Resistance Is Feudal: Understanding the Role of the Court, Especially in Civil “Abuse” Prosecutions

Posted on May 28, 2018

0


The role of the court, despite popular notions and its own rhetoric, is not to mete out justice. The role of the court is to keep power where it’s “supposed to be.”

Does that mean the court privileges plaintiffs over defendants, the rich over the poor, and the titled over the commoner? Generally, yes. Little has changed in 1,000 years. Even the word court is evocative of the Middle Ages, and it’s hardly unusual for court administrators to behave like overlords.

Skilled attorney representation can upset the age-old paradigm, but typically it’s the haves and not the have-nots who can afford it, so not really.

In the restraining order arena, or in any civil procedure arising from allegations of abuse (domestic violence, child welfare, etc.), the influence of money and power in favor of plaintiffs is preexistent. Billions of federal tax dollars have been lavished on law enforcement and the courts since the 1990s to sway their judgment, or even to prescribe how they should react. Complainants of abuse today don’t need money to tilt the scales, because it has been prepaid. Plaintiffs just need stories. Female plaintiffs alleging abuse, what’s more, may be entitled to free attorney representation in accordance with the same special interest legislation that authorized the federal subsidies (see Violence Against Women Act).

This is what leads many victims of procedural abuse to conclude, “It’s a conspiracy.” They expect the court’s definition of justice to be the same as the dictionary’s.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The author of this post has been in nonstop litigation for over two years, litigation stemming from accusations made 12 years ago. Judicial response in 2006 was incompetent (the judge, a pro tem, or temp, violated statutory law), and an order arising from the 2006 judgment, in 2013, was even more plainly unlawful. The Arizona Court of Appeals last year affirmed the 2013 judgment, because the writer hadn’t been able to afford to promptly appeal it. The 2017 court upheld “finality of judgment,” ignoring that the 2013 judgment offended both the state and federal constitutions. The 2017 court privileged economy and maintenance of face, in other words, over justice. The writer’s case now returns to the trial court for further litigation, which has provoked the court’s consternation, again despite the facial illegality of the 2013 order. In 2016, the attorney for the plaintiffs cited their monetary investment in the case as a reason the court should enforce the unlawful order and send the victim of that order to jail. The court can not only justify its own malfeasance but punish its victim for it. To quote a California paralegal, There is no justice system; there’s just a system. The writer is expected in court on Wednesday and again in July based on allegations made in 2016 that were based on allegations made in 2013 that were based on allegations made in 2006…that were false.

Advertisements