Now comes the petitioner to set forth the theory that “Fair and meaningful ACCESS TO The Courts for all American citizens”, is the bases of freedom. Or as Robert J Grey Jr. President of the American Bar Association, recently sums up this thought

“An impartial, independent judiciary is the guardian of individual rights in a democratic society.  For all people to have faith in their court system, all people must have access to the courts when necessary.”

It’s not just my theory. It the bases upon which the founding fathers of the USA proposed. That meaningful access to all Courts be had by rich and poor alike. Democracy is not based on finality of decisions, based on technicalities of pleadings.
Unless the poor without lawyers are free to access an unbiased court of law, t our society would be in the grasp of an authoritarianism regime.  News articles, cites “Injustice for most”. This article is from an Albany NY newspaper. It tells how those hard working people at the bottom of the economic ladder cannot afford a lawyer. The same
                                                                                                    2.
happens here in Maine the 1989 survey found 77% of the legal need not covered for those at 125% federal poverty Level. Tell how the poor suffer a Civil Death http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=454586&category=OPINION&newsdate=2/26/2006

In this particular case I ask you to examine    “I felt the adversarial lawyer, to be more- fair and open-minded then was the Justice
“

There are web sites open to the discussion of unfair lawyers. With all the respect due, this topic of unfair actions by the Courts is gaining in the public awareness.  Denial of meaningful use of the courts to the poor, is becoming public knowledge.

When the seemingly fair ideal, is used on procedural mechanics, as not allowing prose’s an unfair advantage, its effects are the reverse. It denies prose’s a right to justice.

The esteem Judicial system demanding Pro-se’s has an artificial standard level of the technical knowledge of the law, of an lawyer. This places the entire class of people who can not afford a lawyer into a category where they must be better than a first year lawyer.

The working class must be as learned as an attorney who has been practicing for 7 years or more. While working hard at another job, the people who are the backbone for the American way of life are lucky to be earning $7.50 an hour. These folks who stock and ring up your food, who fix the automobiles of Doctors and lawyers, lacks both the energy and the time to go to law library to study or to quote case-law. They can work for lawyers, yet lack the funds to hire one to plead their cause.

This is a constitutionality impressible arbitrary criterion, because it is vague. Its a criteria which denies meaningful access to the courts for anyone who cannot afford an attorney. ....

Maine Supreme Court,PO Box 368, Portland ME 04112

Dear Chief Justice Leigh Saufley:

I am one of many persons who is aware of an appeal brought by Jan Hoag, SOM-06-145 asking you honors examine an alleged unlawful practice of lower courts.  We are informed judges more often than not are dismissing cases brought without hiring a lawyer.  These cases are tossed out of court -on purely technicalities.

I not only want Maine Courts to have the appearance of Justice.  But Maine Courts should be a place where an impartial decider of fact, actually hears the case.  I will not just be watching to see the result of this case, I will have hope that Maine Supreme Court, provides justice, for those who cannot afford a legal advocate.

Date above
Sign


Dear Maine Supreme Court Justices:

I am aware of an appeal which could have an out come affecting half of all Mainer’s.  While it arises from a car accident case not being heard, this appeal should have a community impact on Maine’s “quality of Justice.”  While you might only receive a handful of communication on this issue, its more than you usually receive.  I will be informed of the changes and rulings on this case.
It is brought by Jan Hoag, SOM-06-145 It asks you honors to inspect an alleged unlawful practice by Maine’s lower courts.

It has been brought to my attention that judges are dismissing many cases in which one strives to represent themselves.

  These cases are tossed off the docket for failure of Procedure. When lawyers are allowed to amend oversights of dotting all I’s. Self-repersenter’s are not given the same respect as is a lawyer..

This is not hearing the facts of the cases are contrary actions in the name of Justice. It is merely a false impression of justice.  I ask you to fix this injustice

I will watch to see how this case affecting the working poor, and the lower middle classes turns out.

Date above
Sign




These are only examples, feel free to reword, that is to add or omit anything else on the topic of Justice, or our Constitutional right to represent owns self, which pops into your brain.

You can also send a copy to myself at PO Box 62 Hinckley ME. 04944,  the Portland Herald and your local newspaper so you are not dependant upon myself to update you.  Or you can phone the court at 822-4146 for an update. The pen is more powerful then the sword its time NOW to pull out your pen.  JAN