Yes, sites like this one criticize judges. Judges aren’t the Court.
Yes, sites like this one criticize laws and procedures. Laws and procedures aren’t the Court.
Sites like this one criticize lawyers and law professors and writers and accusers and feminists (whose rhetoric emboldens false testimony). Lawyers, professors, writers, accusers, and feminists—they, also, are not the Court.
What is “the Court”? It’s an idea, and inclusive in that idea are principles like truth, justice, and the American way. More minutely, the idea entails fairness (equity) and observation of civil rights, like those to due process and freedom of speech. The idea is pretty straightforward: adversaries at law state their cases truthfully to a judge who impartially and honestly negotiates the facts with great deliberation and arrives at a just determination.
According to this idea, lies are censured (as “sturdy blows to the root of justice”), abuse isn’t tolerated, and never are people stripped of their dignity, family, property, and livelihood on a whim. “The Court” is a bulwark against moral anomie, and it’s never arbitrary or capricious in its decisions.
“The Court” isn’t real (it doesn’t exist); it’s an ideal. It’s something to be striven after.
Sites like this one don’t criticize the Court. They defend it.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*One of the most vigorous and vehement denouncers of corruption this writer knows, the author of BuncyBlawg.com, began his professional life as an earnest young attorney. He meant to do good. His faith in “the Court” was betrayed by reality. As if he needed a further reminder of why he abandoned his vocation decades ago, he has for the last several years been relentlessly hectored by procedural abuses (during a phase of his life when he should be savoring every moment).
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
In the case I am involved in, I had an oral argument and the opposing party’s lawyer told the judge that his client just wanted it “all to go away” .Like me, his lawyer( he was not present) seemed to know that he was meshuggah and the judge actually put his head down when I used that term and smiled ,trying hard not to laugh at my use of this Hebrew word(the judge is Jewish) and this judge is known for his no nonsense approach to cases. However, even though the lawyer said he thought he could maybe get his client to reconsider as he wanted it “all to go away”, nothing has happened. Here it is two weeks later and I have received nothing from the court or his lawyer about wanting to have this false injunction dismissed….last Monday did receive a letter from the court saying it was taking all of our evidence “under advisement”. The true allegations I made and the petition I made was not only to dismiss the injunction due to my rights to due process being violated but also that the court would have this man involuntarily evaluated by a court ordered psychiatrist as he is delusional and hearing voices telling him its his job to “kill people.”Would the court possibly be waiting to see what the mental health status is of his client or could the lawyer have the injunction against me just dismissed before the appellee is evaluated? What is the most likely course of action?In any case I haven’t received anything from the lawyer saying that his client wanted the injunction dismissed even though he indicated in court that his client wanted it dismissed…I would like to know before I leave for Israel in a week..I did write a letter to his lawyer asking him if his client was intending to have it dismissed as I was not going to be in the country anyway and it would be in his client’s best interest seeing as I had petitioned the court to have him evaluated…not sure if that was the right course of action or not but a psychiatrist friend told me to do that and I really wanted to do it anyway..in any case..I won’t be here after the 1st.
LikeLike
My encouragement to you, Martha, would be to patiently wait. Staunch the urge to call or send letters. It won’t influence anything for the better, and it may make your accuser’s attorney think, “This woman needs to be restrained,” and you don’t want his mind turning in that direction. Go about your preparations and leave a forwarding address if you head to Israel before you’ve heard from the court. You want to give the impression that you’re impassive and have your sights directed elsewhere, I think.
LikeLike
This id a great thing Joel. For those of us who have experienced abuse and denial of the right to due process and do not hsve the money to hire a lawyer it is particularly important that we hsve tge right to speak out and even to name names.
LikeLike
This is an excellent article. Early on I thought of becoming a lawyer but have only met perhaps two who came close to being honest and really wanted to help people. The first was a young lawyer from Valparaso (sp?) who helped me get my disability. The other is M’s lawyer who was kinf to mr but who by no means is necessarily a good lawyer per se in the sense that ge is honest. Do in good conscience I decided not to go to law school. Anyway I will not be posting or responding to my ex’s family and I apologize for doing so. I am choosing to not read or respond to their attacks. This is not the venue for that. I do hope you know that this is M talking. Thanks. They found my other name.
LikeLike
See Bridges v California http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring01/Woell/bridges.html
on the criticism of judges: The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, [314 U.S. 252, 271] solely in the name of preserving the dignify of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect. – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/314/252.html#sthash.N4CEOXwz.dpuf
LikeLike