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
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
AWARENESS TRAINING FOR VICTIMS OF LEGAL ABUSE!
Citizens' Justice Institute founder David Grossack wrote an article titled, "Awareness Training for Victims of Legal and Government Abuse." It received a lot of positive feedback, with many people connecting to his words and feeling as though they rang true in their own struggles. See what the pro se fight is all about by reading this passionate article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest70.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest70.htm
UPCOMING ARTICLE ON CITIZENS' JUSTICE INSTITUTE
I have written a feature article on the Citizens' Justice Institute and all that it accomplishes! Below is a tease of the whole thing. It will either be published online some point soon or hopefully accepted by a newspaper or magazine - I'm sending it out to editors now! Let me know what you think/if you're interested in reading it!
"Without Justice, There's Just Us"
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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
How To Keep an Eye on Your Local Government Officials
David Grossack, founder of the Citizens' Justice Institute (citizensjustice.com) is a great writer on pro se concepts, and often speaks more generally about what average citizens can do to monitor and stand up against local government leaders .
Below is an analysis of many of the problems found in municipal governments, and what we as non-lawyers can do to fight back legally.
HOW MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS TURN INTO RACKETS
BY ATTORNEY DAVID GROSSACK
Why do city and town governments exist ?
If you have ever given this question some thought, the chances are you figured that they exist to serve us. That’s why we call those town officials "public servants." It’s because they serve the people, right? They clearly work for town government because they are altruists, wanting to do what is best for everybody, regardless of their own self interest, of course.. They might be fancied by some, or even themselves , as "patriots," in the line of the Founding Fathers. After all, somebody must pave the roads, arrest the drunk drivers, put out the fires and make sure the kids get an education. It is all in a day’s work for these selfless dedicated and helpful town officials, who usually provide mediocre service for excellent pay.
Myths sometime die hard. Municipal governments in America are today more often than not nests of crime clubs where bribery, extortion, nepotism and sleaze are ways of life. Whistleblowers can be framed for crimes they did not commit, or even come to experience foul play. Dissidents are carefully watched by the police, and may wind up in hot water for mere expressions of opinion.
Governments are in essence businesses where large sums of money pass through every day, where licenses and permits are sought, where unwarranted criminal prosecutions often originate and where suspicious contracts and purchase orders are awarded. The temptation to steal, to promote graft or to build corrupt little empires is pandemic. Those who seek political position in municipal government often do so for the basest of motives. Others become enchanted with the concept of power, and become corrupted by its taste. Organized criminal networks flourish in the environment of municipal government, and often the line between criminal and town hall employee or official is blurred.
Maywood, California is a good example of a community that reflects the character of a small town municipal government racketeering network. Media accounts report that one third of the 37 officers of the Maywood Police Department have criminal records or other blemishes on their records.
According to the April 2, 2007 issue of the Oakland Tribune, the Maywood Police Department is now under investigation for accepting bribes from the owner of a local towing company. The inquiry includes officials of city government as well.
Another policeman is accused of extorting sex from the relatives of a wanted criminal.
In Kandleton, Illinois, the police commissioner ordered his force to collect all traffic citations in cash. The cash went to the Commissioner who simply pocketed it. The commissioner was sentenced to 62 months by a federal judge.
South Hackensack, New Jersey’s police corruption was so severe, the community’s 17 member police department was actually locked out of Town Hall, and the local prosecutor’s office actually took control of the department. An investigation was begun of improper favors handed out to suspects. Drug offenses, parking tickets, drunk driving cases and the like were simply ignored for people with the right clout.
Several of the officers wound up being exposed for improper ties to a local bookmaker.
This, however, is amateur stuff. The real professional municipal racketeers have a deeper stranglehold on the entire apparatus of the town government. Take, for example, the folks who ran Lonoke, Arkansas. The Town’s mayor, police chief and police chief’s wife have been recently arrested. The charges included operating a crystal meth lab, taking prisoners out of jail, and using them for sexual escapades.
