To the editor:
I still do not know why Jane Ann Morrison has such an ax to grind with plaintiffs’ attorneys, especially me (Monday column). The case in Reno that Ms. Morrison cites is a joke. Because it involves me, however, it gets publicity. We will win the case.
I might not be in court every day. But please ask any judge who has been practicing any time about my abilities in the courtroom. I have 10 attorneys who work for me and more than 600 cases in litigation. So despite the impression left by Ms. Morrison, we do fight for our clients. In fact, we fight more than any other firm in the state. Ask any defense firm the quality of the representation from my office and you’ll hear that it is second to none.
I have the largest personal injury law firm in the state. The reason people like me is that I am a fighter. I fight to preserve my rights, and if I fight for my rights, they know I am a fighter and will fight for them. As long as what I state in my ad is true, then it cannot be censored and my attorneys will beat up the bar’s attorneys in court. Freedom of speech will always win out.
Can my client get on TV and say “Glen Lerner” got me $4.9 million? Yes he can, because it is true. Can I say we settled or tried to verdict nearly $50 million last year? Yes, I can, because it is true.
If Ms. Morrison wanted to know me, she would find out that I am married, the father of four and a born-again Christian. By most accounts, I am as nice a guy as you will ever meet, even for an attorney. There is no one, anywhere, who is not envious of the success I have had who would say a bad thing about me.
Ms. Morrison, however, feels it is incumbent upon her to bash my character continuously.
THE WRITER IS A LOCAL ATTORNEY.
To the editor:
So we are likely to get yet another electricity rate hike (Tuesday Review-Journal). Are we still paying for Nevada Power’s blunder in purchasing power it never used? What is the company’s “true” reason for needing this raise?
Why is “individual” solar power being discouraged by expensive equipment and installation costs, making it impractical over the short term? Once again the consumers are being forced to accept the burden of operational, administrative and research costs.
Maybe a hiatus on building in Clark County would soften the blow.
Las Vegas is no longer a safe, reasonable place to live. I see no light at the end of the tunnel.
Utilities are going to continue to rise in cost, forcing those of us on fixed incomes to move.
Paul A. Bennett
To the editor:
The Sunday Viewpoints section offered a double dose of delusions.
Round one: Sen. Joseph Lieberman once again proclaimed his faith in George Bush’s disastrous war and professed to “see progress” in Iraq. Sen. Lieberman singled out for special praise the “progress” in al-Anbar province.
Sen. Lieberman never served a single day in the military, but from the safety of his desk in Washington he bellows “to stand, and fight, and win.” Back in the real world, five GIs were killed by guerrillas recently in active fighting in al-Anbar province.
Round two: Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick criticized Sen. Harry Reid for blurting out that the war is “lost.” Mr. Frederick opined, “Publicly calling the war lost while our soldiers are still under fire is irresponsible.” Presumably, “responsible” behavior would be admitting in private that the war is lost, while pretending in public that the war is going well.
The antidote to a double dose of delusion is a triple dose of reality.
Round one: Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican senator from Nebraska, voted recently for a timetable for withdrawing troops. Unlike Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Hagel has actually been in a war. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who has seen it all.
Round two: Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom recently put his finger on the real challenge: “the challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place.”
Round three: In a poll published last Aug. 17 in U.S. News and World Report, Iraqis were asked to choose three reasons that the United States invaded Iraq. Seventy-six percent picked as their first choice “to control Iraqi oil.” The next most common choices were “to build military bases” and “to help Israel.”
Less than 2 percent picked “to bring democracy to Iraq” as their first choice.
The Iraqis know the score, and so do Hagel and Odom. Too bad the Review-Journal doesn’t.