Effectively Functioning Outside the First and Second “boxes”

     Which box should we attempt to transgress first, the walls of the politically created box or the walls of the computer box? The answer as to the walls of which box must be transgressed first is almost a which-came-first, the-chicken-or-the-egg, question. For this paper, and as a practical matter, let’s assume that scaling the walls of the computer box is the vehicle we will use to scale the walls of the real box, which is the politically created box.

      Now that we have only scantly teased the imagination with a few hints of the many parameters that restrict full advocacy on behalf of indigent persons, let’s examine the tools that can reduce the detriment of these parameters. In the beginning, let’s examine ways to transgress the parameters of the computer box.

      Transgressing the Walls of the Computer Box

      The computer boxes that reside in law shops have long since been replaced as the boundaries of information accessible and distributable by computers. The focus here will therefore be on gathering information from outside the computer boxes in law shops and distributing this information in ways other than just by service of a printout upon opposing counsel and the court.

      Without question, the focus now turns to effectively using the Internet. There is no single piece of technology in our memories that allows otherwise powerless people to legally affront authority better than the Internet. Most of our tasks in representing indigent persons require that to be effective, we must legally affront authority.

       It is the authority that allows persons to be executed that we must confront.

       It is the authority that allows persons to be represented by incompetent lawyers that we must confront.

       It is the authority that allows courts to maintain that indigent persons who were appointed incompetent counsel have waived issues that we must confront.

        It is the authority that allows law enforcement agencies to secret exculpatory information, and, when caught, avoid consequences that we must confront.

        It is authority – the point is made – we must confront authority on behalf of our indigent clients if we wish for them to have an equal opportunity to taste justice.