The People hereby present a review of the State and condition of our  Judiciary, its systemic inequities, constitutional drift and institutional malaise; a call for the betterment and return to the purity of due process, enforcement of caliber in our judicial administration, and official recognition of our demands.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed us in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, before anyone perceived that invisible and helpless worm had been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."   --Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

We impute the judiciary's breach of its duty, where its adherence to written procedure and law has degraded to such a degree, that the outcome and resolution of cases in these forums has become probabilistic at best, and oligarchically complicit at its worst.

We, those of us among the public who have had first-hand and informed experience in the court system(s), have taken up indignant notice of the discrepancies between the theory and the practice of the law; have suffered unjustly due to those discrepancies, and hereby articulate these abuses and breaches; we speak for ourselves and for the unknowing laity whose liberties and properties are at jeopardy where the judiciary has abrogated its Constitutional charter.

Preamble and Declaration of Condition

We assert that the current state of the courts' standard modus operandi has devolved into one of caprice and peremptory resolution --a condition where the judges now consistently rule with expedience and favoritism, with a post hoc mentality, geared more toward a synthesized end result than of a resolution wrought by the impartial weighing of the facts as directed to by the law. Whether it be because the issues therein are deemed too disruptive to society or the legal mettle, or because one of the litigants is politically more precedential than the other, or other reason, this is a breach of the public role of the judiciary.

Cognizant of the above, we also note that there appears to be an orchestrated effort by the judiciary to uphold the appearance of intact due process in the public eye. We also observe that, due to the technical nature of these matters, this effort is generally successful, and the very many micro injustices perpetrated as a matter of course in these forums side-step and escape the attention of the uninvolved public at large, who continue to retain a confidence of faith that all is basically well with the system.

As more members of the laity unavoidably get involved in the legal arena, these problems will not be concealable much longer. Although the details of the situation may continue to evade the general public's comprehension, the sentiment will not, as those who have had the misfortune of being subject to these inequities complain loudly to all that would listen.

And in that vein, it can be seen that a plethora of grass roots political action committees and coalitions, highly critical of the state of the various judiciaries and demanding change, have emerged.

Each one of these groups is representative of thousands of people who have deep-set grievances with the judicial system in its current defective incarnation, and have been unjustly affronted by their participation with it. The members don't complain about unfavorable decisions to themselves; they complain about the institutionally corrupt way decisions are arrived at and handed down.

We don't demand favoritism from the courts; we demand impartiality and plain adherence to the rule of written law.

This J.A.I.L. News Journal is only an example of the work of Mr. Treistman, Editor of FreeNY. You are encouraged to click the below URL, which will take you to the J.A.I.L. website where the entire Treatise is posted. It is our judgment that this writing will prove to be most valuable to everyone engaged, or thinking about engaging, with the judicial system.

One should consider the facts herein before taking elective litigation within our "justice" system. Only the passage of J.A.I.L. will remedy this unavoidable situation. As goes the courts, so goes the nation!

http://www.jail4judges.org/goals/implementation/PetitionOfGrievance.html

Gary Treistman has now joined J.A.I.L. and has become a New York JAILer. You may reach him at garyonthenet@....

Monday, July 19, 2004

CHICAGO -- This week, a series of public forums on a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years to be tested for mental health needs is being held this week in five different locations statewide.

One group of parents learned about the state's plans to proceed with this program and on Monday issued an alarm asking for parents and citizens concerned about the new program to voice their opinions at the forums.

"We're moving toward social training over academic training with this program," Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said today.

"Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective," he said.

The $10 million plan for the setup of the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 is being considered at this week's public forums starting Monday, July 18 in Champaign.

Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last spring, sponsored in the House by State Representatives Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont). State Senator Maggie Crotty (D-Oak Forest) and Susan Garrett (D-Highwood) shepherded the legislation through the Senate.

The legislation passed the House with a 107 to 5 vote, and the Senate unanimously.

"What if they find a student has a math disorder, a reading disorder. Would that be a mental health disorder, one that would cause the parents to put their children with a drug for a condition they may or may not have?" Trainor asked.

The mental health program will develop a mental health system for "all children ages 0-18 years," provide for screening to "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools."

Also, all pregnant women will be screened for depression and thereafter following her baby's birth, up to one year. Follow-up treatment services will also be provided.

