Comments
There are not any comments yet. Start the discussion below!
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)
So, how can Steven Canterbury, Administrative Director for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals simply choose to close the State’s law libraries?
Mr. Canterbury cites a lack of use and the advent of the internet. (Associated Press) However, 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.
Still, it seems that Mr. Canterbury has proceeded with a plan to close public law libraries across West Virginia, even those mandated by West Virginia Code.
Yes, that is right, several law libraries which are funded by the State are slated to be closed or have already closed even though there is statutory language in the Code to protect and fund 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)
Does Mr. Canterbury believe that he is in the position to override state statutes and ignore the precedent of case law? Or, maybe, Mr. Canterbury is just ignorant of the law?
Ignorance of the law is no defense!
Supreme Court closing regional law libraries
W.Va. Supreme Court Will Shut Down Regional Law Libraries
Law library in Martinsburg to shut down