|
|
 |
Criminal PoliciesTo the Editor, Regarding Gail B. Viator's scathing response ("Neither A Batterer Or A Beggar Be," Mailbag, November 12) to the letter from "Name Withheld" ("Hunger Dogs," Mailbag, October 29): I must ask her if she has ever been to a prison. Credentials aside, the responsibility for crime can never rest solely on the criminal. If this were true, then we could legitimately argue that Blacks, Latinos and the poor in general are inherently "manipulative, mean, violent, sneaky, completely untrustworthy and astonishingly lazy." Just as individuals have the responsibility to operate as self-governing organisms, society functions as an organism as well.
--Nate Byerley
Offensive SmithTo the Editor, Regarding Jeff Smith's "Case Study" (November 12) on Harold Hyams: It is usually permissible for a lawyer to claim as his fee in a personal injury case one-third of the amount offered a client by an insurance carrier. If the client goes to another lawyer and gets a better settlement of jury verdict, it is common for the first lawyer to insist that he's earned his fee and ask the client's successor lawyer to honor his attorney's lien. This is exactly what is happening in the Paula Jones case, where Ms. Jones' first team of lawyers were apparently offered a $700,000 settlement and Ms. Jones turned it down and hired new lawyers, who are about to get her more. Obviously the jury in the LoCascio case thought that Hyams' firm did not deserve their fee for simply writing a letter and advising settlement for $50,000, which was far less than she eventually received by going to trial with another lawyer. My own feeling is that while a lawyer's lien rights in the recovery may be technically valid, in some cases they should not be pursued, and I think they should not have been in the LoCascio case. I base my opinion on the fact that Mr. Hyams' popular ad slogan, "If we don't win, you don't pay," is misleading, since it does not contemplate poor settlements and that he probably didn't deserve a fee for advising acceptance of the $50,000 offer, after making a half-million dollar demand and after the jury returned a verdict of $177,000. There is the appearance of over-reaching here, and I suspect the jury felt the same way. Whether or not there is a larger recovery with a second, lawyer, the Arizona Supreme Court has recently ruled that there are certain situations where it is unconscionable for a lawyer to keep his contingency fee, even if it is based upon a written contract, especially where the lawyer's efforts have been meager and the client's financial disbursement minimal. Hyams' TV ads naturally lend themselves to scorn and derision (as do many lawyer ads). However, Jeff Smith's reference to Hyams as "Hymie" recalls Jesse Jackson's regrettable anti-Semitic reference to New York as "Hymie-town." "Hymie" is slang for "Jew," and just as Jesse Jackson apologized for his remark, I think Smith should also. Harold Hyams, his ads and the LoCascio case notwithstanding, is a remarkably good man who has spent many years fighting for victims of accidents against corrupt insurance companies. Smith should really direct his attention against them and not Hyams. In any case, he should avoid anti-Semitic slurs. For centuries the Jews have been blamed for sharp practices in business, the death of young children, the killing of Jesus, the failing economy in pre-World War II Germany, the sick Russian economy, communism, plagues, you name it. It will never end. --Sidney F. Wolitzky To the Editor, Regarding Jeff Smith's "Case Study" (November 12): Like most of your readers, I enjoy Smith's rants against the evils, real or apparent, in our midst. I am not a lawyer, nor do I know Harold Hyams, and do not know if he was justified in seeking his part of the settlement. However, I was concerned with the juxtaposition of Adolf Hitler and the use of the word "Hymie" in referring to the good lawyer in question. Using Adolph Hitler, even in jest, as a proponent of "the Big Lie" is to diminish the magnitude of the Holocaust. Worse, the use of the word "Hymie" is anti-Semetic, since everyone knows this is a derogative word for New York Jews. I cannot believe that Smith was not aware of the connotations of this word.
Also, the lawyers Dewey, Screwem and Howe are the Car Talk lawyers of NPR and I am sure would be offended to be associated with the other law firms mentioned! It's a good joke, but please acknowledge your sources. --Charles Fleming
Offensive DanehyTo the Editor, Regarding "The Real Nitty-Gritty" (November 5): I'm a Tucson-area native, and have read The Weekly for years. This isn't the first time I've found Tom Danehy's column to be offensive, but it's the first time I've been offended enough to write. He writes, "As you are probably painfully aware, the political coverage done by the dailies bites the foaming lip of an active herpes carrier." I can't believe you allowed that to go to print. Having HIV, I feel the stigma attached to disease. What's next? "That was about as pretty as woman with a double mastectomy at a nude beach"? "As competent as a blind, diabetic amputee in a dance contest"? When I encounter statements this needlessly offensive, I just stop reading. What follows can't be worth my time. --Paul Miller
To The Shores Of IncredulityTo the Editor, Regarding Emil Franzi's "The Forgotten War" (November 5): I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Franzi for taking the time to research and publish this tribute to the Korean War veterans of Tucson's Easy Company. Having known some of these men and the sacrifices they made for their country, as well as the contributions that they later made to our community, it is a tribute that is long overdue. We should never forget the price that many of our predecessors have paid for our ability to live and prosper in a free society. Great work!
--Richard Carmona, M.D.
We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
My reading of the letter by "Name Withheld" was that
we have personal responsibilities not to harm others and, as well,
we have the responsiblity not to perpetuate or walk blindly along
while racist and classist social policies relegate certain people
to less than desireable means of survival. In no way condoning
the actions of these young men, this event should prompt a discussion
of how we might work together to affect a change in our repressive
social structure, and the politics of crime.
Unfortunately, lawyers are not the most-loved members of our
society, but to use anti-Semitic code words to attack them either
singly or as a group, is simply not acceptable, and Hyams is owed
an apology.