For decades, the Massachusetts domestic violence statute (Massachusetts General Law Chapter 209A) has been an ordeal for many of those who have been on the receiving end of the notorious restraining orders that the statute creates.
The practical impact of some of these orders has been to estrange thousands of Massachusetts men from their families, removing them from their homes without notice and even going so far as to criminalize the sending of holiday cards to their own children or attending the children’s soccer games if their mother is also attending. Because a restraining order appears on the man’s record, the purported violent behavior he is accused of often forces the loss of his job, causing financial difficulties and often resulting in homelessness.
What is even sadder is that the statute can be abused, usually by hostile significant others, as leverage in divorce proceedings or for other ulterior motives unrelated to a serious fear of domestic violence. Numerous lawyers and even a few judges have acknowledged this. This is especially serious because restraining orders are often awarded without evidentiary hearings, meaning these very damaging limitations placed on the plaintiff can happen without any proof as a result of baseless or exaggerated accusations.
The Massachusetts Abuse Prevention Act (209A) defines abuse as the occurrence of actual or attempted physical abuse, placing another in fear of serious physical harm, or causing another to engage in involuntary sexual relations by force, threat of force, or duress.
Protective orders are issued under the statute in an attempt to protect household members or dating partners from physical or sexual harm.
Often issued without any notice to the defendant, 209A-restraining orders then force the wrongfully accused recipient to vacate immediately, often leaving behind possessions and having nowhere to go. Many will go months, if not years, without seeing their children. The hearings are often held informally with hearsay and wild accusations and the recipient is never given a chance to cross-examine.
Attorney David Grossack, a Hull resident whose office is in Newton, has been representing both men and women in restraining orders for his entire career. Grossack recalls one successful victory in the late 1980’s when a man was tossed out of his home without any notice, only for further examination of the allegations to reveal that his wife was just upset that he was complaining about the Cable TV bill, and that was her only grievance. Grossack got this one vacated, and uses it as perhaps an extreme example of restraining order abuse.
Recently he enjoyed a significant victory in Newton District Court. His client was a law professor and entrepreneur, divorced but still involved with his former wife in vigorously litigated post-divorce proceedings in Probate and Family Court.
Among the allegations against the defendant was the accusation that he was going to chop the woman into pieces and throw the pieces in the water. According to Grossack "These types of accusations are good copy for law and order, but lack credibility in real life."
Another allegation was that the defendant had physically assaulted his son in order to intimidate him into going to military academy, an allegation later denied by the now-adult son.
For three years, the defendant endured the restraining order. It resulted in the loss of his teaching job and made him unable to find another, and he suffered serious financial hardship as a result.
Even when he had judicial permission to drive to the curbside in front of his former home to pick up the children for visitation, his ex-wife attempted to turn it into a restraining order violation. Such cases are exemplary of how wives and girlfriends can abuse their status as “victims” in the restraining order game.
The defendant moved to Florida to try to rebuild his life. He continued to contest his divorce judgment, alimony, support, and property division, and maintained a good relationship with his children, who maintain a relationship with both parents.
In June of 2010, he hired David Grossack to prevent the restraining order from being extended permanently. Grossack was successful in methodically and systematically extinguishing every ounce of credibility of the plaintiff and her claim that she had any reason to fear the defendant, due to his substantial research and evidence to contradict her claims.
The plaintiff’s lawyer came to the domestic violence hearing with thick affidavits and exhibits describing in detail the continuing post-divorce litigation between the parties. Copies of judgments and motions were brought and an affidavit from the plaintiff which actually bore the caption “The Defendant’s Relentless Probate Court Litigation” was presented, which was intended to support her incorrect testimony that this counted as the type of abuse that merits a restraining order. Phrases like “on the order of”, “the defendant made me come to court five times,” and “the defendant brought five witnesses to the court” and “won’t stop filing baseless motions” were used to make perfectly legal and understandable post-divorce filings seem as though they were somehow wrong or threatening.
This was the opening Grossack needed to introduce Constitutional arguments. His talking points included that the plaintiff’s real grievance was that she was suffering abuse because the defendant won’t accept the outcome of the divorce and won’t stop litigating.
Indeed, on the stand Grossack inquired of the witness if she thought the “relentless Probate Court litigation” was part of the abuse. Of course, she answered in the affirmative. Actually, going to Court is constitutional protected activity and is in no way the type of violent behavior that merits a restraining order.
Although the plaintiff alleged that the defendant assaulted their son, Grossack was able to produce the son as a witness whose credible testimony contradicted his mother’s.
Worse for the plaintiff, Grossack was able to have the court consider a public document in which the parties’ other child had taken out a restraining order against the plaintiff after a number of assaults, including whacking him across the face with a coat hanger. Needless to say, this did not help the plaintiff’s credibility.
It was also brought out that the plaintiff failed to disclose all of the prior proceedings involving domestic violence on the court’s paperwork, including a different case in which she was the defendant. This further injured her credibility. Such details are what make an evidentiary hearing vital in these cases to expose such misrepresentations or contradictions.
A purported incident the plaintiff alleged of disruptive behavior by the defendant at one son’s graduation was exposed as being virtually imaginary after Grossack brought in witnesses and relentlessly examined contradictions in her assertions. Grossack also brought to the Court’s attention the plaintiff’s history of making claims of child abuse against the defendant that were not substantiated. According to Grossack, this is a common tactic used to acquire unjustified restraining orders, and its use further exposed the plaintiff’s issues with credibility.
It was fairly evident that no harassment of the plaintiff had occurred or was likely to occur. The plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to argue that the fact that the parties would still meet each other in future Divorce Court proceedings was enough reason to extend the order --- permanently, effectively saying that divorce litigation was equal to violent behavior and merited preventing the defendant from being able to acquire a job permanently.
Grossack countered that the plaintiff’s lawyer’s real message, one also advanced by some victims’ advocacy groups, was that any man who resists a woman’s position in divorce litigation is an abuser or potential abuser, despite various meritorious defenses or claims he may have to argue in court.
In fact, opposing counsel’s cross-examination of the defendant focused entirely on the fact that the defendant was upset with prior court decisions and was still litigating.
During his testimony, The defendant said he would “fight to the death” to have the restraining order removed, and the plaintiff’s lawyer tried to make much of that choice of words as though it should be construed as a threat of violence.
Grossack explained that his client was engaging in a “mere rhetorical flourish”, expertly showing how ridiculous it would to criminalize such commonly used hyperbolic sayings.
In the end, Grossack made constitutional arguments that obviously carried weight The plaintiff, he argued, was trying to chill his client’s ability to contest his divorce judgment by conjuring up frivolous allegations of domestic abuse, all in violation of his First Amendment rights to have access to the Court, and impairing his ability to find work or get a fair divorce settlement.
Grossack’s performance resulted in the judge vacating the restraining order, which is very rare.
Grossack, who earned national recognition and awards for attempting to raise awareness of gender bias in the Massachusetts court system, and for challenging the 209A-restraining orders in federal court on due process and equal protection grounds, says the victory was unusual. This is because once in place, restraining orders are quite difficult to remove despite widespread evidence of abuse of the 209A statute, and, in many cases, evidence to the contrary of the plaintiff’s allegations.
The difference here, he says, was having good evidence to contradict the plaintiff, and also being able to point out the plaintiff’s ill-advised strategy of characterizing divorce litigation as a form of abuse.
Preparation, said Grossack, was exhausting. But in the end, he says nothing feels as good as being a hero to a client.
