From: Brian Vukadinovich
Wheatfield
It is time to call a spade a spade and dispel the ridiculous notion of the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”.
Courts across the country including the Supreme Court of the United States demonstrate that there is no such thing in the eyes of the courts.
For example, the United States Supreme Court, by rule, Rule 28 (8), expressly forbids unrepresented litigants from participating in the oral argument process. The rule dictates that “Oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court.”
In other words, unrepresented litigants who have paid the hefty filing fees for their cases are not allowed to orally argue their cases to the Supreme Court. And yet, the phrase “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” is engraved above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.
What hypocrisy!
What is so “equal” about taking peoples’ money for filing fees and then having a rule that does not allow them to participate in the oral argument process that lawyers are allowed to participate in?
Also, courts routinely allow lawyers to bypass the rules of not bringing cell phones into the courtrooms, but at the same time disallow unrepresented litigants from doing so. What is so “equal” about that type of judicial conduct?
Almost all courts allow lawyers to file papers electronically while at the same time disallow unrepresented litigants from doing so in order that they will have to pay money for copying costs and mailing costs to file their documents while the opposing lawyers get to do it for free. What is so “equal” about that type of judicial conduct?
The Indiana Supreme Court allows lawyers to file court papers in disregard of the rules while at the same time rejects filings by unrepresented litigants who may inadvertently submit a document for filing that may not be in compliance with the rules. What is so “equal” about that type of judicial conduct?
This is hardly “Equal Justice Under Law."
The people of Indiana would be much better served with a different chief justice. Loretta Rush should be removed and replaced with a chief justice who is actually interested and dedicated to fairness and justice for all, and who is not interested and dedicated to discriminating against a particular class of litigants that she doesn’t like.
Let’s be honest and call it what it is, it is actually judicial discrimination, and it takes place in every level of our judicial system including right here in Indiana at all levels of the Indiana judiciary including in the Indiana Supreme Court!
It is very sad that the very branch of our government, the judiciary, that is the very branch of government charged with the responsibility of protecting our rights, is the very branch of government that is systematically denying our rights.
