Stephen Yagman: Guarding the Guardians?

Civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman ought to be center-stage in the pantheon of genuine American heroes (“One Angry Man,” by Hector Tobar, June 28). His zealous, uncompromising defense of our constitutional rights and guarantees--indeed our natural right to due process and equitable treatment by the police apparatus of the state--is as valuable a contribution as any to the evolution of America as a free, open and civilized society.

One need look no further than the Rodney G. King case to understand that too many cops are congenital bullies and megalomaniacs who have found the ideal means of living out their pathological childhood fantasies of power and domination. Yagman courageously interposes himself between such individuals and those they would tyrannize, boldly asserting that human dignity is inalienable and inviolable.

Yagman is unyielding in his determination that the fundamental rights of the individual are not to be merely respected but revered--even those of Hollywood shootout perpetrator Emil Matasareanu.

Regarding the old question, “Who will guard the guardians?” Stephen Yagman will.

Nicholas Eric Spinner

nspinner@gte.net

*

Your profile of Yagman was quite revolting, particularly for those of us who know how he really operates: (1) Find a criminal who’s angry that he got caught, and (2) run up huge legal bills.

A person like Yagman gives other parasites a bad name.

Clark W. Baker

Los Angeles

*

Yagman’s commitment and tenacity may be beyond doubt, but when his attorney fees in the Sunland shootout case amount to nearly $400,000 and each of his client’s awards comes to $810, his motives are certainly subject to question.

Perhaps this self-proclaimed underdog advocate should contemplate that during his annual European vacation or perhaps from his New York apartment--that handy getaway from his California seaside home.

Ron Lesovsky

Huntington Beach

*

I was sorry to see a magazine of your quality devote a cover story to a person like Yagman. I was pleased that you didn’t sugarcoat him too much. Nevertheless, all that free publicity will undoubtedly serve to perpetuate his judicial abuses.

F. Lee Bailey once said that the biggest injustice in our system is that he himself is allowed to get away with what he does in a courtroom. Well, Bailey pales in comparison with Yagman; yet each time Yagman is censured, he wins an appeal. What does that say about our higher courts?

Maybe you didn’t glorify Yagman, but you did assist him.

Tom G. Moore

Big Bear

*

Tobar’s article contained a slur Yagman made about the physical characteristics of Judge Edward Rafeedie of the U.S. District Court. It was cruel and unusual punishment for a respected member of the bench who, because of his position, cannot fight back.

It was outrageous of you to repeat it, notwithstanding that publishing such a quotation is protected under the First Amendment. Just because you can publish a slur doesn’t mean you should. That comment added absolutely nothing to the substance of the article, and the point could easily have been made in another manner.

Members of the bench have feelings, just as the rest of us do, and deserve to be respected.

Neville L. Johnson

Los Angeles