David Grossack maintains an office in Newton, Mass. His phone number is 617-965-9300. Learn more at Grossack.com.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
HOW ACTIVISTS CAN FIGHT CITY HALL AND WIN WITH RADICAL SELF THERAPY
By David Grossack
The human species is very skilled in adapting to difficult situations. Since time immemorial humans have built tools to hunt, farm, cook, eat, provide shelter and wage war. Our species has survived millennia of frosts, heat waves, natural disasters, invasions and epidemics and stands on the threshold of intergalactic exploration, the cracking of the genetic code and perhaps even immortality itself.
Humans have united in groups to form communities, governments and armies. Like insects who develop colonies, fish who travel in schools, birds who fly in formation, human beings are animals who use their tools to organize societies.
It is believed that there is a basic herd instinct which is at least in part responsible for this behavior.
In the animal kingdom, organized communities are controlled by leaders. From ants to elephants, hierarchies are entrenched social orders that govern the lower classes. A strong case can be made that a genetically transmitted instinct passes from generation to generation of animals to follow the herd and to stay under its influence.
What keeps human beings under the control and influence of social groups is more complex. The mechanisms of control by institutions are thrust upon children in our formative years. We watch the television programs that 70 million other children watch. We go to school and read the same text books that 70 million other children read. We go to houses of worship and get exposed to the same man-made theologies that millions of others are exposed to, and tithe to support huge "religious" bureaucracies.
In Eugene Ionescu's play "Rhinoceros" we observe a critical satire of the human herd instinct.
A significant portion of the indoctrination process into society is through forms of marketing and merchandising. The merchandising of religions, soap operas and fashion are examples of building and branding new herds within the human species. Not only are we white, yellow or brown, we are Lutherans, Sunnis, Reformed Jews or Mormons, or one of the many other brands. We use Crest, Gleem or Tom's Natural Toothpaste. Some women dye their hair any of dozens of colors, wear styles and colors found in great abundance in and the selection of our beverages and automobiles are said to identify our personalities.
We become "products of products," almost worshiping things society manufactures. The entire culture of our society, for many, many people, is based on "getting" things. If this is a remnant of our primitive days as "hunter gatherers" it nevertheless represents the basis of considerable neurosis found in those who constantly striving for "more," "better" and "what the neighbors have." In such a world, fighting injustice doesn't take a high priority.
People are too busy making payments on their installment credit debt, compound interest arguably being the source of establishment wealth and the misery of the rest of us.
Once the individual becomes part of society he or she is of course subject to its laws, courts and police powers. Questioning the legitimacy of the System becomes heresy.
This has been enshrined in the law and culture of social systems for ages.
The western world had embodied the Divine Right of Kings. The jurisprudence of the Talmud has stated that "the powers that be are ordained of God and must be followed." In the eastern world the Chinese believed the Emperors enjoyed "the mandate of heaven."
English common law and much of American law including the Eleventh Amendment of our national constitution tells us that the government cannot be sued, though this has eroded. This is the principle that you are not supposed to turn on the leaders of the herd.
Break away from the herd at your peril! Think outside the herd, and you'll become hunted or perhaps just an ignored freak, is the unwritten implication. If you do not know what Brittney and Madonna did, if you do not know who pitches for the Cardinals, if you do not watch Fox Reality shows, you are a minority group member.
What has the modern herd really become? It is like living on a Georgia plantation in the last days of the Civil War.
The powers that be, the leaders of the American herd, could not save folks in New Orleans from drowning .
The powers that be could not save 3000 Americans from death at the hands of Al Qaeda despite 101 warnings. They had even supplied the killers with $4 billion in our tax money years before the events of September 11!
In other words, the herd here has become dysfunctional. The dysfunction is reflected in the lawyers, judges and courts who serve it.
The dysfunction is noted in the widespread, rampant corruption in government at every level, the alienation many people feel from the national and local political arenas and the frequent low turn outs in many elections. A widespread view is that politicians are so in hock to corporate interests that communication with them is futile.
Against this context, an epidemic of abuse at the hands of the justice systems and the government is virtually a tradition at every level in just about every country.
The conditions resulting from legal and government abuse are not unlike those after a serious physical assault. Post traumatic stress syndrome has been documented among many victims.
Unlike the forms of psychotherapy which require intervention by therapists to deal with emotional disturbance, Radical Self Therapy (RST) recognizes that the expectations of positive results from a conventional patient therapist are unrealistic. More damage than benefit may very well result.
RST therefore is a tool to be used without a therapist unless the symptoms are so severe that medical intervention is necessary, i.e. hospitalization for severe depression or medication.
After all, what is the social role of the psychologist in American society?
A great number are employed by law enforcement, by prisons, courts and even the intelligence agencies. Their view of the patient's treatment may be to require him to adapt to the herd rather than to drop out or to try to change it because the therapist's own bias may lean that way.
The therapists are themselves "products" of the System, enjoying comfortable lives as servants of power, dependent on insurance agencies, hospitals and other bureaucracies for sustenance. And of course, they are licensed by the various states.
A field of study where entire branches are devoted to help manufacturers sell their products, to help politicians subliminally reach voters or to help armies launch propaganda campaigns are risky prospects for helping to heal anybody of anything. In fact, the role of the psychologist is one of counterinsurgent or bully in so many aspects. Troublesome patients are often drugged after criticizing their doctor or lawyer.
A litigant is sent by a judge or even his own lawyer to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist will inevitably make some judgments on him affecting the court case. The judgment may be coded in medical terminology and will no doubt be colored by a partisan view of the case. But the psychiatric opinion will be used an excuse by a judge or lawyer for making a decision, unless the judge really does not like it!
Parties seeking to divorce may have the welfare of the children investigated by a psychologist with close connections to a judge and biased, partisan reports will affect the family negatively for decades.
Psychologists continue to bill the insurance company as long as he tells you that you are not well and keep coming back for visits. They almost have a vested interest in you not getting well.
Modern psychology simply is not trustworthy.
For all of these reasons, it is my belief that it is safest for the victims to heal themselves with a minimum of outside assistance using RST tools and techniques that are easily applicable at home
or in leisure moments.
The human species is very skilled in adapting to difficult situations. Since time immemorial humans have built tools to hunt, farm, cook, eat, provide shelter and wage war. Our species has survived millennia of frosts, heat waves, natural disasters, invasions and epidemics and stands on the threshold of intergalactic exploration, the cracking of the genetic code and perhaps even immortality itself.
Humans have united in groups to form communities, governments and armies. Like insects who develop colonies, fish who travel in schools, birds who fly in formation, human beings are animals who use their tools to organize societies.
It is believed that there is a basic herd instinct which is at least in part responsible for this behavior.
In the animal kingdom, organized communities are controlled by leaders. From ants to elephants, hierarchies are entrenched social orders that govern the lower classes. A strong case can be made that a genetically transmitted instinct passes from generation to generation of animals to follow the herd and to stay under its influence.
What keeps human beings under the control and influence of social groups is more complex. The mechanisms of control by institutions are thrust upon children in our formative years. We watch the television programs that 70 million other children watch. We go to school and read the same text books that 70 million other children read. We go to houses of worship and get exposed to the same man-made theologies that millions of others are exposed to, and tithe to support huge "religious" bureaucracies.
In Eugene Ionescu's play "Rhinoceros" we observe a critical satire of the human herd instinct.
A significant portion of the indoctrination process into society is through forms of marketing and merchandising. The merchandising of religions, soap operas and fashion are examples of building and branding new herds within the human species. Not only are we white, yellow or brown, we are Lutherans, Sunnis, Reformed Jews or Mormons, or one of the many other brands. We use Crest, Gleem or Tom's Natural Toothpaste. Some women dye their hair any of dozens of colors, wear styles and colors found in great abundance in and the selection of our beverages and automobiles are said to identify our personalities.
