Legally Blind

It is better to make a deal with the Devil than to trust a friend who will desert you in time of need. When I met my former attorney, he was quite friendly with me, but trusting him to handle my legal needs proved to be a costly mistake. What I have seen is that once a person is impoverished, attorneys want no dealings with that person. There are always excuses given, but the bottom line is always the same: there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the poor.

Legal problems keep many people in a homeless state. Numerous organizations exist to render services to low-income persons, but the question is if these organizations manage to resolve the many legal problems that cause chronic homelessness. Some organizations deal chiefly with preventing expulsion from shelters or protecting the rights of the disabled in guaranteeing access within shelters. Such issues are indeed important and cannot be overlooked for sure. However, when it comes to addressing issues that will enable homeless persons to re-enter mainstream society, the legal services are less well tuned. Jurisdictional issues also prove to be a problem in the DC area, because not all homeless persons have lived exclusively within the District of Columbia, and obtaining resources outside the District remains a constant problem.

Because legal problems can be varied and many, it is unreasonable to expect any one organization to be staffed with a battery of attorneys with the wide range of expertise required to address the spectrum of needs that the homeless population requires. That does not mean, however, that the needs of the homeless do not need to be met. Somehow a better system does need to be set up, but how? So far, the challenge has gone ignored, despite a number of organizations operating in the area.

What is the most puzzling are the criteria for accepting cases in these organizations. I went to one organization and was told that I had to be a resident of the District of Columbia first before I could be accepted. I waited the required six months, only to be told that the organization could not take my case; I could only wonder why I had not been told that six months earlier. Another organization had me do a lengthy intake only to say that it could not take my case. Yet another organization had me do an intake to tell me that I had to go to another jurisdiction, which turned out not to be true at all. The crowning statement came from one organization that did the most lengthy intake of them all, in which I stated all the other organizations to whom I had already been, stated my case history, and stated the future court date for which I required assistance; it was well over a month later and after that court date when I was sent a letter – which I still have in my possession – telling me that because of the “urgency” of my case, I was being referred to one of the other organizations that had denied me and that I would be offered no further assistance! In no public institution have I ever experienced such a runaround as I have with these legal organizations, and to date, I have not received one iota of assistance, not even with the simplest of matters. The most I have been given was a telephone number of one official who does not return phone calls; I hardly call that success!

I know from other homeless persons who have faced legal problems that they complain bitterly that there are no legal resources available to the poor. I know from my own experiences that if resources are available, accessing them seems to be reserved only for a narrowly defined élite. It is for that reason that I question the words “with liberty and justice for all,” because liberty and justice exist only for those who can afford them, not for the indigent. I must ask the question: how can we, in all good conscience, include the words “with liberty and justice for all” in our Pledge of Allegiance when they clearly do not apply to our nation at all?

Copyright ©2005