You can add the following to your Aspen file....

John Salitros
5509 East Lake Dr.
Lisle, IL 60532

The Supreme Court of the United States and Individual Rights

Significant decisions of the Supreme Court often focus on individual rights and provide a brake on majority government power that can abuse the constitutionally guaranteed rights of a relatively powerless American or minority group of Americans. In making such decisions, the Court upholds the principle that the United States government belongs to the people.

It is the people, too, that over a period of time, must accept the Supreme Court decisions. This is why the Court's decisions must provide persuasive reasons that appeal to the public's sense of fairness. If the Court fails, and the public does not accept a decision, it will eventually be overruled or eroded by later Court decisions.

*********

Thank you,

Marvin E. Aspen
Chief Judge
United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois

At 9:30 am, Friday, May 1st, 1998, Plaintiffs and Defendant were scheduled for a hearing with Judge Marvin Aspen, at the Dirksen Federal Building, in Chicago, Illinois, to get an emergency injunction to stop a retaliatory eviction by the Defendant, a dishonest, discriminating and prejudiced landlord, that was scheduled for that day.

When the first Plaintiff arrived, Judge Aspen's secretary said that there was no hearing that day and asked the Plaintiff to reschedule for another day, many days off. Since the sole purpose of this hearing was to get an emergency injunction to stop the landlord's threatened immediate eviction of the Plaintiff, the secretary's request did not make any sense. Confused by this response, the Plaintiff politely asked for an explanation, the reason for the secretary's request. No response or explanation was given, and the secretary became confrontational, demanding the papers that were yet to be filed with regard to this requested injunction. The Plaintiff said that she was told to file the papers several floors down, with the Clerk, and left the room to do so. Out in the hallway, U.S. Marshals arrived, and the Plaintiff was accused with disrupting the peace and was escorted down and out of the building. Concurrently, the second Plaintiff arrived and went to the secretary's office to locate the proceedings. He also was told that there was no hearing today and that the request for the injunction was denied. The second Plaintiff asked for the whereabouts of the first Plaintiff, and was told that she was no longer in the building. The words "no longer in the building" were spoken with a tone that implied trouble. Maintaining a sociable demeanor with the secretary, she was asked about the first Plaintiff's response to the news that there was no hearing nor injunction. "Frustrated" was the response from the secretary. Bidding her a "Good Day", the Plaintiff left the office and sat down and rested in a public area, (the trip across town and through the Federal Building was a bit tiring). After a 10 minute rest, a third party was called to find out if the first Plaintiff had checked in and left any message. No call was received, and the second Plaintiff then left the information that he was going back to his car and could be reached by his cellular phone. On reaching the ground floor, the first Plaintiff was met. (The Marshals were aware of the second Plaintiff's presence in the building (a slow guy with a walker), and let her back in to meet him). The first Plaintiff was then allowed to file the selected paperwork, and they were then asked to leave the building, which was promptly complied with.

The Judge's secretary is acting on behalf of the Judge, and is his face and voice to the Public. To summarily dismiss this request for an immediate injunction to stop an impending eviction, a traumatic and disruptive event, without even a hint of reason why, or hint of what to do next, presents itself as being autocratic and arbitrary, not even hinting of fairness or the slightest consideration for someone with a problem, who was seeking help by way of our legal system. Then, add to that the unwarranted use of force to remove the first Plaintiff for asking about what was happening to her. Remember, the first Plaintiff had already voluntarily left the secretary's office, and was outside in the hallway when the marshals arrived.

From my opening preamble, I will extrapolate the following:

It is the people, too, that over a period of time, must accept the United States District Court's decisions. This is why the Court's decisions must provide persuasive reasons that appeal to the public's sense of fairness. If the Court fails, and the public does not accept a decision, it will eventually become irrelevant and will be resented and ignored by society, leading to anarchy.

Remember, that the United States government belongs to the people. If it does not serve or work for the people, it too will be discarded, like so much useless trash. And, according to the news, more and more people are doing just that. From this experience, I am beginning to know why.

Thank you, Judge Marvin E. Aspen

    email: clr@clr.org

    Return to Aspen's Home Page

May 7, 1998