecute traffic violators, it is granted automatically. Why when leniency is granted to the state prosecutors, do they not also grant leniency?
When the court is swamped with criminal cases ranging from murder on down, it is a terrible abuse of the system to have the state attorney general's office pursue victimless "crimes." When the attorney general decides to pursue minor traffic infractions over murderers he not only is wasting taxpayer's money, he is also sidestepping his responsibility to that murderer's victims and the families of the victims.
Hopefully, your article will attract the attention of responsible legislators who will take action against these kinds of abuses.
EDWARD M. TEYSSIER, National City