Mr. Canterbury Can’t Seem to Tell the Truth

Since our opposition to the closing of public law libraries, which was restricted by West Virginia Code to begin with, Mr. Canterbury has been less than truthful with the public.  It now appears that in trying to change the statute that he already violated, he is now being less than truthful with our Legislators as well.

Most recently, Mr. Canterbury is quoted as stating that while he has received over a thousand opposition emails, “out of the 1,300 I received, only six were from within West Virginia”.  See the State Journal article, Bill to determine law libraries’ future advances to WV Senate.  (http://www.statejournal.com/story/16901093/bill-to-determine-law-libraries-future-advances-to-senate)

This is odd, because the Change.org petition, Stop the Closing of West Virginia’s Public Law Libraries, alone, has twenty (20) signers from West Virginia.  (https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-closing-of-west-virginias-public-law-libraries)

As the originator of that petition, I know that it is set up to send those signatures to Mr. Canterbury.  So, why can’t he come up with the accurate count?

Add that to the other online initiatives, such as Thousand Kites campaign, Save Public Law Libraries (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6220/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9505), which only allows signers from within West Virginia, and it seems Mr. Canterbury’s numbers are way off.

It also seems that Mr. Canterbury is indicating that all things in these closing law libraries can be easily obtained online.  This is untrue.  At first he claimed that they were online free.  This is completely untrue.  But now, he is telling us that they are available free or at a monthly fee.  Well, the truth is that subscriptions to legal research materials come at a very high price to the general public, and Mr. Canterbury’s continued false statements are unacceptable from someone in such a highly regarded position within our Supreme Court of Appeals.

 

He claims in The State Journal article, “The libraries originally were established so that the smaller firms could compete against larger firms,” but what about meaningful access to the general public, our citizens?

 

Then to top it off is the last quote, “Three of those were from the same family, but there is no law library in their county.”          Perhaps that is the precise point!

Changing the Law After It Has Been Violated HB 4291 & SB 473

***URGENT ACTION ALERT***

They are fast-tracking two bills through the West Virginia Legislature trying to give the Supreme Court Administrator the ability to close law libraries, which he has already done without this authority and in violation of current law.

Now, they want to correct the law to justify the actions they have already taken.

Don’t let it happen! Contact your legislators!!

HB 4291 – Relating to county law libraries established by the Supreme Court of Appeals

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_history.cfm?input=4291&year=2012&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill

SB 473 – Authorizing Supreme Court determine continuation of county law libraries

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_history.cfm?input=473&year=2012&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill

Contact your Legislator!

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Districts/district_zip/zipmems.cfm

Contact all the Members of the Judiciary Committee!

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/committees/senate/SenateCommittee.cfm?Chart=jud

WV Access to Justice Commission held their first public hearing in Beckley

Last night, the WV Access to Justice Commission held their first public hearing in Beckley.

While the Commissioners did not seem very interested in comments about maintaining our public access law libraries, it does seem that numerous issues regarding access to legal aid, better (and more modern) notification methods, encouraging increased pro bono services, and better assistance for victims, veterans and children are on the radar for the Commission.

I was actually very impressed by Justice Benjamin’s passion for drug courts and diversionary programs in criminal matters.  After all, if more diversionary options were utilized, the courts, court personnel, and even attorneys would have more time and resources for helping to increase meaningful access in the area of civil matters.

The one part that I just cannot understand is how the Commission can be so seemingly dedicated to more “meaningful access” to the courts while NOT recognizing the need for (and even right to) public access law libraries and well trained law librarians to guide you with research.

Well, one gentleman was there to testify that the problem may be that all the Commissioners (as well as ethics committees and boards for attorneys) are all lawyers or legal professionals.  I guess his point was that we seem to leave the ‘fox guarding the henhouse’.  In fact, he asked the panel why they did not have an average citizen on the Commission, like a “truckdriver”.

This really hit home for me, even though some of the testimony seemed unrelated to the Commission’s objective.  It does seem that this is geared toward increasing the assistance from attorneys or other legal professionals rather than just giving the pro se litigant and average citizen the tools they need to help themselves.

