Abused Swan
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Abused Swan
We have had enough of bad attorneys or legal services in Kent County, Michigan! After what we have been through we have some experience we would like to share. We're done with bad representation and attorneys working with judges! We're done with attorneys taking money and not delivering! We're done with legal services that can not provide help! We're done with our children not being protected or kept safe! We have been contacted by several mothers about their experiences with these legal services also! We know attorney's are working with judges and standing by and watching them break the law. We know the Michigan Court of Appeals is aware of what is going on. We know our political leaders know what is going on. We know the FBI is aware of what is going on. We know Congress is aware. THEY DO NOT CARE! Read each page as presented here to get the full affect! VanDam & Jesson P.C Legal Aid of Western Michigan Donna Mobilia DAWN Mary Benedict Cooley Law The Fraternity |
| | | | | | | |
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first
appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee
than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers
jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's
largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited
from.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called
case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and
that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent.
This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather
than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent.
For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically
complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial
system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law
all too often change the ultimate meaning.
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when
judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In
any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First
of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers,
along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated
them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and
relationships.
appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee
than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers
jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's
largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited
from.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called
case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and
that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent.
This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather
than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent.
For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically
complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial
system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law
all too often change the ultimate meaning.
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when
judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In
any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First
of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers,
along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated
them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and
relationships.
Courts Should Stop Jailing People for Being Poor
By Carl Takei, ACLU National Prison Project at 3:02pm
Across the country, cash-strapped cities and counties are throwing poor defendants in jail for failing to pay legal
debts that they can never hope to manage. On Monday, the New York Times told the story of Gina Ray, whose
$179 speeding ticket mushroomed into $3,170 in fines and fees and 40 days in jail when she couldn’t afford to
pay it. Gina is one of many swept up in America’s new debtors’ prisons, a growing problem nationwide.
Also this week, the ABA Journal told the story of the Philadelphia courts’ aggressive efforts to collect unpaid
fines and fees, many of which are decades old. Ameen Muqtadir was billed nearly $41,000 for two failures to
appear in court dating back to 1991 and 1997—even though he’d been incarcerated at the time of each hearing.
Meanwhile, Hakim Waliyyudin spent 12 days in jail while he raised the money to post a $1,000 bond with the
court; after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, the court clerk told him that he owed another
$9,000 plus $1,500 in collection fees because of a missed court date. Although a free attorney from Community
Legal Services ultimately convinced the court to waive the judgment and collection charges against Hakim, many
other indigent defendants around the country face further jail time when they cannot pay court-ordered fines and
fees.
As the ACLU emphasized in its October 2010 report, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’
Prisons, jailing people for unpaid court debts imposes devastating human costs on men and women whose only
remaining crime is that they are poor. Upon release, they face the daunting prospect of having to rebuild their
lives yet again, while their substantial legal debts pose a significant, and at times insurmountable, barrier as they
attempt to re-enter society. They see their incomes fall, their credit ratings worsen, their prospects for housing
and employment dim, and their chances of ending up back in jail or prison increase. Many must make hard
choices each month as they attempt to balance their needs and those of their families with their legal financial
obligations. They also remain tethered to the criminal justice system—sometimes decades after they complete
their sentences—and live under constant threat of being sent back to jail or prison, solely because they cannot
pay what has become an unmanageable legal debt.
Aggressive collection of legal financial obligations creates a two-tiered system of justice in which the poorest
defendants are punished more harshly than those with means. Although courts attempt to collect legal financial
obligations from indigent and affluent defendants alike, those who can afford to pay their legal debts avoid jail,
complete their sentences, and move on with their lives. Those unable to pay end up incarcerated or under
continued court supervision. Perversely, they also often end up paying much more in fines and fees than
defendants who can pay their legal financial obligations. Additionally, the imposition of legal financial obligations
disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the prisoner
population
Courts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment.
Further, it creates hardships for men and women who already struggle with re-entering society after being
released from prison or jail, and wastes resources in an often fruitless effort to extract payments. In an age when
more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before, unnecessarily and unfairly, we should be shutting
down debtors’ prisons, not creating more of them.
By Carl Takei, ACLU National Prison Project at 3:02pm
Across the country, cash-strapped cities and counties are throwing poor defendants in jail for failing to pay legal
debts that they can never hope to manage. On Monday, the New York Times told the story of Gina Ray, whose
$179 speeding ticket mushroomed into $3,170 in fines and fees and 40 days in jail when she couldn’t afford to
pay it. Gina is one of many swept up in America’s new debtors’ prisons, a growing problem nationwide.
Also this week, the ABA Journal told the story of the Philadelphia courts’ aggressive efforts to collect unpaid
fines and fees, many of which are decades old. Ameen Muqtadir was billed nearly $41,000 for two failures to
appear in court dating back to 1991 and 1997—even though he’d been incarcerated at the time of each hearing.
Meanwhile, Hakim Waliyyudin spent 12 days in jail while he raised the money to post a $1,000 bond with the
court; after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, the court clerk told him that he owed another
$9,000 plus $1,500 in collection fees because of a missed court date. Although a free attorney from Community
Legal Services ultimately convinced the court to waive the judgment and collection charges against Hakim, many
other indigent defendants around the country face further jail time when they cannot pay court-ordered fines and
fees.
As the ACLU emphasized in its October 2010 report, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’
Prisons, jailing people for unpaid court debts imposes devastating human costs on men and women whose only
remaining crime is that they are poor. Upon release, they face the daunting prospect of having to rebuild their
lives yet again, while their substantial legal debts pose a significant, and at times insurmountable, barrier as they
attempt to re-enter society. They see their incomes fall, their credit ratings worsen, their prospects for housing
and employment dim, and their chances of ending up back in jail or prison increase. Many must make hard
choices each month as they attempt to balance their needs and those of their families with their legal financial
obligations. They also remain tethered to the criminal justice system—sometimes decades after they complete
their sentences—and live under constant threat of being sent back to jail or prison, solely because they cannot
pay what has become an unmanageable legal debt.
Aggressive collection of legal financial obligations creates a two-tiered system of justice in which the poorest
defendants are punished more harshly than those with means. Although courts attempt to collect legal financial
obligations from indigent and affluent defendants alike, those who can afford to pay their legal debts avoid jail,
complete their sentences, and move on with their lives. Those unable to pay end up incarcerated or under
continued court supervision. Perversely, they also often end up paying much more in fines and fees than
defendants who can pay their legal financial obligations. Additionally, the imposition of legal financial obligations
disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the prisoner
population
Courts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment.
Further, it creates hardships for men and women who already struggle with re-entering society after being
released from prison or jail, and wastes resources in an often fruitless effort to extract payments. In an age when
more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before, unnecessarily and unfairly, we should be shutting
down debtors’ prisons, not creating more of them.