Letters to the Editor

      FEEDBACK ON FALLOUT
      Thank you for the excellent story in the April issue, "Fallout." I am a former worker at the site of the Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment meltdown, and I have applied to the federal compensation program for my bladder cancer. It is a disgrace that injured workers have to again prove their claims.
      Bonnie Klea
      West Hills
     
      I wanted to thank you for the eye-opening cover story on the partial meltdown in Santa Susana in the '50s. I was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley yet never heard of this incident. The summary of different legal actions growing out of the meltdown was also enlightening.
      Linda S. Tucker
      Yuma, Arizona
     
      I read with great interest the article entitled "Fallout" by Kathy Braidhill. I have a unique insight into her subject matter since I was an employee at the Rocketdyne Propulsion Field Laboratory (PFL) from 1956 through 1960. My brother Bruce, now an attorney, was a test engineer at Rocketdyne in that same time frame.
     .
      AI (Atomics International) was developed by NAA (North American Aviation) and placed in the Santa Susana Mountains due to the ideal remoteness of the area. There were few homes west of Canoga Avenue in the San Fernando Valley below the test site. The engine systems were designed and fabricated at the Canoga Park Rocketdyne facility and then sent "up the hill" to be tested. The Canoga Park facility was also isolated at the time, with no homes surrounding it. Both facilities were actually far more isolated than the wartime Manhattan Project that was operating secretly under the University of Chicago's football stadium bleachers in the early '40s. This project and the underground cyclotron all operated within yards of residential properties. My brother and I lived in Chicago at that time. We observed the cyclotron under construction as we rode by on our bicycles!
     
      When my brother and I worked at PFL, AI was a tiny start-up division of NAA and basically was little more than a small blockhouse surrounded by tents, which housed the engineers, technicians, and test equipment in a parking lot area. You could see it from the road we drove on to get to work.
     
      While I was saddened to hear that two people were killed and one seriously injured in 1994 at AI-something I had not heard before the article-both my brother and I, as well as our fellow workers, were informed during the time that we worked there in the 1950s that at least four technicians died by asphyxiation while attempting to clean out the reactor. They entered the reactor without a separate oxygen source and were overcome by a leak of sodium vapors. Sodium was used as a coolant in the small atomic pile that was maintained at AI.
     
      At the time we worked there, there was no environmental protection act or occupational safety agency.
     
      I'm surprised that some folks nowadays seem not to have known what was going on in the area. The test firings at the time were common knowledge to the nearby residents in the west end of the valley due to the severe ground shaking.
     
      To us, the article raises the question of whether it is appropriate to impose penalties today on pollution matters that occurred over 50 years ago, when our country and scientists were working under government pressures to produce working rocket-engine systems to compete with the Russian efforts. We all recall that Russia launched Sputnik in 1958. The United States and Russia were in a race to perfect rocket-engine systems.
      Gaylord N. Mann,
      Sacramento County
      Bruce O. Mann
      Orange County
     
      NOT LOOKING FOR A FIGHT
      Loved the April Fool's spoof on why America needs more trials ["The Right to Fight," April]. Jonathan Shapiro's gentle satire of the trial lawyer as a testosterone-driven knight in paper armor vividly recalled for me the bad old days when, as a young lawyer, I thought every dispute had a good guy and a bad guy, and my job was to show the judge or jury which one was which. Thank God my clients always wore the white hat. Ultimately, it was the failure of judges and juries to recognize this fact that convinced me they simply could not be trusted. And if the triers of fact could not be trusted to recognize the virtue in my cases, my alternative was to settle.
     
      Eventually, I came to agree with Judge Hubert L. Will, who in 1976 told a class at a college of judges, "most cases ... are better disposed of, in terms of highest quality of justice, by a freely negotiated settlement, than by the most beautiful trial that you can preside over." (Quoted by Prof. Judith Resnik in "Trial As Error," 113 Harv. L. Rev. 924, 948949.)
      Michael Witmer
      Pomona
     
      "Like conscientious objectors, supporters of ADR refuse to fight out of high ideals," says Jonathan Shapiro in "The Right to Fight."
     