As impressed as I was with many of the ideas presented and the Commission’s responses, especially regarding victims’ and veterans’ access issues, I hold firm in the idea that “meaningful access” to the courts MUST start with access to legal materials and legal research with assistance from someone who can direct your questions, i.e. public access law libraries with a good librarian.

Pro bono attorneys can be great, but if you can’t even access legal materials to know if what they are doing is good, bad, indifferent, correct, or in your best interest, then how can you really have confidence in our judicial system?  And, what if you just aren’t getting good assistance and you need to help yourself?

Another reason to need a law librarian…

I spent the better part of the day yesterday working on a brief.  After following the references back and forth from the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to the Rules of Appellate Procedure to Appendix B to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and back to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, I realized that these references keep sending me back to the OLD Rules of Appellate Procedure.  The new Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure, which went into effect on December 1, 2010, are still only available in a pdf format and they are not the rules still being referenced by the other rules.  Appendix B is now part of Appendix A (only available in pdf format) and Rule 3 is now Rule 5 (again only available in pdf format) and the deadlines have all changed.

Are you confused and lost?  Really?  Cause we haven’t even gotten into West Virginia Trial Court Rules , West Virginia Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia , Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia, or any case law research.

That’s okay, you are not alone.  Even though I consider myself a fairly well-versed pro se litigant, I have been quite confused by the changes and how things are posted on the Court’s site.

You would think that the current rules, the ones in effect now, would be the set of rules that are posted on the site in the standard html format for the best access.  If anything, it would make better sense and be less confusing if the OLD rules were the ones archived into a pdf format.  After all, it is the new rules that we are supposed to be following, right?

It would also seem appropriate to have the rest of the rules revised to refer to the appropriate and current appellate rules.  It seems a little unfair to have one rule refer you to another rule that is no longer accurate.

One could say that system is designed to be confusing and complex in order to impede the average person from accessing it.  But, I guess that might be cynical and perhaps even paranoid.

I do realize that the Court has made some major revisions, many I assume are for the better, and that the Court is diligently trying to transition and provide up-to-date information to the public.  However, doesn’t that make this the worst time ever to be closing public law libraries and eliminating our trained law librarians who may be the only compass in this maze of confusing information?

By the way, after all my effort to sort out the changes, it appears that I may have missed a new filing deadline…

Is Internet Access Really a Viable Option to a Law Library?

Some have asked me, “Can’t you pull up all this legal stuff on the internet?”  So, perhaps I should elaborate a little more than before.

First, we must assume that individuals who need the legal assistance have internet access as well as the skills to do the research without a little guidance from a law librarian.  I would say that this is a little bit of a stretch since I have friends who do not have internet access, either because of costs or because of where they a located in rural West Virginia.  Of those who could travel to the public libraries to access the internet, and assuming they are permitted enough time on a public access computer to do meaningful legal research, many would just not know where to start.

This is not to say that these individual are in anyway stupid just because they are not versed in the law and legal research.  I have friends who are master electricians, emergency room nurses, and even retired teachers, who are simply not familiar with looking up statutes, court rules, and case law.  They may be able to figure out the journey for themselves once they are led to the “yellow brick road”, but without a little help, they may very well never find the “yellow brick road”, especially in time for a court deadline.

Even if all the access to research and case law on the internet were free, which it is not, most people need at least some assistance in getting started.  Anyone who has ever asked questions at the courthouse has probably been given that same old answer – “We are not allowed to give legal advice.”  Court personnel are justifiably reluctant to give any directions or assistance, because of the lines they cannot cross.  They simply stay as far away from the lines to be safe and avoid appearing partial.  This gives rise to the need for our law librarians.

However, let’s just say that a law librarian was not really necessary because there were advocates you could call.  This does not currently exist, except when your case and circumstances and finances might all qualify you for representation from legal aid organizations that normally focus on those with disabilities.  Even with telephone support, the only public online access is limited in scope.