We become "products of products," almost worshiping things society manufactures. The entire culture of our society, for many, many people, is based on "getting" things. If this is a remnant of our primitive days as "hunter gatherers" it nevertheless represents the basis of considerable neurosis found in those who constantly striving for "more," "better" and "what the neighbors have." In such a world, fighting injustice doesn't take a high priority.
People are too busy making payments on their installment credit debt, compound interest arguably being the source of establishment wealth and the misery of the rest of us.
Once the individual becomes part of society he or she is of course subject to its laws, courts and police powers. Questioning the legitimacy of the System becomes heresy.
This has been enshrined in the law and culture of social systems for ages.
The western world had embodied the Divine Right of Kings. The jurisprudence of the Talmud has stated that "the powers that be are ordained of God and must be followed." In the eastern world the Chinese believed the Emperors enjoyed "the mandate of heaven."
English common law and much of American law including the Eleventh Amendment of our national constitution tells us that the government cannot be sued, though this has eroded. This is the principle that you are not supposed to turn on the leaders of the herd.
Break away from the herd at your peril! Think outside the herd, and you'll become hunted or perhaps just an ignored freak, is the unwritten implication. If you do not know what Brittney and Madonna did, if you do not know who pitches for the Cardinals, if you do not watch Fox Reality shows, you are a minority group member.
What has the modern herd really become? It is like living on a Georgia plantation in the last days of the Civil War.
The powers that be, the leaders of the American herd, could not save folks in New Orleans from drowning .
The powers that be could not save 3000 Americans from death at the hands of Al Qaeda despite 101 warnings. They had even supplied the killers with $4 billion in our tax money years before the events of September 11!
In other words, the herd here has become dysfunctional. The dysfunction is reflected in the lawyers, judges and courts who serve it.
The dysfunction is noted in the widespread, rampant corruption in government at every level, the alienation many people feel from the national and local political arenas and the frequent low turn outs in many elections. A widespread view is that politicians are so in hock to corporate interests that communication with them is futile.
Against this context, an epidemic of abuse at the hands of the justice systems and the government is virtually a tradition at every level in just about every country.
The conditions resulting from legal and government abuse are not unlike those after a serious physical assault. Post traumatic stress syndrome has been documented among many victims.
Unlike the forms of psychotherapy which require intervention by therapists to deal with emotional disturbance, Radical Self Therapy (RST) recognizes that the expectations of positive results from a conventional patient therapist are unrealistic. More damage than benefit may very well result.
RST therefore is a tool to be used without a therapist unless the symptoms are so severe that medical intervention is necessary, i.e. hospitalization for severe depression or medication.
After all, what is the social role of the psychologist in American society?
A great number are employed by law enforcement, by prisons, courts and even the intelligence agencies. Their view of the patient's treatment may be to require him to adapt to the herd rather than to drop out or to try to change it because the therapist's own bias may lean that way.
The therapists are themselves "products" of the System, enjoying comfortable lives as servants of power, dependent on insurance agencies, hospitals and other bureaucracies for sustenance. And of course, they are licensed by the various states.
A field of study where entire branches are devoted to help manufacturers sell their products, to help politicians subliminally reach voters or to help armies launch propaganda campaigns are risky prospects for helping to heal anybody of anything. In fact, the role of the psychologist is one of counterinsurgent or bully in so many aspects. Troublesome patients are often drugged after criticizing their doctor or lawyer.
A litigant is sent by a judge or even his own lawyer to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist will inevitably make some judgments on him affecting the court case. The judgment may be coded in medical terminology and will no doubt be colored by a partisan view of the case. But the psychiatric opinion will be used an excuse by a judge or lawyer for making a decision, unless the judge really does not like it!
Parties seeking to divorce may have the welfare of the children investigated by a psychologist with close connections to a judge and biased, partisan reports will affect the family negatively for decades.
Psychologists continue to bill the insurance company as long as he tells you that you are not well and keep coming back for visits. They almost have a vested interest in you not getting well.
Modern psychology simply is not trustworthy.
For all of these reasons, it is my belief that it is safest for the victims to heal themselves with a minimum of outside assistance using RST tools and techniques that are easily applicable at home
or in leisure moments.
Monday, April 19, 2010
PRESS RELEASE!
AKRON, OHIO, April 16, 2010-While President Obama campaigned for the White House on a platform promising “transparency,” a conservative organization located in Ohio is disputing whether the promise is being kept.
Government agencies work for and are accountable to United States citizens, and the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966 to allow the people access to federal government records so that they can be politically aware and active citizens who participate in the policy decisions that affect all Americans. This transparency is crucial to American democratic political discourse, and although President Obama instructed all federal agencies to implement transparency policies on his first day in office, some folks say they have seen little evidence of this.
Although “Freedom of Information” laws exist on the books, the U.S. Citizens Association, a non-profit civic league based in Akron, is resorting to the courts to get them enforced. The Association’s lawyer, Massachusetts-based constitutional litigator David C. Grossack, has been sending demand letters to both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Management and Budget, seeking to research a number of topics of concern to many Americans. These letters, which start the FOIA request process, require federal agencies to respond within 20 days,
Grossack asked the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for deciding how Americans’ tax dollars are spent, for correspondence between the Congress and the White House OMB concerning the costs and other details of healthcare reform. The USCA wants to learn more about this legislation, which they are concerned could negatively affect many Americans and violate constitutional rights.
Grossack asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency for details about the building of detention centers for dissidents reportedly now being built to contain American citizens who disagree with government policies, so that the USCA can defend fellow citizens against any attempts by the government to suppress dissent.
The OMB is resisting USCA’s quest to achieve greater government transparency by demanding that Grossack’s client pay for the costs of searching and copying the documents, something the USCA should be exempt from based on its non-profit status.
FEMA simply refused to respond to Grossack at all, despite the 20 day requirement.
With the help of local counsel in Washington, D.C., Grossack filed two lawsuits, and is serving them on the agencies and Justice Department lawyers on behalf of USCA in their struggle for access to this vital information that affects all Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association is, according to its mission statement, devoted to educating the public about conservative, pro-capitalist ideas. It is committed to opposing abuses of and violations of constitutional rights. Its website is www.usca.com.
David Grossack, who practices law in the Boston suburb of Newton, is nationally known for a lawsuit he brought against the state court system alleging discrimination against men in domestic cases. The Boston Herald has described him as one of the state’s 10 best lawyers. His law office’s website is www.grossack.com
Government agencies work for and are accountable to United States citizens, and the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966 to allow the people access to federal government records so that they can be politically aware and active citizens who participate in the policy decisions that affect all Americans. This transparency is crucial to American democratic political discourse, and although President Obama instructed all federal agencies to implement transparency policies on his first day in office, some folks say they have seen little evidence of this.
Although “Freedom of Information” laws exist on the books, the U.S. Citizens Association, a non-profit civic league based in Akron, is resorting to the courts to get them enforced. The Association’s lawyer, Massachusetts-based constitutional litigator David C. Grossack, has been sending demand letters to both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Management and Budget, seeking to research a number of topics of concern to many Americans. These letters, which start the FOIA request process, require federal agencies to respond within 20 days,
Grossack asked the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for deciding how Americans’ tax dollars are spent, for correspondence between the Congress and the White House OMB concerning the costs and other details of healthcare reform. The USCA wants to learn more about this legislation, which they are concerned could negatively affect many Americans and violate constitutional rights.
Grossack asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency for details about the building of detention centers for dissidents reportedly now being built to contain American citizens who disagree with government policies, so that the USCA can defend fellow citizens against any attempts by the government to suppress dissent.
The OMB is resisting USCA’s quest to achieve greater government transparency by demanding that Grossack’s client pay for the costs of searching and copying the documents, something the USCA should be exempt from based on its non-profit status.
FEMA simply refused to respond to Grossack at all, despite the 20 day requirement.
