Missoula County’s “Justice Department” is angling to create a “Family Justice Center” because they know “families” have a hard time navigating the “justice system”. For more on this effort to help “families”, here’s KPAX explaining how Missoula County wants to give them even more support than they’re already getting from Crime Victim Advocates:
For those who go through the justice system, the process is long and arduous.
Missoula County’s Justice Department is well aware of this and they’re currently looking to establish a Family Justice Center to provide a better experience for those in difficult positions.
“What we’ve seen throughout the state this year has been heartbreaking. And if we can create a center, that’s gonna save people’s lives. I don’t know why we wouldn’t do it,” said Erin Shreder, crime victim advocate for Missoula County’s Justice Department.
As a Crime Victim Advocate, Erin Shreder’s job is dependent on helping victims of alleged crimes by taking their unvetted claims and transforming those claims into legal actions, like civil restraining orders. But this process is hard for “victims”, so that’s why Missoula County wants to spend MORE money.
Because WHY NOT?
Shreder says the current system often presents significant barriers for families who have to navigate multiple locations, court dates, and different judges along with childcare.
“The more times they have to travel between the agencies, they drop out and they don’t get the resources they need,” said Shreder.
Shreder also says that a Family Justice Center would reduce barriers, providing families and individuals a one-stop shop for all things related to their proceedings.
“If someone has been a victim of a crime, they can go there to speak with a detective or a prosecutor. They can get help for orders of protection. The dream-big version would have medical therapy, job training, resources, a diaper bank. Really, anyone who needs any resources in the criminal justice system, they go there, and they get it all,” said Shreder.
This is just the start of the Family Justice Center.
Wow! The Family Justice Center will have detectives, prosecutors, AND diapers? Amazing. I’m so glad bureaucrats like Erin Shreder are advocating for such an incredible use of tax money for all those victims out there with kids who will probably be murdered by their evil partners (men?) if we don’t come up with more money to help them get orders of protection.
Coming up with money is why “Compliance” called my family this week, since I’m one of those evil men that a Family Justice Center will be helping “victims” put in their place so that we don’t do more terrible things, like attending a trial of another terrible man who this town is trying to destroy.
Here’s my email exchange with “Pre-Trial Supervision”, which is different from “Compliance”–a convenient setup for diluting grievances of abuse:
The friend I’m being told I can’t support in person is Brandon Bryant, the drone whistleblower going through similar lawfare after those Crime Victim Advocates helped a registered sex offender get a temporary order of protection that he immediately used to harass Bryant, leading to criminal charges.
After city prosecutors dropped the main charge against Bryant, which was the alleged violation of the protection order, they kept a criminal charge of “disturbing the peace” against him because that’s how our city and county prosecutors play the lawfare game, defined by Wikipedia as this:
Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs, as a more peaceful and rational alternative, or as a less benign adjunct, to warfare.
Detractors have alternately begun to define the term as, “An attempt to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual’s usage of their legal rights”. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time, energy, and money (e.g., by bringing strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP), or winning a public relations victory. Alternatively, it may describe a tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems. This is especially common in situations when individuals and civil society use nonviolent methods to highlight or oppose discrimination, persecution, corruption, lack of democracy, limitations of freedom of speech, violations of human rights, and violations of international humanitarian law.
Brandon Bryant and I both made the mistake of giving a shit about the wrong kind of injustices and now we are paying a HEAVY price. The “Family Justice Center” being proposed will be just another layer of support for the victim class and the full deck of victim cards they get to play with ZERO accountability when those “victims” make false reports, something that can happen with frightening regularity when you become a target for elimination from society.
Before I risk my conditional release from jail to attend a criminal trial, let’s remind ourselves what the supposed intent of “pre-release” is for, according to some general principles as laid out by the American Bar Association:
The purposes of the pretrial release decision include providing due process to those accused of crime, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by securing defendants for trial, and protecting victims, witnesses and the community from threat, danger or interference. The judge or judicial officer decides whether to release a defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, release a defendant on a condition or combination of conditions, temporarily detain a defendant, or detain a defendant according to procedures outlined in these Standards. The law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support. These Standards limit the circumstances under which pretrial detention may be authorized and provide procedural safeguards to govern pretrial detention proceedings.
Do I have a history of not showing up for court hearings? No. Do I have a history of violence? No. Yet, despite the conventional rationale for subjecting people to pre-trial supervision NOT actually existing in my case, here I am.
The recommendations laid out by the ABA further describe how the “least restrictive conditions” should be considered if pre-trial monitoring is deemed warranted:
In deciding pretrial release, the judicial officer should assign the least restrictive condition(s) of release that will reasonably ensure a defendant’s attendance at court proceedings and protect the community, victims, witnesses or any other person. Such conditions may include participation in drug treatment, diversion programs or other pre-adjudication alternatives. The court should have a wide array of programs or options available to promote pretrial release on conditions that ensure appearance and protect the safety of the community, victims and witnesses pending trial and should have the capacity to develop release options appropriate to the risks and special needs posed by defendants, if released to the community. When no conditions of release are sufficient to accomplish the aims of pretrial release, defendants may be detained through specific procedures.
In addition to ALWAYS showing up to my scheduled court appearances and NEVER being charged with anything to do with acts of violence, I’m also NOT an addict in need of treatment, having ended my toxic relationship with box wine on July 5th, 2020.
Do I have Cannabis dependency issues? Yeah, I smoke a lot of weed. Do I make unwise financial decisions? Yeah, I regularly spend my gift card money on $10 dollar pints of Gooey Butter Cake ice cream. I also used to regularly attend City Council meetings and County Commissioner meetings in person until I was told that kind of conduct, at least in person, was no longer an option for me.
To conclude this post, The Bail Project has this to say about the kind of electronic monitoring I’ve been dealing with since June 22nd, when I was released from jail:
If my effort to support a fellow target of lawfare results in my return to jail, readers will know from the lack of writing that will appear on these virtual pages. Undoubtedly this will add to my mounting legal bills, which I have no money to pay for, so help a citizen journalist out and consider donating to my GoFundMe page. Any little bit helps.
Thanks for reading!