-- Lets start with something really important
There are several significantly different set of experiences going to court to file either a civil action or an application for a criminal complaint in a show and cause hearing.
It depends on the court, whether civil or criminal, state or federal, or in the various districts through-out each state.
In Western Massachusetts, where I live presently, many of the local district courts have a power prejudice against pro se litigants with the most common word I hear describing such people as "assholes" and, with that attitude, they proceed to treat every pro se litigant as such. They operate with the ridiculous attitude that, since all pro se litigants are ignorant and incompetent, they might as well treat them as ignorant and incompetent with games of obstructions and resistance, thereby fulfilling their prophesy when the pro se litigant proves unable to intelligently participate in the litigation process.
In the last few years there has been an alternative to this problem of clerks, clerical assistants and clerk/magistrates playing games of refusing to process an application for a criminal complaint. One such agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the Committee for Professional Responsibility of Clerks and Clerks of the Courts and the other is the Inspector General of Massachusetts.
I don't have enough experience with these agencies to know if they work properly or not. I do know, however, on the basis of my initial experiences, they haven't responded favorably. In both instances they failed to send me a letter of acknowledgment to my complaints that were quite significant and consisted of more than 30 pages each. This kind of reaction to a complaint is common but not necessarily significant. Sometimes an agency, as a matter of policy, does not send out letter acknowledging receipt of a complaint but will wait until after a preliminary investigation.
Sometimes -- and it is very common -- for such agencies to wait a month or more before sending out a letter dismissing the complaint after a game of pretending they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. This kind of fraud and collusion is exceedingly common and a source of enormous stress and frustration.
Actually, it was the original purpose of the Inspector General's office to check this kind of abuse. As is true everywhere else in the United States, these non-judicial remedial government agencies, such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, when they receive a valid complaint against someone in which they have jurisdiction, perceive the complaint as an opportunity to enhance their income. They will "shake down" the respondent for compensation and then dismiss the complaint.
We can readily recognize this pattern of fraud and conspiracy when the agency sends out a letter of dismissal misrepresenting the facts and issues in the controversy or ignoring them. They always argue they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. Notice a pattern of their not including letters or documents leading to or supporting their conclusion.
These letters of dismissal never include such documents of proof, such as affidavits, depositions, testimonies, etc, or the normal documentation that would typically accompany a legal investigation. There is never anything there but a dishonest conclusion! Appealing their decision to the next level is almost identical to any other appeal mechanism. It is a joke!
The Inspector General's office has the purpose of investigating this kind of stuff but, as to whether or not it works, I can not say yet. I don't have enough experience.
It depends on the court, whether civil or criminal, state or federal, or in the various districts through-out each state.
In Western Massachusetts, where I live presently, many of the local district courts have a power prejudice against pro se litigants with the most common word I hear describing such people as "assholes" and, with that attitude, they proceed to treat every pro se litigant as such. They operate with the ridiculous attitude that, since all pro se litigants are ignorant and incompetent, they might as well treat them as ignorant and incompetent with games of obstructions and resistance, thereby fulfilling their prophesy when the pro se litigant proves unable to intelligently participate in the litigation process.
In the last few years there has been an alternative to this problem of clerks, clerical assistants and clerk/magistrates playing games of refusing to process an application for a criminal complaint. One such agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the Committee for Professional Responsibility of Clerks and Clerks of the Courts and the other is the Inspector General of Massachusetts.
I don't have enough experience with these agencies to know if they work properly or not. I do know, however, on the basis of my initial experiences, they haven't responded favorably. In both instances they failed to send me a letter of acknowledgment to my complaints that were quite significant and consisted of more than 30 pages each. This kind of reaction to a complaint is common but not necessarily significant. Sometimes an agency, as a matter of policy, does not send out letter acknowledging receipt of a complaint but will wait until after a preliminary investigation.
Sometimes -- and it is very common -- for such agencies to wait a month or more before sending out a letter dismissing the complaint after a game of pretending they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. This kind of fraud and collusion is exceedingly common and a source of enormous stress and frustration.
Actually, it was the original purpose of the Inspector General's office to check this kind of abuse. As is true everywhere else in the United States, these non-judicial remedial government agencies, such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, when they receive a valid complaint against someone in which they have jurisdiction, perceive the complaint as an opportunity to enhance their income. They will "shake down" the respondent for compensation and then dismiss the complaint.
We can readily recognize this pattern of fraud and conspiracy when the agency sends out a letter of dismissal misrepresenting the facts and issues in the controversy or ignoring them. They always argue they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. Notice a pattern of their not including letters or documents leading to or supporting their conclusion.
These letters of dismissal never include such documents of proof, such as affidavits, depositions, testimonies, etc, or the normal documentation that would typically accompany a legal investigation. There is never anything there but a dishonest conclusion! Appealing their decision to the next level is almost identical to any other appeal mechanism. It is a joke!
The Inspector General's office has the purpose of investigating this kind of stuff but, as to whether or not it works, I can not say yet. I don't have enough experience.
posted by Alvah Buckmore, Jr., at 11:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home