The power held by politicians and their lackeys often includes control over licenses and permits for everything from pinball machines and massage parlors to liquor licenses and building permits. The power to say no is also the power to say yes. This power is a commodity that can be sold, traded or bought.
The power to award purchasing contracts, municipal works contracts, the right to collect overdue parking tickets or taxes, and the power to hire employees all can bring money to a crooked bureaucrat.
The lawyers involved in the municipal rackets are the worst vermin. One rumor circulated about a lawyer who was defense counsel for a small East coast town who had to defend cases for personal injury and property damage. He allegedly had a deal going with the lawyers who represented the victims. He would make sure the victims got larger than usual settlements as long as cash was given back to him.
There is no end to it. In every tiny hamlet from Maui to Maine, the same stuff goes on and never stops. In small towns and huge cities, the worst part of human nature prevails when political power is placed in the wrong hands.
In the author’s hometown of Hull, Massachusetts, salaries of municipal employees are often several times that of the average taxpayer. Town employees vote themselves raises at town meeting, and become the new bourgoise while others cannot afford to pay property taxes and must sell or face foreclosure.
What is the answer ?
Downsizing government gives them less to steal and less power to abuse. Moreover, perhaps a privatization process will put the authority in the hands of those with a different orientation, pleasing the customer, making a profit to please shareholders and saving the customers money and aggravation. While privatization is not a panacea, it might be a step forward.
Making politicians fearful of the citizenry, instead of contemptuous, is necessary.. Citizens who are vigilant and involved rather than apathetic can be a strong antidote to politics as usual. Informed citizens who carefully watch their government are the front line of defense of
the integrity of the community.
But letter writing and participating in elections won’t be enough. Town incumbents are often impossible to replace because they have political machines who often consist of other corrupt people, and there are legions of them.. Letters to the Editor won’t accomplish much by themselves, though they do raise issues and often do get read.
Without breaking the law, municipal activists need to select the issues that matter most and launch a campaign to embarrass and humiliate the people most responsible. Personal attacks often work. If somebody is guilty of nepotism, identify him. If there is blatant corruption, name them, but be sure the evidence is solid and documented.
Picketing is extremely important, as is community access cable television, the Internet, and poster campaigns.
Small town crooks and bullies need lessons in humility. Give it to them.
How to Help Fight for Justice
The following was written by pro se and legal reform advocate Attorney David Grossack, letting people like you know what you can do to help the cause. Please visit his organization's website, the Citizen's Justice Institute , for more information.
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG IN NORTH CAROLINA:
WHAT YOU YOU CAN DO NOW (WITHOUT SPENDING MONEY)
TO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON BAD LAWYERS AND BAD JUDGES
By David Grossack
Decent people everywhere took genuine satisfaction at the irony of the televised bar proceedings involving disgraced Democratic prosecutor Michael Nifong recently.. Here was the prosecutor being prosecuted. Here was the inversion of justice, the purported defender of truth, justice and the American way being exposed as a purveyor of lies, injustice and subversion of constitutional right, and better yet, he is being made to pay for it.
Regrettably, Mr.Nifong is not a rare creature. From coast to coast, America is plagued with the twin epidemics of legal and government abuse. Defining legal and government abuse is a task I will assume right now.
Legal abuse occurs when lawyers, their clients, and/or court officials and judges use and manipulate the court system to deliberately and maliciously perpetuate an injustice.
Government abuse occurs when politicians, police or bureaucrats use and manipulate their authority for the purpose of achieving an illegitimate goal.
Legal and government abuse often occurs for obvious reasons. Governments often do mischief through legal process, and government is the largest employer of lawyers.
The examples of these varieties of bad behavior are so frequent and so many it would fill several encyclopedias.
America experienced it in Brooklyn, New York recently when several judges and lawyers were caught on tape fixing divorce cases. The story made the New York media, but not the national media.
The story should have made people realize that if this kind of conduct occurs in Brooklyn, it can occur in Portland, Maine, Seattle, Washington or anywhere else, including here.
Similarly, if a prosecutor is suppressing evidence favorable to the defense in North Carolina, then a prosecutor here might be capable of the same kind of thing. Because sequestering evidence is done in secret, no doubt a lot instances of it go on all the time and nobody learns about it.
