Petitioning Congress
October 12, 2022
Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman
House
Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC
20515
Dear Congressman Sensenbrenner:
Millions of Americans are
losing faith in the American legal system. The courts have, in many respects,
become places where the hope of justice is illusory because the law has become
the exclusive province of an elite "priesthood" of lawyers who the average
person cannot afford to hire for any serious problem.
Pro-se litigants
are not treated with respect in the courts, and neither the law nor the courts
are user friendly.
I am a lawyer in the Boston area with 24 years of
experience and am fairly well accomplished and recognized (see
www.grossack.com). I also coach pro-se
litigants and counsel legal reform organizations.
I assure you that
widespread dissatisfaction exists at every level with our justice system. Such
issues as gender bias in divorce, the deserved mistrust of lawyers, the lopsided
power of major law firms, the elitist attitude of a segment of the judiciary,
the maltreatment of dissidents, including dissident lawyers, the refusal of
federal courts to address abuses in state courts-- these all contribute to what
some experts now call "legal abuse syndrome." Because of widespread immunity
granted to government officials, judges and court officials, redress is
increasingly difficult.
Legal abuse has hit my household as well, with a
loved one suffering a
stroke from false accusations.
I am writing to
ask your committee to hold hearings on "Citizen's
Grievances Against the
American Legal System" and on "Legal Abuse."
Our Institute will
provide witnesses to give testimony about this crisis. Democratic institutions
cannot survive a dysfunctional justice system. It is for all practical purposes
a national crisis.
Can I please coordinate with your committee so these
hearings can be
scheduled as soon as possible?
Thank you,
David
C. Grossack
Like David Grossack above, I too years ago offered to
appear before Congress along with seven attorneys to testify as to the judicial
corruption of the courts. Results: No Response! Not even an
acknowledgement. At the time, I did not see the conflict of interest which
I now see in appealing to Congress about judicial corruption.
By way of foundation of this conflict of interest,
I shall refer to the quote of Thomas Jefferson, "Let no more be heard of
confidence in men, but rather bind them down with the chains of the
Constitution." Now I shall use the illustration
of prisoners and guards, Congress being the prisoners to be bound
down through the judges using the Constitution, and who are the
guards. In petitioning to Congress, you are petitioning to the prisoners
(Congress) that the guards (the judges) are not doing their prescribed
constitutional duty to bind down the prisoners (Congress) who are
being given too much liberty by the guards (judges).
Everyone must ask themselves why Congress
would be interested in enforcing the Constitution by requiring judges
(their guards) to bind them down with the chains of the Constitution?
Obviously, Congress wants to take liberties with
our Constitution, not less. So Congress returns a "kick-back"
(bribe) to the judges (their guards) by rewarding their guards with untold
power and protections. Now you are objecting to this sweet-heart deal
between Congress and the Judges, and now you want Congress to "take
action."
So Congress and the Courts each share hand-in-glove the
benefits of ignoring the Constitution to the peril of every
Constitutional principle, and to the certain peril of all
People. This explain why Congress shall
never exercise or devise a workable remedy to the judicial problem. And
should Congress appear as if they were interested in doing so, it will only
be for window dressing and public consumption by giving the judiciary a
cosmetic paint-job called "Judicial Reform." They will even argue
vehemently the issue back and forth ad nausium to look like they are doing
something, but even this is for public appearance. They know nothing is going to
change by themselves.
This is why the solution to the judicial problem must
come directly from us, the People, and not from the government. Hence,
J.A.I.L. directly from the People is the only cure, which remedy should have
been included in our Constitution back in 1787. It is just too
bad that Thomas Jefferson was not privy to the principles now known as
J.A.I.L., for had he been, he would have surely made a most vehement argument
therefor. Further, there could have been no sound reasoning for any of our
Founding Fathers refusing his argument to include it in
our Constitution.
-Ron Branson - J.A.I.L. Author