With the help of local counsel in Washington, D.C., Grossack filed two lawsuits, and is serving them on the agencies and Justice Department lawyers on behalf of USCA in their struggle for access to this vital information that affects all Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association is, according to its mission statement, devoted to educating the public about conservative, pro-capitalist ideas. It is committed to opposing abuses of and violations of constitutional rights. Its website is www.usca.com.
David Grossack, who practices law in the Boston suburb of Newton, is nationally known for a lawsuit he brought against the state court system alleging discrimination against men in domestic cases. The Boston Herald has described him as one of the state’s 10 best lawyers. His law office’s website is www.grossack.com
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
ONE MORE HUMAN RIGHTS TRAGEDY IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM
By Attorney David Grossack
Imagine being sentenced to prison for eight years. In the outside world you leave behind a son, who is now being completely estranged from you. His mother is out of the picture, and the state has succeeded in bringing a case against you declaring that your rights as a parent are being terminated.
Nathan LeBaron is finding out first hand what the horror is like. Currently he is confined in Shirley, Massachusetts, trying to reverse a suspect statutory rape conviction. His appellate attorney is confident that there were constitutional flaws in the process that convicted him, and, frankly, meeting Nathan one does not believe him capable of the act.
Nathan LeBaron is from a well known family belonging to a historically persecuted religious minority. His parents were fundamentalist Mormons, who believe that having multiple wives is a sacred obligation, and that the Book of Mormon is the testimony of the appearance of Jesus on this continent. Nathan's being born into their family was a reason his parental rights were attacked.
What is especially suspicious about the process that terminated Nathaniel LeBaron's parental rights with his son Caleb is how the State of Washing inserted religion into it. The children of the convicts that are sentenced for long stretches are often in many forms of limbo. However, the issue of whether certain rights to family autonomy and substantive due process rights such as the right of prisoners to the socialization and companionship of one's children are unresolved.
But when religious bigotry is added to the equation, it gets really ugly. Religious minorities, and their interaction with the state is often a scary topic, as any student of history can tell you.
The expert witness who testified against Nathan during termination proceedings only met Nathan one time for about an hour. "Cult therapy" was ordered by a state court, and another expert opined Nathan brainwashed Caleb with a "dangerous dichotomous religion" involving God and the devil. More psychological opinions were developed in the context of court-ordered "cult therapy." Other experts indicated Nathan does not suffer any personality disorders, but that there was a "cult bias" problem in the case. These experts were not called as witnesses at trial to defend Nathan and Caleb.
Now that Nathan has been smeared with the "cult" label and has had his parental rights removed, Caleb is growing up unable to enjoy whatever relationship could be afforded with his father. Caleb repeatedly asks, "Can't I just go and see him at the jail? Will you ask the judge?" And, "When is my dad going to be released?" Caleb remembers his dad as "playable" and "nice" and says he will always love his dad. He says he is sad, he misses his dad, and that he wants to meet him and give him a present
Psychological reports continue to indicate that Caleb suffers serious unresolved grief and is still quite upset over the lack of any contact with his father.
Even though the American Psychological Association already condemned the particular tests employed against Nathan because they exaggerate psychopathology, Nathan's parental rights have nevertheless been terminated based on this expert testimony. A state court ordered "cult therapy," and, based on a therapist's recommendation, Nathan was even ordered not to date, marry, or form a family as a standing order for several years. The state then also removed Caleb from the custody of Nathan's entire family based on the same cult hysteria. Nathan's sister was accused of brainwashing Caleb with "a skewed and unhealthy view of religion." She is a mainstream Mormon, while Nathan is non-denominational.
If family friends or relatives want to bring Caleb to Massachusetts to visit his father, no legal standing exists to facilitate this unless the new custodial parents agree.
When Nathan gets out, unless this termination of parental rights is reversed, he will have no legal rights to resume his parenting of Caleb.
The fact that the State of Washington used Nathan's parents' religion to facilitate this is an outrage.
This kind of religious discrimination, when it results in the break up of families, is nothing less than a human rights crime, made illegal by United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The state of Texas learned that from an Appeals Court when they messed with polygamous families, fairly recently, that due process is still the law of the land.
Caleb has never given up, and he continues to cry out to have his father, Nathan LeBaron, back in his life.
I am asking human rights organizations to investigate the matter of Caleb LeBaron, a.k.a. Caleb Buckingham. Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and the United Nation's Human Rights Commission must take note of this case and do something!
I am asking you, the reader, to make a call to Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington at 360-902-4111 and ask her to investigate the case, and to circulate this story far and wide.
All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
Do something.
The author is a lawyer and entrepreneur living in Hull, Massachusetts. He serves as General Counsel of the National Writers Syndicate. His e-mail address is dcg3@ix.netcom.com.
Imagine being sentenced to prison for eight years. In the outside world you leave behind a son, who is now being completely estranged from you. His mother is out of the picture, and the state has succeeded in bringing a case against you declaring that your rights as a parent are being terminated.
Nathan LeBaron is finding out first hand what the horror is like. Currently he is confined in Shirley, Massachusetts, trying to reverse a suspect statutory rape conviction. His appellate attorney is confident that there were constitutional flaws in the process that convicted him, and, frankly, meeting Nathan one does not believe him capable of the act.
Nathan LeBaron is from a well known family belonging to a historically persecuted religious minority. His parents were fundamentalist Mormons, who believe that having multiple wives is a sacred obligation, and that the Book of Mormon is the testimony of the appearance of Jesus on this continent. Nathan's being born into their family was a reason his parental rights were attacked.
What is especially suspicious about the process that terminated Nathaniel LeBaron's parental rights with his son Caleb is how the State of Washing inserted religion into it. The children of the convicts that are sentenced for long stretches are often in many forms of limbo. However, the issue of whether certain rights to family autonomy and substantive due process rights such as the right of prisoners to the socialization and companionship of one's children are unresolved.
But when religious bigotry is added to the equation, it gets really ugly. Religious minorities, and their interaction with the state is often a scary topic, as any student of history can tell you.
The expert witness who testified against Nathan during termination proceedings only met Nathan one time for about an hour. "Cult therapy" was ordered by a state court, and another expert opined Nathan brainwashed Caleb with a "dangerous dichotomous religion" involving God and the devil. More psychological opinions were developed in the context of court-ordered "cult therapy." Other experts indicated Nathan does not suffer any personality disorders, but that there was a "cult bias" problem in the case. These experts were not called as witnesses at trial to defend Nathan and Caleb.
Now that Nathan has been smeared with the "cult" label and has had his parental rights removed, Caleb is growing up unable to enjoy whatever relationship could be afforded with his father. Caleb repeatedly asks, "Can't I just go and see him at the jail? Will you ask the judge?" And, "When is my dad going to be released?" Caleb remembers his dad as "playable" and "nice" and says he will always love his dad. He says he is sad, he misses his dad, and that he wants to meet him and give him a present
Psychological reports continue to indicate that Caleb suffers serious unresolved grief and is still quite upset over the lack of any contact with his father.
Even though the American Psychological Association already condemned the particular tests employed against Nathan because they exaggerate psychopathology, Nathan's parental rights have nevertheless been terminated based on this expert testimony. A state court ordered "cult therapy," and, based on a therapist's recommendation, Nathan was even ordered not to date, marry, or form a family as a standing order for several years. The state then also removed Caleb from the custody of Nathan's entire family based on the same cult hysteria. Nathan's sister was accused of brainwashing Caleb with "a skewed and unhealthy view of religion." She is a mainstream Mormon, while Nathan is non-denominational.
If family friends or relatives want to bring Caleb to Massachusetts to visit his father, no legal standing exists to facilitate this unless the new custodial parents agree.
When Nathan gets out, unless this termination of parental rights is reversed, he will have no legal rights to resume his parenting of Caleb.
