* While Carl Dan Claes' murder was tragic, the logic behind his mother's naming the Tustin Unified School District as defendant in a lawsuit is certainly baffling ("Mother Files Suit Over Claes Murder," May 18).
Even if it were true that the victim had informed his teacher that a number of kids "were out to get him," there was very little the school could have done in the absence of any concrete evidence.
In addition, the murder did not even take place on the school ground. In the rest of the legally sane world, this type of lawsuit against a presumably innocent party would likely be thrown out of court with a reprimand by a magistrate or judge. But in our litigious society, it appears that no suit is ever too frivolous and no pocket too shallow to pick.
The real tragedy is that we will all end up paying for it in one way or another.
Omitted in your article was any mentioning of the victim's family members having ever taken any action on the boy's fear, yet they expected the teacher to be omnipresent.
In this election year, we must ask ourselves why we continue to allow such nonsense to propagate and whether we should reelect a president who has consistently resisted any efforts to reform our legal system.
JOHN T. CHIU
Corona del Mar
* Columnist Dana Parsons was absolutely correct in his assertion that the lawsuit filed against the slain boy's school district is ludicrous ("Yes, Son's Slaying Is Tragic; Mother's Lawsuit May Be Too," May 24).
But one of the reasons that the mother sued the district is even more distressing. She said that the school knew that Carl Claes had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], and that this condition, "caused a child to be more gullible."
This could not be further from the truth. Having ADHD does not mean one is stupid or easily fooled. ADHD is a chemical imbalance in the brain resulting in hyperactivity and impulsiveness, not naivete.
ADHD has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence; there are brilliant people stricken with this condition.
It is truly disheartening to think that a mother would sue the school district for something that was not its fault on the basis of a myth.