WHY COURTS ARE BIASED AGAINST SELF REPRESENTATION?

Have you ever contacted an Attorney to file claim against a Government entity who knowingly and purposefully violated your constitutional protected civil rights? And in your heart, you knew your rights were violated and you had strong evidence and witnesses to prove your case in court.

Subseqently it was related to you by these legal eagles, to either forget it or the cost would be absorbent with no guarantee of winning. Or, it was further related to discourage you in your pursuit of justice, that fighting City Hall is futile. With this in mind,knowing your strong conviction to receive restitution for the violations you suffered,You file a complaint for said violations within the Court system pursuant to law and your right under the U.S. Constitution (Pro-Se or on your own) only to hit a brick wall. Why? From the onset, once an individual contact the court system, informing them they are not an attorney or lawyer and wish to represent themselves, they encounter tremendous resistance. The complexity of the atmosphere change immediately, the resistance is pernicious and biased as race, ethnicity or sexual origin.

The chilling perception relayed to the individual of that most deeply offensive and insulting bromide so popular with lawyers “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”. This attitude delimits the jurisprudence of the justice system in which the U.S. Constitution was found and predicated. Said attitude is in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court ruling in Faretta v. California which specifically cites: “ Every citizen of the United States has the Constitutional right to proceed without counsel”.

The reasoning behind said decision correlates the Constitution which requires our justice system to be neutral towards the self represented litigant. Which in retrospect means the courts must offer a level playing field for the represented and the unrepresented alike consistent with basic principles of fairness, which are nonexistent.

The following problems self represented litigants are most likely to encounter within the court systems are: Procedural requirements, which are often perversely difficult such as: exorbitant filing fee’s, excessive copies, legal paper size, type of graphics or print to discourage the self represented litigant from pursuing their goal of justice. Court Clerks withhold information from non- lawyers that they routinely give freely to licensed Attorneys.

Many clerks offices feel compelled to post signs stating “ We don’t provide legal advice!” Which most often relate they are unwilling to render any assistance to the self represented to get into court or respond to a lawsuit .

There are a number of reasons why the courts and lawyers are equally biased against the self represented.

(1) Many people could pay a lawyer but choose not to. This choice repudiates lawyers with their special gifts and takes money out of their pockets. They believe it to be an insult to them for all their years of study and hard work, attending law school, to be on the same playing field with a novice, who is unfamiliar with court procedures that are set up by lawyers for lawyers, as non lawyers tend to get in the way of smooth court administration. .

(2) What is a Judge? A lawyer with a robe and title when not on the bench, who also is inclined or entitled to operate a private practice or firm in addition to their position as a Judge or Magistrate.

(3) Self represented individuals are a rebuke to the organized bar ‘s monopoly over legal services, because that monopoly is morally-if not legally- justified only if the legal profession is able to provide affordable justice for all.

For example, there's a law on the books in New Jersey backed by 300 yrs of history, which empowers the Grand Jury to conduct it’s own investigations in to complaints of wrong doing or corruption brought by ordinary citizens involving public officials . This law was enacted as a check and balances mechanism to protect the people from abuse by those placed in authority.

This right was rarely utilized and little known until recently discovered and challenged by an activist lawyer, who realized the injustice administered upon innocent individuals by corrupt officials needed to be addressed.

However the law was vigorously fought and won by the Attorney Generals and Prosecutors citing: “ It would open up a can of worms for abuse by citizens or anyone who receives an unfavorable decision, providing them with an avenue of retribution, regardless if said action was implemented against a judge, lawyer or the court.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled only prosecutors, not private citizens can take complaints of wrong doing to a grand jury. Which in retrospect, delimits the jurisprudence of the justice system.

It’s a well known fact, sometimes the worst offenders charged with violating an individuals rights are those employed by public entities. They assume or believe, they are beyond retribution or immune from prosecution and have free reign to do what ever they please with sanctioned impunity. This pernicious and cavalier disposition, delivers the wrong message to the public, that they have no recourse but to accept the violations. Is this not what the United States Constitution and this country was founded on by our forefathers?

Was not their objective to rid this country of tyranny and oppression? The U.S. Constitution begins with this preamble : “ We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Federal Statue 28 U.S.C. 1654 & 1343 specifically authorize each and every citizen of the United States the right to self representation and the right to recover damages for injury or property due to the deprivation of any right or privilege covered under the U.S. Constitution . Think about it.

Presented by :

National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc.

A Watch Dog Agency to Protect Your Rights

Police Organization cite Prosecutors violate Officers rights as victims of domestic violence

Recently, several Police Officers from various Departments who were victims of domestic violence, contacted a non profit organization and consulting firm, known as the National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc. for help. The firm specialize in assisting active and retired Law Enforcement personnel, including the public sector, charged with acts of domestic violence under false pretenses. They assist Pro-Se litigants with Court document preparation, investigate civil rights violations, official misconduct, and corruption complaints in which Government entities are named violators.

All Officers complaints cited, they were assaulted by an acquaintance within a domestic situation and as victims, obtained restraining orders to protect themselves and their employment as Police Officers. However, the offenders upon being served with the orders, counter signed complaints against the officers for DV in which some were summarily reassigned, suspended, denied promotions or denied permission for off duty work, stripped of their personal and Department weapons, predicated upon the complaint and directive by the Attorney General Guidelines. The firm noted, when Law Enforcement Officers as victims, secure an order of protection (restraining order)for themselves against a contentious or combative acquaintance, spouse or cohabitant.