The fact that the State of Washington used Nathan's parents' religion to facilitate this is an outrage.
This kind of religious discrimination, when it results in the break up of families, is nothing less than a human rights crime, made illegal by United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The state of Texas learned that from an Appeals Court when they messed with polygamous families, fairly recently, that due process is still the law of the land.
Caleb has never given up, and he continues to cry out to have his father, Nathan LeBaron, back in his life.
I am asking human rights organizations to investigate the matter of Caleb LeBaron, a.k.a. Caleb Buckingham. Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and the United Nation's Human Rights Commission must take note of this case and do something!
I am asking you, the reader, to make a call to Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington at 360-902-4111 and ask her to investigate the case, and to circulate this story far and wide.
All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
Do something.
The author is a lawyer and entrepreneur living in Hull, Massachusetts. He serves as General Counsel of the National Writers Syndicate. His e-mail address is dcg3@ix.netcom.com.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
VOLUNTEER FOR CITIZENS' JUSTICE
THE CITIZENS' JUSTICE INSTITUTE NEEDS YOUR HELP!
Use your abilities to further the cause of a fair, just and honest legal system, and a government that respects people's rights.
We need volunteers to help raise funds, educate the public, organize events and, most importantly, to help challenge abuses of authority.
We need gifts of cash, vehicles, equipment, and other valuables to help finance this project.
Your gifts are currently not tax deductible, but they are needed.
Contact us now!
Call at 781-925-5253
Fax at 781-925-9352
E-mail at dcg3@ix.netcom.com
Write to C.J.I, Box 90, Hull, MASS 02045
Use your abilities to further the cause of a fair, just and honest legal system, and a government that respects people's rights.
We need volunteers to help raise funds, educate the public, organize events and, most importantly, to help challenge abuses of authority.
We need gifts of cash, vehicles, equipment, and other valuables to help finance this project.
Your gifts are currently not tax deductible, but they are needed.
Contact us now!
Call at 781-925-5253
Fax at 781-925-9352
E-mail at dcg3@ix.netcom.com
Write to C.J.I, Box 90, Hull, MASS 02045
Thursday, May 21, 2009
ARTICLE ABOUT THE CITIZENS' JUSTICE INSTITUTE
WITHOUT JUSTICE, THERE'S JUST US
by Kerry Ellard
In the Newton, Massachusetts, office of Attorney David Grossack, one item stands out. Amidst the legal manuals and diplomas, there is a book called How to Win a Lawsuit Without a Lawyer. One would think having such a book visible in plain sight of Grossack's clients would be heresy in a law office, a place dependent upon people not being able to handle any type of legal matter without a lawyer to consult. But this is a different type of law practice, headed by a different type of lawyer. Although the small office is a far cry from the big Boston law firms that typically make headlines, the work done here is inspiring a national movement, and when you listen to the stories of those who are taking part, the reason why becomes clear.
One man dared to challenge a judge; another took on his arresting officer, and, much worse, his ex-wife. Both had success in the courtroom. What is more amazing is that these ordinary people with no legal training handled these lawsuits by themselves, which is known as pro se (Latin for ‘oneself') representation. Few people are aware of how successful pro se litigants can be, and fewer still know how to go about trying it. For people who lack the finances to hire a lawyer, or for people who have had bad experiences with relying on lawyers in the past, pro se representation can be the solution – and one organization is out to encourage and help these struggling litigants.
The Citizens' Justice Institute, founded in 1993 by Grossack, started out as a series of newsletters. It eventually expanded to include many published materials to aid pro se litigants, as well as occasional seminars designed to reach out to people and educate them on pro se concepts. Now, it is most easily accessed through its website citizensjustice.com, which proclaims, "Without Justice, There's Just Us." This motto is the driving sentiment behind Grossack's pro se movement, as well the people who feel like they have been victimized by a legal system in which those trusted with defending them are dependent on the very system that is trying to convict them, and who are ready to take matters into their own hands.
Barry Weinstein first met Grossack in the late 1990's after dealing with legal problems, and says that Grossack's "reputation preceded him." Grossack had been named "Lawyer of the Year" by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, as well as one of the state's ten best lawyers by the Boston Herald, after suing the Massachusetts Family Court system for abuse of male litigants. He was unsuccessful, but the case attracted worldwide attention, and it hit home for Weinstein, sparking his interest in learning more about pro se litigation from Grossack.
Weinstein had been falsely jailed for 19 months for kidnapping after his ex-wife refused to support his visitation rights and moved to a different state with their children. He had initially approached the police in that town to enforce his rights, but they said they could not get involved with such custody-related issues. However, after he picked up his son on a day he had visitation, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He had previously hired an attorney from what he describes as a "big law firm, one of the best," but he says that in his experience, the family courts are so biased against men that attorneys who claim to be able to get a favorable ruling "commit fraud."
His sense of being wronged deepened when his prosecutor, Nicholas Bissell, was caught abusing his power in order to intimidate people into giving up property, among other crimes. Bissell later committed suicide, and the ordeal was a headline-making scandal in New Jersey, where Weinstein's case took place. As a result, Weinstein's conviction was successfully appealed after it was determined he did not have a fair trial. It is no wonder Weinstein lost faith in the ability of the legal system to return fair and just results. After meeting Grossack, who he says he immediately "felt comfortable with," he bought How to Win a Lawsuit Without a Lawyer, the most popular publication of the Citizens' Justice Institute. Written by Grossack himself, it is a manual for pro se litigants that can be purchased from citizensjustice.com and is used by many of Grossack's clients in their pro se proceedings.
Weinstein was ultimately satisfied with the education he received through the Citizens' Justice Institute, as well as his ability to apply what he learned to his actual legal matters. He found the materials to be "very helpful" and "straightforward" and succeeded in having a judgment reversed twice. Feeling as though he was finally being given a fair shot at prevailing in the justice system, Weinstein appreciated the fact that he "was always able to give David a call" when he had questions. This personal connection Grossack has with the people he works with is one of the reasons so many people feel like the Citizens' Justice Institute is capable of helping them in ways traditional legal methods cannot.
James Nollet, another person who learned how to litigate pro se from Grossack, expressed enthusiasm for the Citizens' Justice Institute, and reaffirmed the closeness and appreciation many of the organization's participants feel towards Grossack. He agrees to discuss the organization "Firstly, as a favor to Attorney Grossack, who's always been most kind and generous to me. And secondly, because I am a firm and great believer in the prospects of pro se litigation." When asked why he feels this way, Nollet cites the reason many people choose pro se litigation: financial hardship. "As you know…people …have no savings to tide them over in the event of catastrophe. A legal catastrophe can be every bit as devastating as a burnt-out home, a major illness, a major accident, or something of that nature." With attorney fees often hundreds of dollars per hour, it is easy to see why many people cannot afford them.
He recounts his own experiences with the legal system that led to him to become interested in pro se litigation: "Let me tell you about the zoo that is Middlesex Probate and Family Court…on any given day, there can be literally dozens if not hundreds of other litigants, all of whom are there for what ought to be relatively minor legal procedures. So you're there with your attorney, for hours and hours. He or she is doing nothing but sitting around -- but you, his client, are paying him at billable hourly rates, of something like one hundred to two hundred dollars per hour or more." Nollet continues by saying that the court system "was not in the business of administering justice. It was in the business of administering process, of going through the motions."
A significant advantage to pro se litigation, according to Nollet, is that because the litigant does not have to pay attorney's fees, he or she is able to continue complex cases that people are typically forced to settle quickly, and often in a way that it is not in their best interest, to avoid a costly process. He says the average litigant is forced "to slough along and eventually throw in the towel, since the State will continue our cases until Doomsday." However, he continues, a pro se litigant up against someone with a typical lawyer "can quickly drain the wallets of their adversaries and force them to either compromise or give up." It is a rough tactic, but if it results in victory, it is something to be paid attention to by people facing legal issues.