      As I understand it, a conscientious objector is one who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war. Unlike conscientious objectors and war, ADR supporters and trial are not mutually exclusive.
     
      I encourage Jonathan Shapiro to visit a California superior court courtroom and witness the potential for party-driven conflict resolution through ADR in issues that range from marriage dissolution to unlawful detainers to civil harassment to small claims court. Were he to undertake this effort, his focus on trial as the potential pill for the flaws and unfairness within our legal system would be replaced by a greater appreciation for ADR as an alternative to-not a replacement for-trial.
      Vici H. Taus
      Gridley
     
      JUDGMENT DAY
      I (along with Ron Branson and our Judicial Accountability Initiative Law-www. jail4judges.org) am the subject of "Judging the Judges" [ESQ., April]. Your first sentence reads: "If Gary Zerman has his way, judges across the country will soon find themselves a lot more exposed to angry litigants." Contrary to your assertion, I have always sought, and still seek, when I (or anyone else) goes to court, to simply get my (their) day in court: a fair judge, a proper finding of the facts, a proper application of the law, and a measure of justice. When that is not done because of judicial misconduct (or worse), I do seek to hold those judges accountable.
     
      Typically, your piece was slanted, using biased terms such as "revenge," "angry litigants," "so steamed up about," and "rails ... against." You did, though-in habitual journalistic favoritism-omit our core arguments about the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity (AJI), that: (1) there is no authority in our Constitution giving immunity to judges (nor do any of the U.S. Supreme Court cases on AJI ever cite any); (2) judges giving other judges AJI violates the doctrine of separation of powers-the so-called checks and balances-(nor do any of the Supreme Court cases mention this); (3) AJI turns the sovereignty of "We the People" on its head by placing the judiciary over, above, and beyond the People, making the servant the master; and (4) why has our Supreme Court condoned eugenics? (See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).)
     
      Note, neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Justice Alito were asked any of these questions at their recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. Checks and balances?
     
      Your piece asserted that "judicial immunity ... has never been absolute." Correct in theory, but almost totally wrong regarding application. Name the last judge impeached-federal or state. Judges can be criminally prosecuted but in fact seldom, if ever, are. And when they are, they still usually get a break on punishment.
     
      Your piece ends quoting Chief Justice George: "What's disturbing about this current effort is that the attacks seem to be escalating and gathering momentum. That's worrisome." We agree. Meet with us, Chief Justice George, and let's work together to solve these crucial problems in our judicial system.
      Gary L. Zerman
      Valencia
     
      The judiciary in this country is disgusting. It's not just one state or one area, it's across the country. The judiciary has lowered its ethics and accountability and has compromised justice and exchanged it for greed. Thus there is no accountability. This is fraud-corruption, racketeering, and extortion coming from the bench.
     
      I am so thrilled about this new amendment. Government should have no immunity from criminal behavior. It's disgusting!
      Denise L. Perrault
      Methuen, Massachusetts
     
      Perhaps the reason the "attacks" are becoming more frequent is because the citizenry is fed up with unlawful "attacks" from our judiciary. These unlawful attacks on litigants by out-of-control judges are becoming more commonplace and will no longer be tolerated. Legislating from the bench has become as common as old shoes, and indifference to the rights of litigants even more so. Take a recent case here in Las Vegas. The good judge ordered that the prosecution not mention "the law" in front of the jury. Huh? I though a court of law was based on the law. Personally, I think a good percentage of the judges on the bench today belong behind bars, not behind judicial immunity.
      Harold E. Call
      Las Vegas, Nevada
     
      LETTERS ON LETTERS
      It's not very becoming for the district attorney in Kern County to be sarcastic [Letters, April] regarding Mrs. Gay's story in the January issue, "Till Death Do Us Part."
     
      Your article was not written to denigrate the deceased, Paul Verna, as his was truly an unnecessary loss of life. The article was to portray a slight window of existence for those sentenced to death, not to justify what the inmate was convicted of doing.
     
      All four letter writers should leave that up to the appellate courts.
      Joe Ingber
      Los Angeles
     

---