National Forum On Judicial Accountability
Because of their limited circulation of posts, Facebook pages and profiles are becoming an unreliable way for members of social justice groups to stay abreast of each other’s efforts and communicate. So The Law Project (TLP) will be relying more on the groups and private online networks of NFOJA (National Forum On Judicial Accountability) for collaborating.
Learn more about our plans below and if any of them interests you or you have questions and comments, kindly get the conversation started by commenting below and/or contacting the NFOJA Co-Administrators: email@example.com
Here is what we will be doing to lawfully combat
abuse of America’s legal system on a grassroots basis:
1. EFFECTIVE CASE PRESENTATION – Presenting basic facts as opposed to ultimate conclusions, and matching your facts with established patterns of U.S. legal system abuse are two of the best ways to interest others in the difficulties you are experiencing or have experienced under color of law in the United States. TLP will conduct free online training on how to tell your story so as to maximize the chances of you getting help in lawfully resisting persistent U.S. legal system abuse;
2. SHOWCASE YOUR DIFFICULTIES – It is important to not only tell your story online, but also to make sure it is showcased on websites being visited by people capable of helping you lawfully resist U.S. legal system abuse. TLP constantly drives people who can make a difference to its websites. When they get there, your story should be there as well, presented as effectively as possible;
3. TRACKING PATTERNS – U.S. legal system abuse did not become entrenched by being easy to topple. Most people experiencing the problem consider it a “win or lose” proposition and see little value in anything but them winning. But there are usually patterns to the obstacles we face in our quests for relief, and even in our brutal losses. Facebook keeps us communicating, primarily on a national basis, and while that level of networking reveals the national scope of U.S. legal system abuse, it hinders local and regional corrective action. NFOJA’s groups and private online networks promote local and regional action while keeping all concerned connected on a national basis more effectively than Facebook alone. As a result, NFOJA participants are best positioned to collaborate and mobilize to win, which includes tracking patterns presented by our individual losses and using those patterns to demand relief via multi-complainant legal action including administrative complaints.
4. GET POLITICAL -- Efforts to build public awareness about the general nature, extent, and specific details of persistent U.S. legal system abuse are much like social justice movements of old. But sustaining those efforts requires action more akin to major U.S. political campaigns than social justice movements. We need phone banks, neighborhood canvassing, community forums, fundraisers, mobilization management, and the like. NFOJA groups and private online networks empower participants to organize and mobilize like a BOSS!
5. OPEN THE BOX – Read about this recommended approach to U.S. legal system reform advocacy: CLICK HERE
Learn more about and join NFOJA:
A Linked IN connection of mine commented that "so much legal abuse is going on...AMericans will only listen if you are winning".
My response is below. What do you think?
. . . let's look at the notion that Americans don't listen. Does that mean they don't learn of a problem and immediately insist on meaningful solutions while also helping to sustain related reform efforts? Few people become part of real solutions, even when they are directly impacted by a problem that is serious. So I suggest that for now, those of us directly impacted by persistent U.S. legal system abuse focus on what we're doing to redress the problem, over and beyond recruiting help from others who are not directly impacted. The time has come for us to look/think outside the proverbial box as one of my recent article suggests. A closely related challenge for us is to refine our understanding of what "winning" entails when it comes to grassroots challenges of persistent U.S. legal system abuse. Another of my recent articles eludes to the misguided fantasy of boxing and beating titans of U.S. legal system abuse through toe-to-toe confrontations. That's this 'We held a protest march and they all got fired' and/or 'I filed a lawsuit and quickly won millions' kind of thinking. It zooms right over accomplishments like 'I will be addressing objective patterns of U.S. legal system abuse and highlighting examples from cases at a gathering of the UN Council of Organizations.' And why is this latter accomplishment not considered winning? The answer goes a long way towards explaining why it is so difficult to get to the kind of winning that does impress most people.
WORD: This is the millennium of Pot Luck Advocacy. Not even a Food Court advocacy model will get the job done. And seriously gone is the Stand Alone Restaurant model for dishing out large scale social justice.
If we persist in making our analysis of social justice advocates begin and END with the question, "Will you take my case?", there is unlikely to ever be much progress in eliminating the access to justice problem in America. So if you encounter an advocate whose cause addresses your concerns and/or legal difficulties in a way you find appealing, support the cause -- at least in some minimal way such as by providing an online "like" and share.
And if the advocate offers one or more public service programs through which your case may be addressed, consider participating -- keeping in mind that participation does NOT include your sidestepping program registration with private messages and emails soliciting help.
The traditional one-on-one lawyer or NGO/client advocacy model is simply outdated and unmanageable when it comes to addressing all the serious public interest crises in America on a large scale. Getting our related needs met DEMANDS creativity and mutual support. That is truth. Whether an advocate has a 7 figure budget or 7 dollars, there will always be more people needing his or her services than he or she can directly accommodate.