Nollet says he believes everyone should have an understanding of the legal system, because so many people face at least one minor legal issue at some point in their lives. "I wish all high schools would teach the equivalent of Law 101. It is the task of public schools to teach all citizens how to function…and it is clear to me that someone needs legal skills…as much as he needs to know how to read and count." While he acknowledges that "while most of us do not commit crimes and are not the focus of criminal accusations [or] major civil litigations," the reality is that for millions of Americans, unexpected legal disputes arise, often domestic, and according to Nollet, sometimes "the only way left is for ordinary human beings to take the law into their own hands -- legally, of course."
This outlook exemplifies why Nollet connected on a personal level with Grossack, who believes strongly in using legal methods to fight for justice in any way possible. Grossack speaks of using "radical activism…picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, organizing public communications, and in general the kind of conduct that transforms society, produces changes, and puts the wrongdoers on the defensive." The self-described "revolutionary" hopes his Institute will create changes in the legal system to ensure people like Nollet have a fair shot as pro se litigants and are not victimized. He agrees that the law should not be a mystery to the average citizen, as evidenced by the fact that he told The Boston Business Journal in 1999, "My profession doesn't have to be a magical priesthood holding occult knowledge …let's share it with the public." Both believe that there is no reason to view pro se litigants as people making an uninformed and potentially disastrous choice in foregoing a lawyer, as long as they are given the proper legal education.
Nollet jokes, "They say, ‘a person who represents himself has a fool for a client' Well, a person who relies on a public defender is relying on a professional fool." This striking statement exemplifies how "passionate" Nollet is about promoting pro se litigation. It "found him" when he faced what he says were false accusations of abuse by his now ex-wife, resulting in restraining orders and other legal problems. He later filed pro se for false arrest in relation to an alleged violation of a restraining order, and he received a $5,000 settlement.
Nollet summarizes his experiences by saying, "I was just living a normal life, and suddenly found that I had extraordinary legal needs that I couldn't possibly pay any attorney to do for me, so I was forced to learn how and do it myself." The pressures and frustrations that led him to take matters into his own hands are what motivate many people to seek out the Citizens' Justice Institute. It is easy to see why people who are driven to pro se litigation due to the "despair that any amount of professional representation could give me a fair, even shake in court," as Nollet describes it, find solace in Grossack's activism and desire to educate and empower them.
Another of Grossack's associates, who wishes to remain anonymous, cautions that pro se litigation, while sometimes the only viable financial option, is not always the answer if someone is able to hire a competent attorney. His main concern is that the justice system is biased against pro se litigants and that it can be too much to take on as one person. "Going pro se is going against the grain. If you can win a case pro se, then a lawyer's out of business. Therefore, there's a lot of prejudice against pro se litigants…You're threatening the establishment." However, he has a great deal of respect for Grossack's unusual and at times controversial endeavors to encourage pro se litigants through the Institute. He says, "David is an exception because he believes justice can't be done if only the wealthy can afford it – something must be done through outside channels. It's commendable – more lawyers should get involved."
People other than lawyers and pro se litigants are getting involved as well, hoping to achieve fairness and justice in the U.S. legal system. Tim McKyer, a former NFL star, wrote to Grossack about feeling abused by the court system after facing various legal issues. He writes, "I'm totally committed with Mr. Grossack…who [is] a true American hero who dare[s] to challenge the status quo and help defend the defenseless." His letter makes clear his admiration for Grossack's work helping people struggling in the court system to defend themselves.
And Grossack shows no signs of stopping, proclaiming, "I want to continue the important work of the Institute…I want to train victims of the Bar, Big Government, and the Courts in legal methods of fighting back." Grossack is very public with his desire to help those he refers to as "victims of legal abuse," detailing his beliefs in his numerous writings, some available for free online and others orderable from citizensjustice.com. And his efforts are appreciated, as he has a binder full of grateful emails and letters from people who support and trust his methods and ideas.
One letter states, "I am exposing corrupt people in the judicial system, and I expect to get out of being wrongfully imprisoned and to have my parental rights reinstated …if you did not help me, I would not have made it to this point." Grossack received passionate email responses to an article he wrote for newswithviews.com, detailing his belief in the importance of "Awareness Training for Victims of Legal and Government Abuse," with one woman writing, "You have brought me to tears with the stinging truth in your words. What can I do to help?"
Perhaps the most touching letter is by a woman suing a judge for constitutional violations, who writes, "You have inspired me to further my education and get to a complete understanding of my rights as an American citizen." Grossack says, "The goal of the Citizens' Justice Institute is to improve the quality of justice by teaching people how to demand real justice, not the assembly line kind of justice so often meted out." People like Barry Weinstein and James Nollet have experienced the drawn-out, confusing, and sometimes corrupt world of the legal system that Grossack is referencing, and they have suffered the consequences. By using the Citizens' Justice Institute to inspire people to take charge of their own futures and educate themselves about the legal issues they face, Grossack is helping people avoid being drawn into similar legal dilemmas, and with each grateful letter, he is one step closer to achieving his goal of "real justice
by Kerry Ellard
In the Newton, Massachusetts, office of Attorney David Grossack, one item stands out. Amidst the legal manuals and diplomas, there is a book called How to Win a Lawsuit Without a Lawyer. One would think having such a book visible in plain sight of Grossack's clients would be heresy in a law office, a place dependent upon people not being able to handle any type of legal matter without a lawyer to consult. But this is a different type of law practice, headed by a different type of lawyer. Although the small office is a far cry from the big Boston law firms that typically make headlines, the work done here is inspiring a national movement, and when you listen to the stories of those who are taking part, the reason why becomes clear.
One man dared to challenge a judge; another took on his arresting officer, and, much worse, his ex-wife. Both had success in the courtroom. What is more amazing is that these ordinary people with no legal training handled these lawsuits by themselves, which is known as pro se (Latin for ‘oneself') representation. Few people are aware of how successful pro se litigants can be, and fewer still know how to go about trying it. For people who lack the finances to hire a lawyer, or for people who have had bad experiences with relying on lawyers in the past, pro se representation can be the solution – and one organization is out to encourage and help these struggling litigants.
The Citizens' Justice Institute, founded in 1993 by Grossack, started out as a series of newsletters. It eventually expanded to include many published materials to aid pro se litigants, as well as occasional seminars designed to reach out to people and educate them on pro se concepts. Now, it is most easily accessed through its website citizensjustice.com, which proclaims, "Without Justice, There's Just Us." This motto is the driving sentiment behind Grossack's pro se movement, as well the people who feel like they have been victimized by a legal system in which those trusted with defending them are dependent on the very system that is trying to convict them, and who are ready to take matters into their own hands.
Barry Weinstein first met Grossack in the late 1990's after dealing with legal problems, and says that Grossack's "reputation preceded him." Grossack had been named "Lawyer of the Year" by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, as well as one of the state's ten best lawyers by the Boston Herald, after suing the Massachusetts Family Court system for abuse of male litigants. He was unsuccessful, but the case attracted worldwide attention, and it hit home for Weinstein, sparking his interest in learning more about pro se litigation from Grossack.
Weinstein had been falsely jailed for 19 months for kidnapping after his ex-wife refused to support his visitation rights and moved to a different state with their children. He had initially approached the police in that town to enforce his rights, but they said they could not get involved with such custody-related issues. However, after he picked up his son on a day he had visitation, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He had previously hired an attorney from what he describes as a "big law firm, one of the best," but he says that in his experience, the family courts are so biased against men that attorneys who claim to be able to get a favorable ruling "commit fraud."