West Virginia provides public access to the West Virginia Code and all the Rules of Procedure, however, this isn’t very helpful if you:  1.)  don’t know what you are looking for,  2.)  don’t understand the ‘legalese’,  and  3.)  don’t have access to the case law that explains and expounds upon the laws and rules you are looking through.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ Opinions (case law) from 1991 to the present are posted for you to access, but they are posted by date without any real way of finding topics related to your case or issues, except very recent cases and cases sorted by term.  So, if you know when the Opinion was issued, you can then search by topic, providing in the final outcome the topical issue is actually the issue pertinent to you or your search.  Sorting through the public access Opinions, which are limited to 20 years of cases out of over 100 years of opinions, is still akin to “finding a needle in a haystack”, perhaps even worse.

There are great software programs (such as Westlaw, CaseFinder, etc.) that access databases with cases (opinions) sorted by subject matter and indexed according to the statute or rules they pertain to, with cross references to other opinions, BUT, these programs are NOT FREE for public access.

So, the bottom line is that West Virginia could provide the public with free access to legal research, case law, and how-to-manuals, and they could provide a hotline for how to get started and answering questions.  BUT, at this point, THEY DON’T.

There is, however, something called Fastcase that is provided free to all Members of the West Virginia State Bar…

If you got lost with this post…ask a law librarian… 🙂

Don’t Forget to Sign the Petition

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-closing-of-west-virginias-public-law-libraries

 

Stop the Closing of West Virginia’s Public Law Libraries

Hello,

I just signed the following petition addressed to: Steven D. Canterbury, Administrative Director, West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

—————-
Stop the Closing of West Virginia’s Public Law Libraries

This letter is to inform you that we, the undersigned, hold the closing of public law libraries in West Virginia by your office is both unconstitutional and unlawful under West Virginia Code.

The United States Constitution secures one’s rights to access to the courts and equal protection of the laws, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled that access to the courts means meaningful access to adequate law libraries and equal access for those who are indigent or without the means to defend their rights and assert their claims.  Even prisoners are guaranteed meaningful access to law libraries or programs to assist them with preparing filings and pro bono legal assistance.  (BOUNDS v. SMITH, 430 U.S. 817)

While you cite a lack of use and the advent of the internet, rights should not be diminished for lack of use, nor can all citizens afford internet access, particularly when it comes to accessing legal materials which most often come with hefty subscription fees or user costs.

Equally as compelling, if not more so, is that statutory language in the Code protects and provides for the funding of these law libraries. (W.V. Code §51-8-8)  In fact, the state law librarian is even charged in the Code with the responsibility of making sure that a copy of the volumes of the West Virginia reports is distributed to the law library in Ohio County.  (W.V. Code §51-8-5)

Therefore, we respectfully demand that, at a minimum, the law libraries referred to at the time the Code went into effect, along with the law library in Ohio County, be kept open or reopened and continued with the funding of the State as provided for in W.V. Code §51-8-8.
—————-

Sincerely,

[Your name]

 

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-closing-of-west-virginias-public-law-libraries

 

Does West Virginia Want Us In the Dark?

West Virginia Violates Its Own Laws and
Denies Access to Courts

Ignorantia juris non excusat is Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse”.

Have you ever heard the old adage: ignorance of the law is no defense?  In this country, all citizens are charged with the responsibility of knowing the law.  However, what happens when the government conceals the law or denies
adequate access?

Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning “for oneself” or “on one’s own behalf”.

Pro se legal representation means advocating on one’s own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer.  While they say that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client, not every man can afford to hire an attorney to protect his rights and interest.  And, even though our government provides public defenders for the purpose of criminal trials, defending one’s self in civil litigation or bringing litigation to protect one’s rights or property do not come free.

With these things in mind, it would seem that every citizen would have equal access to the law.  Every person should have the opportunity to not only read the laws that have been adopted by the legislature but also to have access to the courts’ interpretations of the law and rulings on just what a law is intended to impose.

In fact, one would argue that the United States Constitution secures one’s rights to access to the courts and equal protection of the laws and that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that access to the courts means meaningful access to adequate law libraries and equal access for those who are indigent or without the means to defend their rights and assert their claims.

Even prisoners are guaranteed meaningful access to law libraries or programs to assist them with preparing filings and pro bono legal assistance.  (BOUNDS v. SMITH, 430 U.S. 817)