Legal System

What is wrong with our legal system? Freedom of speech be damned, no one has the right to protest at a private funeral ("Anger over bill to Marine's dad," March 31). This solder lost his life defending freedom, but I don't think this church, or anyone, has the right to make this time more hurtful to a family. To ask the father to pay the church's legal expenses is outrageous. Kathy Benton

Can anybody explain why Johns Hopkins is liable for any of the reprehensible actions of Dr. Nikita Levy ( "Attorney says Hopkins was informed of improper exams before investigation," Sept. 26)? Why is Johns Hopkins Medicine agreeing to pay anything to the victims of Dr. Levy's serious transgressions? Was Johns Hopkins in any way responsible for the harm that was caused to Dr. Levy's victims? In all of the reporting on this case I have never heard one thing that would indicate Dr. Levy's actions were allowed or caused or in any way made possible by Johns Hopkins.

Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure.""It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her third year of law school at the University of Chicago.

Here's what bothers me about the Ray Rice punishment: Don't we already have a criminal-justice system? I agree entirely with Mike Preston (" NFL misses its chance to send a message, July 25) that "Men shouldn't be allowed to physically abuse women and then get a slap on the wrist. Ever. " Amen, brother. But let's suppose that Mike Preston (or I, when I was working for the Baltimore Sun) committed an act of domestic violence. Once the courts have acted - arguably, in Mr. Rice's case too leniently - may an employer take a second whack at us?

A panel of local criminal justice officials will hold a public forum tonight to address community concerns about crime and the legal system.The county's Ad-Hoc Committee on Human Rights, created in 1992 after race riots in Los Angeles, is sponsoring the town hall-style meeting from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the Banneker Room of the county's George Howard Building in Ellicott City."

As his mother looked on, Wesley Eugene Baker's supporters rallied yesterday to protest his impending execution, waving signs and listening to a half-dozen speakers call for an end to a death penalty that they consider racist and unfair. "The death penalty's immoral, it's barbaric and it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny in terms of doing what it is supposed to do as a deterrent," Michael Stark, a spokesman for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, told about 20 supporters outside the Supermax prison on East Madison Street in Baltimore, where Baker is being held.

Exactly 37 years ago, the Supreme Court ordered Maryland's highest court to review the case of some civil rights demonstrators arrested in Baltimore for refusing to leave a whites-only restaurant. Next week, one of those demonstrators will receive an award for his efforts to promote a lesson learned in that case. Robert M. Bell, chief judge of the state's highest court, will be honored Tuesday by the Pro Bono Resource Center of Baltimore for his efforts to improve access to the legal system.

Dear Joyce: We have always found your column helpful. Now more than ever, as both my wife and I look for jobs. I believe my wife was unfairly dismissed. How does she go about challenging her termination other than going to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? -- A.W.Dear A.W.: So many people have hit employers with job termination lawsuits that video coverage of the topic would fill its own TV cable channel.That may be why your first reaction is to fight back.But the reality is that the legal doctrine of employment-at-will still reigns in the workplace, meaning employers in private industry generally have the right to fire employees.

WASHINGTON - Congress took its first big step yesterday to implement President Bush's plan to overhaul the nation's legal system, approving a measure long sought by business to impose new restrictions on class-action lawsuits. Republicans hailed the lopsided vote - the bill was passed 72-26 - as an important legislative victory in their campaign against what they call "lawsuit abuse." The legislation has strong support in the House of Representatives, which is expected to pass it next week.

WASHINGTON -- The best seller "A Civil Action" tells the true story of a battle between a bold but flawed plaintiffs' lawyer named Jan Schlichtmann and two big corporations over whether they polluted the drinking water of Woburn, Mass. In the movie that is opening in theaters now, John Travolta portrays &r Schlichtmann as, if anything, bolder and more flawed.But in Professor Lewis Grossman's class at American University's law school here -- and at law schools across the country -- Schlichtmann is already a star, foibles and all.Jonathan Harr's 1995 book about the lawsuit over the leukemia deaths of Woburn children is playing an extraordinary role in what some legal educators describe as a movement to modernize the training of U.S. lawyers.

In regard to the murder of two of Baltimore's young people ( "Motives sought in killings of city teens," April 19), do the motives, probably petty reasons, really matter when we already know most of the underlying causes of most such crimes? These causes have increased dramatically over the past five decades and, in no particular order, include: deterioration and downgrading of our Constitution, loss of core values, diminishment of the English language and failure to adhere to the Ten Commandments and other principles on which America was founded.