His sense of being wronged deepened when his prosecutor, Nicholas Bissell, was caught abusing his power in order to intimidate people into giving up property, among other crimes. Bissell later committed suicide, and the ordeal was a headline-making scandal in New Jersey, where Weinstein's case took place. As a result, Weinstein's conviction was successfully appealed after it was determined he did not have a fair trial. It is no wonder Weinstein lost faith in the ability of the legal system to return fair and just results. After meeting Grossack, who he says he immediately "felt comfortable with," he bought How to Win a Lawsuit Without a Lawyer, the most popular publication of the Citizens' Justice Institute. Written by Grossack himself, it is a manual for pro se litigants that can be purchased from citizensjustice.com and is used by many of Grossack's clients in their pro se proceedings.
Weinstein was ultimately satisfied with the education he received through the Citizens' Justice Institute, as well as his ability to apply what he learned to his actual legal matters. He found the materials to be "very helpful" and "straightforward" and succeeded in having a judgment reversed twice. Feeling as though he was finally being given a fair shot at prevailing in the justice system, Weinstein appreciated the fact that he "was always able to give David a call" when he had questions. This personal connection Grossack has with the people he works with is one of the reasons so many people feel like the Citizens' Justice Institute is capable of helping them in ways traditional legal methods cannot.
James Nollet, another person who learned how to litigate pro se from Grossack, expressed enthusiasm for the Citizens' Justice Institute, and reaffirmed the closeness and appreciation many of the organization's participants feel towards Grossack. He agrees to discuss the organization "Firstly, as a favor to Attorney Grossack, who's always been most kind and generous to me. And secondly, because I am a firm and great believer in the prospects of pro se litigation." When asked why he feels this way, Nollet cites the reason many people choose pro se litigation: financial hardship. "As you know…people …have no savings to tide them over in the event of catastrophe. A legal catastrophe can be every bit as devastating as a burnt-out home, a major illness, a major accident, or something of that nature." With attorney fees often hundreds of dollars per hour, it is easy to see why many people cannot afford them.
He recounts his own experiences with the legal system that led to him to become interested in pro se litigation: "Let me tell you about the zoo that is Middlesex Probate and Family Court…on any given day, there can be literally dozens if not hundreds of other litigants, all of whom are there for what ought to be relatively minor legal procedures. So you're there with your attorney, for hours and hours. He or she is doing nothing but sitting around -- but you, his client, are paying him at billable hourly rates, of something like one hundred to two hundred dollars per hour or more." Nollet continues by saying that the court system "was not in the business of administering justice. It was in the business of administering process, of going through the motions."
A significant advantage to pro se litigation, according to Nollet, is that because the litigant does not have to pay attorney's fees, he or she is able to continue complex cases that people are typically forced to settle quickly, and often in a way that it is not in their best interest, to avoid a costly process. He says the average litigant is forced "to slough along and eventually throw in the towel, since the State will continue our cases until Doomsday." However, he continues, a pro se litigant up against someone with a typical lawyer "can quickly drain the wallets of their adversaries and force them to either compromise or give up." It is a rough tactic, but if it results in victory, it is something to be paid attention to by people facing legal issues.
Nollet says he believes everyone should have an understanding of the legal system, because so many people face at least one minor legal issue at some point in their lives. "I wish all high schools would teach the equivalent of Law 101. It is the task of public schools to teach all citizens how to function…and it is clear to me that someone needs legal skills…as much as he needs to know how to read and count." While he acknowledges that "while most of us do not commit crimes and are not the focus of criminal accusations [or] major civil litigations," the reality is that for millions of Americans, unexpected legal disputes arise, often domestic, and according to Nollet, sometimes "the only way left is for ordinary human beings to take the law into their own hands -- legally, of course."
This outlook exemplifies why Nollet connected on a personal level with Grossack, who believes strongly in using legal methods to fight for justice in any way possible. Grossack speaks of using "radical activism…picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, organizing public communications, and in general the kind of conduct that transforms society, produces changes, and puts the wrongdoers on the defensive." The self-described "revolutionary" hopes his Institute will create changes in the legal system to ensure people like Nollet have a fair shot as pro se litigants and are not victimized. He agrees that the law should not be a mystery to the average citizen, as evidenced by the fact that he told The Boston Business Journal in 1999, "My profession doesn't have to be a magical priesthood holding occult knowledge …let's share it with the public." Both believe that there is no reason to view pro se litigants as people making an uninformed and potentially disastrous choice in foregoing a lawyer, as long as they are given the proper legal education.
Nollet jokes, "They say, ‘a person who represents himself has a fool for a client' Well, a person who relies on a public defender is relying on a professional fool." This striking statement exemplifies how "passionate" Nollet is about promoting pro se litigation. It "found him" when he faced what he says were false accusations of abuse by his now ex-wife, resulting in restraining orders and other legal problems. He later filed pro se for false arrest in relation to an alleged violation of a restraining order, and he received a $5,000 settlement.
Nollet summarizes his experiences by saying, "I was just living a normal life, and suddenly found that I had extraordinary legal needs that I couldn't possibly pay any attorney to do for me, so I was forced to learn how and do it myself." The pressures and frustrations that led him to take matters into his own hands are what motivate many people to seek out the Citizens' Justice Institute. It is easy to see why people who are driven to pro se litigation due to the "despair that any amount of professional representation could give me a fair, even shake in court," as Nollet describes it, find solace in Grossack's activism and desire to educate and empower them.
Another of Grossack's associates, who wishes to remain anonymous, cautions that pro se litigation, while sometimes the only viable financial option, is not always the answer if someone is able to hire a competent attorney. His main concern is that the justice system is biased against pro se litigants and that it can be too much to take on as one person. "Going pro se is going against the grain. If you can win a case pro se, then a lawyer's out of business. Therefore, there's a lot of prejudice against pro se litigants…You're threatening the establishment." However, he has a great deal of respect for Grossack's unusual and at times controversial endeavors to encourage pro se litigants through the Institute. He says, "David is an exception because he believes justice can't be done if only the wealthy can afford it – something must be done through outside channels. It's commendable – more lawyers should get involved."
People other than lawyers and pro se litigants are getting involved as well, hoping to achieve fairness and justice in the U.S. legal system. Tim McKyer, a former NFL star, wrote to Grossack about feeling abused by the court system after facing various legal issues. He writes, "I'm totally committed with Mr. Grossack…who [is] a true American hero who dare[s] to challenge the status quo and help defend the defenseless." His letter makes clear his admiration for Grossack's work helping people struggling in the court system to defend themselves.
And Grossack shows no signs of stopping, proclaiming, "I want to continue the important work of the Institute…I want to train victims of the Bar, Big Government, and the Courts in legal methods of fighting back." Grossack is very public with his desire to help those he refers to as "victims of legal abuse," detailing his beliefs in his numerous writings, some available for free online and others orderable from citizensjustice.com. And his efforts are appreciated, as he has a binder full of grateful emails and letters from people who support and trust his methods and ideas.
One letter states, "I am exposing corrupt people in the judicial system, and I expect to get out of being wrongfully imprisoned and to have my parental rights reinstated …if you did not help me, I would not have made it to this point." Grossack received passionate email responses to an article he wrote for newswithviews.com, detailing his belief in the importance of "Awareness Training for Victims of Legal and Government Abuse," with one woman writing, "You have brought me to tears with the stinging truth in your words. What can I do to help?"