The offender is advised of their rights to file an order of protection also against the officer. The firm noted, this is a flagrant practice utilized by most Prosecutor Domestic Violence Units and vindictive offenders. The firm further cited: “Prosecutors frequently utilize this bogus practice as a basis for probable cause to unlawfully seize the officer’s weapons, and offenders utilize it for retribution and leverage.” The Firm further cited: “ Over one million false allegations of domestic violence are filed each year. Everyone is aware that restraining orders issued against law enforcement officers are granted to virtually all who apply.” The majority of these cases, Judges, Prosecutors, Lawyers and offenders all know such allegations of abuse are utilized as a tactical advantage in matrimonial, and child custody matters.
The firm’s legal team noted, the mechanisms to halt such practice are never addressed or utilized by the issuing authority. The firm’s legal team also noted, a second order is unnecessary and a waste of the Courts time, as the first restraining order is a binding protection for both victim and offender, as neither party may violate the order or have contact with each other until the projected hearing date.

The Attorney Generals directive, instruct Prosecutors to seize all Department issued weapons and personal firearms, when an act of domestic violence has been alleged by a law enforcement officer. What the firm found disturbing and perplexing is, no where within the AG directive does it instruct nor advise the prosecutor to conduct an exploratory investigation prior to implementing said action to protect the accused officer’s constitutional rights.
The Officer’s complained they were outraged in the way they are being treated as victims of DV. by Prosecutors. They further cited, they feel, they are being summarily punished for filing the order to protect themselves. Some complained they have been placed on modified duty, suspended, disarmed between 6mos -3yrs or longer, restricted from working off duty to help meet their financial obligations, forced under duress to enroll in anger management, or long term psychological counseling programs at their own expense, contingent upon being returned to active duty and rearmed based upon the recommendations by the Prosecutor. The officers further complained, upon inquiry to their respective Professional Standards Units, of when they may be returned to active duty, they receive the same response “ It’s out of our hands, we’re waiting on clearance from the Prosecutors Office.”

As purveyors of law, Prosecutors should be aware of the Legislative intent within the Domestic Violence Act of 1991 and N.J criminal codes, which cite: “ No victim shall be denied relief or arrested or charged under this act with an offense because the victim used reasonable force in self defense against domestic violence by an attacker.” The law is absolute, it does not delineate, or specify who and who may not be identified as a victim, or who may be disqualified from receiving this protection, due to race, creed, color, gender, national origin, religion, sexual preference, or profession.
Here, the Officers as victims, pursuant to the relevant statute are covered by the shield of immunity. The reasonable force they utilized, was applying for a restraining order first. They followed the law to the strict letter, in which they are authorized and trained in domestic situations. In doing such, they are now being summarily penalized and punished as offenders for following the rules.

The firm cited: Most Prosecutors as a rule regarding these matters intentionally neglect to follow rules of law in which they are bound. The basic role of the prosecutor is to seek justice and not convictions. His or her office is charged with the duty to see that the laws of his/her jurisdiction are faithfully executed. Examining all the complaints and totality of the evidence presented, our investigators and legal team find the Officers have done nothing wrong and they are being unlawfully punished and their civil rights are being violated. Coalition President Eric Washington cited: “Sometimes the worst offenders of civil rights violation are people who work for public entities, perhaps they feel they are beyond retribution or above the law.”

“We find this practice of penalizing and disarming innocent law enforcement officers for obtaining DV orders as a means of protection very disturbing. First and foremost, it’s unlawful, unconstitutional, highly outrageous and repugnant. These officers place their lives on the line each and every day they put on a uniform, or pick up that badge and gun. They make enemies out here enforcing the laws they swore to uphold and protect. What’s paradoxical is, these officers wouldn’t have these enemies if for not doing their jobs to make the streets safer for you and I. They protect everyone else, but this practice of penalization without violation, deprives them of their right to protect themselves. The action’s the prosecutors are taking against these innocent officers are wrong. Their application of the law is synonymous with the actions they are directed to take against a convicted offender.”

The irony of it all is, one former member of my Police Department was charged with a bogus complaint of domestic violence, denied permission to carry firearms and placed on modified duty. While he was off duty with some friends at a club in neighboring Orange, N.J. they left the club to enter his vehicle and were subsequently robbed at gun point in the parking lot of the club.
The robbers found his police badge and identification on his person, but fortunately did not harm him, as he co-operated. However the next unarmed officer may not be so fortunate . We hope this doesn’t happen, but with this practice of disarming innocent law enforcement officers on the strength of false counter claims, who knows? We are prepared and ready to move forward with these matters, if our members and clients do not get resolution very soon.


National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc.
P.O. Box 72
S. Orange, N.J. 07079

google www.npscinc.blogger



12/04/09

N/N.J.PSC INC. MISSION STATEMENT

NATIONAL/NEW JERSEY POLICE SOLIDARITY COALITION INC

MISSION STATEMENT

The National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc. is a watch dog organization for official and political corruption by its administrators. It is our mission to protect the rights of those who have been violated by the justice systems that was put in place to give each and every individual of the United States equal protection regardless of race, creed, color and national origin .Our mission as a whistle blowing organization is to expose corruption and the violators of innocent victims rights by bringing all involved to justice.