Regarding the Sunpaper article "O'Malley seeks answers from DHS on immigration program," (Feb. 12), I understand prioritization and focusing on the "big fish. " But once an immigrant has been detained, should the Department of Homeland Security have the latitude to say, you are here illegally but you are otherwise law abiding so we will let you go.? That discretion puts us on a slippery slope. What other laws should we be allowed to ignore because we disagree with them? Maybe the higher deportation rate of the non-violent illegal immigrants in Maryland is due to the fact that Maryland issues drivers licenses to immigrants that are here illegally and therefore has unwittingly enabled DHS to more easily identify, find, and deport the "little fish.

Sometimes I worry about our American value system and how it is expressed in our legal system. Pfc. Bradley Manning has just been sentenced for his role in the release of sensitive security data and we are desperate to apprehend Edward Snowden for similar activity ("Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in WikiLeaks case," Aug. 22). At the same time, we have never brought President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other members of the Bush Administration to trial for their actions which brought about the Bush War in Iraq.

When terrible things happen we look for someone to blame and we become angry when we feel that no one pays a price; in doing so we temporarily forget that revenge is not the answer to tragedy ("Martin verdict fires debate," July 15). Trayvon Martin's death was clearly unjustified. George Zimmerman should never have had a gun in the first place. Racial profiling and racial tensions are still very much alive in this county - another tragedy - and we should all take a good look at what we learned about these issues during Mr. Zimmerman's trial.

I strongly resent the comments made by Del. Donald H. Dwyer in regard to his arrest for operating a boat while intoxicated ("Dwyer gets 30 days in jail in boating incident," May 15). He sounds like the 5-year-old who gets caught taking a candy bar from a grocery store and uses the excuse that "everybody does it. " He recently made the statement that he made a mistake and that "who out there hasn't made a mistake and who out there hasn't been drinking on a boat out on the bay. " As a boater of many years, I can tell him - not me. As my mother would have said to me, "Just because everybody else jumps off the roof, would you?"

Two points I would like to make regarding Mr. Rodricks' column ("To monitor farm pollution, use drones," Mar. 24). First, I generally agree that the governor and the legislature should stay out of the University of Maryland Law Clinic's business, but when the law clinic goes so far afield and acts in direct contravention to their stated mission, someone needs to hold them accountable. Their dean certainly isn't going to, nor is their Board of Visitors. Consider this: a core commitment of the law school's mission statement is, "The pursuit of justice through improving legal delivery systems and serving those who have been disadvantaged by the legal system or denied access to it. " The law clinic's client was the Waterkeeper Alliance, which was founded and is led by Robert Kennedy Jr. According to its annual report, its fiscal 2012 revenues were $4.6 million, and expenses were $3.4 million; that is a $1.2 million profit for one year (and they are a non-profit)

I was very disappointed with Dan Rodricks ' column on pit bulls ("Pit bulls: Own them at your risk," May 1). Here are some facts. •All large dogs are potentially dangerous. They have large jaws and muscles that have the inherent possibly to doing people harm. •Any animal that is subject to abuse is potentially dangerous. •If not abused, or trained to be violent, pit bulls are no more potentially dangerous than any other big dog. Notions of mythic pit bull "lock jaw" have been scientifically debunked, and before their recently role as public enemy No. 1 they were family pets in England.

A delusional progressive mindset has polluted the American legal system ( "ICE raid suit alleges gang death threat" June 26). For the ACLU to claim illegal immigrants have constitutional rights on the taxpayers dime goes beyond ridiculous. For the American University to voluntarily bastardize our legal system by promoting this behavior through its own "school of law" is not only beyond ridiculous but wholeheartedly un-American. To claim an illegal has constitutional rights protecting their desire to live in this nation is entirely contradictory to the legal immigration process and only serves to deprive legal citizens of opportunity.

This just in: Maryland civil legal service programs not only benefit the poor but also save the state millions per year. Legal assistance to low-income Marylanders is a significant economic boost to the state and benefits more than just those receiving aid, according to a report just released by the Maryland Judiciary's Access to Justice Commission. Legal services mean a lot more than just helping people without means get access to the courts. For example, these services help low-income residents receive the government benefits to which they are entitled; prevent homelessness by avoiding eviction; and help protect against domestic violence.

Several readers have taken President Barack Obama to task for suggesting that business successes are due in part to government investments ("Obama fails Business 101," July 19). As a business owner and engineer-scientist, I agree with President Obama. Our business entrepreneurs thrive because of an environment protected and nurtured by government activities. Our legal system enforces contracts and protects patents, our military assures national security, firemen and policemen help create a safe environment, our transportation system assures timely delivery of goods and services, and most importantly our schools and public universities assure a steady supply of dedicated well trained workers.