Trainor said that he is trying to get parents and citizens out to voice their opinion about the new program.

Apparently, children's mental health will be assessed along with their academic standards in the new proposed testing. The Illinois State Board of Education has been given the responsibility to develop the appropriate tests, according to last year's legislation.

The Task Force hosting the public forums this week are to send a recommendation to Governor Blagojevich by the end of the summer, according to the Act (HB 2900).

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

Justices stay ruling on use of grand juries by citizens

Saturday, July 24, 2004
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff

A recent appeals court ruling allowing citizens with evidence of wrongdoing to bypass the prosecutor's office and ask a grand jury to investigate was put on hold yesterday by the state Supreme Court.

Without comment, the high court granted a request by the Attorney General's Office to stay the June 29 ruling until it decides whether to review it.

"The effect of the Supreme Court order is that citizens cannot appear before a grand jury at this point," John Hagerty, spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice, said.

Hagerty said allowing citizens "to arbitrarily appear before a grand jury, perhaps having already been rejected by a prosecutor" could create needless work and expense for grand juries and the assignment judges who supervise them.

Larry Loigman, an activist lawyer who had won the right to have a letter detailing his allegations of official wrongdoing read to a Monmouth County grand jury, said, "Obviously I'm disappointed, because it does thwart the public's right to have matters investigated without the interference of the Attorney General's Office or the county prosecutor."

Loigman said he has not heard what, if anything, the grand jury did in response to his allegations.

Although the appeals court said citizens have a well-established (though seldom used) right to bring their suspicions of wrongdoing directly to a grand jury, Loigman said he has heard from several persons who were turned down when they tried to invoke it. He said some assignment judges are waiting to see what the state Supreme Court has to say on the matter.

"It very clearly is an important issue the Supreme Court should address," Loigman said.

The key protection of the People's rights are in the Grand Jury. We recently published the 2004 Report of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, which revealed that the way Grand Juries are functioning is a total sham.

While the supervising judge issued a statement within that Report that the Grand Jury was the only truly independent body within the county, the Report also set forth the following facts:

A) The Grand Jury is selected by the judges. (Judges select two each.)

B) The Grand Jury Foreman is designated by the Supervising Judge.

C) The Supervising Judge oversees the activities of the Grand Jury

D) Most of the complaints to the Grand Jury are against judges.

E) The Judiciary is immune from Civil Grand Jury investigations.

F) The Supervising Judge must approve the Grand Jury's Final Report.

This really sounds like a "truly independent" Grand Jury, does it not?

(See reprint below).

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is worried by Constitutional Amendment A (Merit Selection of Judges) which is on the November 2004 ballot. MADD feels this change would potentially harm the victims of drunk driving and our justice system.

Right now, voters select their judges at the ballot box. Judges are accountable for their actions and they must convince us that they will do the best job of providing South Dakotans with justice. Judges have a lot of discretionary authority in sentencing and Amendment A would take away this check on the system.

By allowing the Governor to appoint judges, we cannot choose from a number of candidates. We can’t get to know who they are and what they stand for. Amendment A will end direct election of circuit judges and replace it with an appointment process that will be controlled by the governor and an unelected commission. There will be a retention vote three years after the appointment and then every eight years thereafter. MADD believes the retention vote is a sham because it does not allow the voters to have a say in the appointment. Essentially this means that circuit judges will be granted life terms in office.

In addition creating lifetime tenure, Amendment A could also be abused in the hands of future governors. The Judicial Qualifications Commission and Governor could appoint judges for political reasons rather than the quality of their jurisprudence. The commission will be made up mostly of lawyers, and Amendment A is written in such a way that it prevents the legislature from even having an "advise and consent" vote in the appointment of judges. The result could be that South Dakotans could be stuck with judges for life that do not believe in victims’ rights or in taking strong measures to deter drunk drivers. Or worse, we could be stuck with someone who is not a neutral, unbiased adjudicator, but someone who is beholden to the people who appoint him/her; this is the world that Constitutional Amendment A could create.

MADD believes that judges should be accountable to the people. The lack of accountability that would result from Amendment A would be a disaster for all South Dakotans, including victims of drunken driving.

MADD believes that .merit. needs to be determined by the people, not a governor or an unelected commission. We urge South Dakotans to vote "NO" on Amendment A in the November 2, 2004 election.

__________________________________