To the editor:
Philip Terzian seems to take umbrage at the use of the words “Wolkoff’s insolence” in Judge Block’s opinion in the graffiti case, and somehow equates it with an opinion I wrote decades ago (“Whose Building Is It Anyway?” March 12). First (although I am totally unfamiliar with the case), I would suggest that the use of the word “insolence” by Judge Block was most likely fact-finding based upon hearing the evidence for three weeks, rather than an “op-ed piece,” as Mr. Terzian claims.
As to my decision in the Morristown library case (one out of 2,500), by now I should have ignored its relentless mischaracterization, but false pride does not permit me to do so. Terzian writes:
My opinion (which I would bet a steak dinner that Mr. Terzian has never read):
However, what I actually ruled (contrary to the author’s claim) was that the library policy was unconstitutional under both federal and state constitutions, because it was vague, overbroad, violated the First Amendment right to access information, and gave unfettered authority to the librarian to determine who could or could not be admitted.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. I made no ruling regarding the plaintiff or his behavior, but rather on the validity of the policy. I would have made the same ruling if the plaintiff were a businessman in a three-piece suit. I do admit that I thought caring for the homeless was more important than “revoking their library cards” and said so. Finally, I obviously do not agree with Terzian’s assessment that the homeless (which includes tens of thousands of veterans) wishing to use the library are “obnoxious vagrants pretending to be readers.”
Judge H. Lee Sarokin,
La Jolla, Calif.
Philip Terzian responds:
In the wisdom of retirement, of course, Judge Sarokin is entitled to remember his reversal by the Court of Appeals in his own way. But I stand by my account of Kreimer v. Morristown.