How many people are in jail because their families could not afford million dollar legal defense teams with state of the art private detectives the way the Duke kids’ families did ?
Isolated incident ?
How many people know that in the aftermath of the massacre of the Branch Davidian church community in Waco, Texas by the ATF, a United States Assistant Attorney was indicted for obstruction of justice, lying to a grand jury and lying to federal investigators in the course of a review of the incident Few know, because the media pretty much ignored the story.
The litany goes on and on. Last year one Arthur Scott, Jr., a Housing Court judge in Manhattan, was detected accepting $14,000.00 in bribes to fix landlord tenant cases. The kind of impact this kind of incident makes on the public is devastating. Respect for the law and respect for the legal system is diminished and society as a whole pays the price
In Chicago, a case fixing epidemic led to the ends of the careers of several judges in the nineteen nineties.
Every time a judge accepts bribe or a prosecutor violates the canons of ethics, it means that somebody else is being deprived of fair treatment in a case.
But the really serious epidemic is probably not one of bribery. It is one of entrenched power protecting other entrenched interests, creating a wall between the ordinary people on one side and local power elites on the other who rule the roost in police departments, bar associations and the Courthouse. In these situations where favorites are played all the time, outsiders lose because they are outsiders and insiders win because they are insiders, because they are local elites or connected with local elites, or at least the power structure of police, prosecutors, insurance companies’ local counsel, other corporate interests and government interests. It is almost always rigged against the little people.
Years ago the author was in the business of conducting training programs for unrepresented people with legal problems. We did a national outreach, publishing training manuals and a newsletter, and conducted seminars in which we taught legal skills to pro-se litigants.
Word traveled to just about every corner of the country of what we were doing and we were besieged by letters from people in small rural towns who told of sheriffs, lawyers and town officials harassing, extorting, framing, even sexually assaulting them.
We got letters from people whose lawyers had taken their money and done little or nothing, who had missed deadlines, had not communicated with them, had serious conflicts of interest or who had engaged in terrible overreaching by means of fee gouging. There were too many of these stories not to take the problem seriously.
We contacted Congressman James Sensenbrenner and asked his House Judiciary Committee to consider holding hearings on legal abuse in the United States. No letters or phone calls were ever returned. We picketed Sensenbrenner’s office out of frustration. It was especially distressing that Congressman Sensenbrenner was a fellow Republican.
Rather than being part of the problem, every Republican legislator should be anxious to be part of the solution. This is in fact an opportunity not only to stand up for the constitutional rights of constituents, but also to demonstrate to the voting public that we care about this extremely urgent and serious crisis.
There is a very clear way the Republican party can now take the initiative to deal with legal abuse on a national basis. This would be at the state legislative level, where 50 House Judiciary Committees have the ability to hold hearings and exercise subpoena powers. The legislature can hold hearings on the reasons why there is public dissatisfaction with lawyers and the legal system, and to determine what, if anything, can be done to improve the situation.
People who care about this extremely critical issue can write to their state legislators and suggest "Perhaps it would be a good idea to hold hearings to determine if the public is well served by the state of conditions in the courts and the quality of justice offered by the legal profession." No such hearings have ever been held in the history of America. I for one would like to testify, and I am sure many others among my readers also would.
Similarly, more pressure should be applied on the national level, in Congress, at the House
Judiciary Committee where they first dropped the ball to hold hearings on the same subject.
Lack of confidence in lawyers and the courts has far reaching social and economic consequences, including on the willingness of companies to invest and to create new products and jobs. If people believe their contracts will not be enforced honestly, if their rights as litigants in court will not be respected, they will not risk capital in business, and everybody in the community suffers, because jobs are lost, businesses close and the "ripple effect" can badly injure the economy. This already is happening in many other countries where foreign investors stay away because of legal corruption or inefficient courts.
The vigilance of an informed public is needed. The country is already spiraling downwards in so many other ways. If we ever lose the legal system, we lose everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