Perhaps the most touching letter is by a woman suing a judge for constitutional violations, who writes, "You have inspired me to further my education and get to a complete understanding of my rights as an American citizen." Grossack says, "The goal of the Citizens' Justice Institute is to improve the quality of justice by teaching people how to demand real justice, not the assembly line kind of justice so often meted out." People like Barry Weinstein and James Nollet have experienced the drawn-out, confusing, and sometimes corrupt world of the legal system that Grossack is referencing, and they have suffered the consequences. By using the Citizens' Justice Institute to inspire people to take charge of their own futures and educate themselves about the legal issues they face, Grossack is helping people avoid being drawn into similar legal dilemmas, and with each grateful letter, he is one step closer to achieving his goal of "real justice
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Interview with James Nollet, Men's Rights Activist and Pro Se Veteran!
I am excited to post this interview with James Nollet, an actual pro se litigant who has worked with the Citizens' Justice Institute! Here is some of the interview; please comment and let me know if you would like to see more of this and other interviews.
1. What was your particular legal issue(s) that you litigated pro se?
I would have to say that I pro-se litigated matters generally pertaining to domestic relations matters. I've been falsely accused of the following: domestic violence, violation of restraining order, and child molestation. I have been involved with the D-SS so-called "Fair Hearing" process as a pro-se litigant. I was in-and-out of Middlesex Probate and Family court many times seeking to end restraining orders against myself. I filed a pro-se appeal of one Restraining Order to the MA Appeals Court. I have sued several judges pro-se without success. My best action was filing for False Arrest based on a bogus legal theory behind an accusation of violation of restraining order. Basically, I was able to demonstrate that even if he accept the arresting officer's account at face value, it still did NOT add up to Probable Cause to issue the warrant. I survived his attorney-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Afterward, in a very jocular, funny way, Judge Edward Harrington sort of convinced me to settle out of court with them, and I did, getting $5,000 for my troubles.
2. How did you find out about pro se litigation?
I would say it found me. One day, I was more or less reasonably, if not too happily, married. Then I had a verbal altercation with my spouse and she said if she didn't get her way, she'd tell the cops I'd beaten her. I refused to give way to her blackmail, and the rest is history. I was found NOT GUILTY of Domestic Violence at jury trial (for which I had an attorney). But Restraining Orders nevertheless ensued for several years thereafter and I found myself in the midst fighting them. She concocted a story that I'd supposedly molested her son. Being a foreign national, she wasn' hip enough to place the venue of the supposed acts inside MA; she complained that they allegedly happened in NYS. I was told that the only reason didy didn't arrest me -- despite the TOTAL lack of any corroborating evidence, and despite the CLEAR motivation of my ex to "get" me -- was because the alleged incidents happened out-of-state. Nevertheless, I was involved within the administrative machinery of D-SS for several years thereafter. I filed an Appeal of their own upheld finding of "probable cause." I had a MOST sympathetic judge in my case -- Judge Volterra Vierri of Superior Court. He has much as said that if he were trying the case de novo, he'd find for me, but his hands were tied because I was appealing only an administrative finding. In summary, I was just living a normal life, and suddenly found that I had extraordinary legal needs that I couldn't possibly pay any attorney to do for me, so I was forced to learn how and do it myself.
3. Have you had bad experiences with lawyers in the past that lead you to believe they were unnecessary or detrimental?
I would not say I've personally had bad experiences with attorneys -- though I know plenty of men who have reported this. I already mentioned to you the example of that Boston DJ who's sitting in Riker's Island in NYC. Basically, he supposedly molested the daughter of a girlfriend FOUR YEARS AGO, but the case wasn't reported to the authorities until a half-year ago. I doubt the incident ever happened, but even if it did, I doubt VERY MUCH whether at this point there is a SHRED of corroborating evidence to support the charge. The case is so much BS -- yet, he's being held in lieu of bail. The DJ swears up and down that he's innocent. Anyway, he recently dismissed his Public Defender on grounds that the PD was doing NOTHING for him. So I know this happens. But in my case, it was not bad experiences with attorneys as such, but rather it was bad experiences with Due Process. I could see that for the sorts of legal problems I had, the deck was stacked against me because I am male. Even if I could have afforded an attorney to handle my needs, there would have been no point to it, because the attorney couldn't have made any difference anyway. Atty. Grossack once told me that he refuses as a matter of principle to handle domestic relations cases because he knows he can't help his clients, and taking their money is tantamount to pick-pocketing. So THAT is what drove me to pro-se litigation -- despair that any amount of professional representation could give me a fair, even shake in court.
1. What was your particular legal issue(s) that you litigated pro se?
I would have to say that I pro-se litigated matters generally pertaining to domestic relations matters. I've been falsely accused of the following: domestic violence, violation of restraining order, and child molestation. I have been involved with the D-SS so-called "Fair Hearing" process as a pro-se litigant. I was in-and-out of Middlesex Probate and Family court many times seeking to end restraining orders against myself. I filed a pro-se appeal of one Restraining Order to the MA Appeals Court. I have sued several judges pro-se without success. My best action was filing for False Arrest based on a bogus legal theory behind an accusation of violation of restraining order. Basically, I was able to demonstrate that even if he accept the arresting officer's account at face value, it still did NOT add up to Probable Cause to issue the warrant. I survived his attorney-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Afterward, in a very jocular, funny way, Judge Edward Harrington sort of convinced me to settle out of court with them, and I did, getting $5,000 for my troubles.
2. How did you find out about pro se litigation?
I would say it found me. One day, I was more or less reasonably, if not too happily, married. Then I had a verbal altercation with my spouse and she said if she didn't get her way, she'd tell the cops I'd beaten her. I refused to give way to her blackmail, and the rest is history. I was found NOT GUILTY of Domestic Violence at jury trial (for which I had an attorney). But Restraining Orders nevertheless ensued for several years thereafter and I found myself in the midst fighting them. She concocted a story that I'd supposedly molested her son. Being a foreign national, she wasn' hip enough to place the venue of the supposed acts inside MA; she complained that they allegedly happened in NYS. I was told that the only reason didy didn't arrest me -- despite the TOTAL lack of any corroborating evidence, and despite the CLEAR motivation of my ex to "get" me -- was because the alleged incidents happened out-of-state. Nevertheless, I was involved within the administrative machinery of D-SS for several years thereafter. I filed an Appeal of their own upheld finding of "probable cause." I had a MOST sympathetic judge in my case -- Judge Volterra Vierri of Superior Court. He has much as said that if he were trying the case de novo, he'd find for me, but his hands were tied because I was appealing only an administrative finding. In summary, I was just living a normal life, and suddenly found that I had extraordinary legal needs that I couldn't possibly pay any attorney to do for me, so I was forced to learn how and do it myself.
3. Have you had bad experiences with lawyers in the past that lead you to believe they were unnecessary or detrimental?
I would not say I've personally had bad experiences with attorneys -- though I know plenty of men who have reported this. I already mentioned to you the example of that Boston DJ who's sitting in Riker's Island in NYC. Basically, he supposedly molested the daughter of a girlfriend FOUR YEARS AGO, but the case wasn't reported to the authorities until a half-year ago. I doubt the incident ever happened, but even if it did, I doubt VERY MUCH whether at this point there is a SHRED of corroborating evidence to support the charge. The case is so much BS -- yet, he's being held in lieu of bail. The DJ swears up and down that he's innocent. Anyway, he recently dismissed his Public Defender on grounds that the PD was doing NOTHING for him. So I know this happens. But in my case, it was not bad experiences with attorneys as such, but rather it was bad experiences with Due Process. I could see that for the sorts of legal problems I had, the deck was stacked against me because I am male. Even if I could have afforded an attorney to handle my needs, there would have been no point to it, because the attorney couldn't have made any difference anyway. Atty. Grossack once told me that he refuses as a matter of principle to handle domestic relations cases because he knows he can't help his clients, and taking their money is tantamount to pick-pocketing. So THAT is what drove me to pro-se litigation -- despair that any amount of professional representation could give me a fair, even shake in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
