[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2106-E2108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SPEECH BY MARK ROBINSON

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 2, 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
insert in the Record a speech given by Mr. Mark Robinson to the Men's 
Fellowship of the St. John United Presbyterian Church in New Albany, 
IN, on September 13, 1995.
  Mark has worked for many years at the New Albany office of the Legal 
Services Organization of Indiana. I have the greatest respect for him 
and the efforts he has made on behalf of numerous residents of southern 
Indiana.
  Mark makes in his speech an eloquent and passionate defense of legal 
services. He provides an illuminating look into the mission of legal 
service organizations in Indiana and around the country--namely, 
providing desperately needed legal assistance to the indigent.
  I hope all of my colleagues will take a moment to read this speech:

[[Page E 2107]]


                     The Challenge of Civil Justice

                         (By J. Mark Robinson)

       Old Testament Roots: For more than 20 years I have been 
     challenged by, indeed captivated by, an Old Testament 
     question. It is a simple question. But the straightforward, 
     yet profound answer, and the consequences arising therefrom, 
     can be life altering. It has been for me. The Question is 
     this: What does the Lord require of you? Personalizing the 
     question, it becomes: What does the Lord require of Mark 
     Robinson?
       God--through the Prophet Micah (6:8)--reveals this answer: 
     to do justice, to love, kindness, and to walk humbly with 
     your God. Doing justice within the framework of our American 
     legal system has been my calling for the past seventeen (17) 
     years.
       New Albany Office: In early November 1978, I opened New 
     Albany office of Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc. 
     Our Congressional Mission was to provide high quality legal 
     services to poor people, for a wide variety of civil legal 
     problems. We conduct no criminal practice; that is the 
     province of the Public Defenders.
       Civil legal problems include: housing issues, typically on 
     behalf of tenants; family law, including domestic violence 
     against women and children; consumer concerns; public 
     benefits such as S.S.I. and Medicaid; educational matters 
     like a school expulsion; and mental health law. Since I know 
     some of you have agonized over the Tax Code, let me assure 
     you that it has a jealous sibling, known as the Medicaid 
     Manual! Few layers will touch it, let alone represent persons 
     who are trying to access health care by Medicaid.
       Judge Paul Taggart: After my first hearing in Floyd Circuit 
     Court in late 1978, Judge Paul Taggart called me into his 
     chambers. I expected the worst! To my great surprise he said: 
     ``I'm glad you're here.'' To a young lawyer's ears those 
     words were ``glad tidings of great joy''. Judge Taggart went 
     on: ``For years, I have been the unofficial legal aid office 
     of Floyd County. I have talked to countless tenants and 
     consumers. They have no where to go for advice, and I can't 
     turn them away. For the most part, they are good people, just 
     poor, and they have done no harm to society or to our 
     community.''
       He went on to contrast how sad it was, in his opinion, that 
     convicted criminals--many of whom had inflicted serious harm 
     on members of society--had almost unlimited access to free 
     legal resources, court fees waived, free transcript of the 
     trial court proceeding, free appellate counsel, often access 
     to the Supreme Court of Indiana. But a poor, law abiding 
     person, who has a marriage problem, or a problem with a 
     landlord or merchant . . . for them . . . ``no one is there 
     to help--but I've helped'', so concluded the Honorable Paul 
     Taggart. For the past 17 years, I and our small professional 
     staff have tried to carry forward his vision, and his 
     concern.
       My Background and Commitment: Why do I do this kind of 
     legal work? Our present accusers in Congress are still 
     seeking to abolish the Legal Services Corporation, saying, 
     among other things, that I and all my colleagues are 
     ``liberal, left-wing ideologies who use the law to accomplish 
     a social agenda.'' I take exception! I am not a bleeding 
     heart liberal. I am: (a) a Purdue engineering graduate; (b) 
     as a young engineer, I worked in the nuclear reactor industry 
     for Babcock & Wilcox Co.; (c) we manufactured nuclear reactor 
     vessels for, among others, Admiral Rickover's nuclear navy 
     fleet. No one has ever characterized these acts as ``liberal 
     activities''.
       I worked as an engineer until I had saved enough money for 
     graduate school. At the Louisville Presbyterian Theological 
     Seminary in the early 1970's were many draft resisters; rest 
     assured, my work in the nuclear industry hardly caused me to 
     be their ``soul mates''. Furthermore, my Purdue education had 
     not equipped me to engage in protest marches, or food 
     boycotts.
       Upon graduating from Law School and Seminary in the Spring 
     of 1974, I returned to corporate America as in-house legal 
     counsel for Chemetron Corporation's four divisions in 
     Louisville. But in-house counsel didn't try cases. I wanted 
     to try cases in court. So, I went to the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers for three years doing nothing but trying cases in 
     federal courts. And although we took people's land, and 
     homes, and farms . . . for the ``common good'' (Patoka Lake, 
     Lake Monroe, etc.) . . . the Corps was never accused of 
     ``liberal activities''.
       Then, after 4\1/2\ years of lawyering, I was privileged to 
     open the New Albany Office of Legal Services Organization of 
     Indiana, Inc. Not because I was a bleeding heart--I wasn't--
     but because I could try cases, and wanted to do so very much 
     on behalf of poor people. You see, I grew up in a relatively 
     poor family, and I, for one, have not forgotten my roots.
       My Motivation: In light of the above, why would I want to 
     represent poor people in the American justice system? 
     Because, finally, my theology was shaping my loves, life, 
     work and values. From seminary professors, solid biblical 
     textbooks, and the Old and New Testaments, I was discovering 
     that this God--worshipped in our Judeo-Christian tradition--
     is a God who consistently stands with the poor, the 
     oppressed, the wretched and cursed people of society. As 
     typified magnificently by the Exodus from Egypt, whenever 
     there is a clash between powerful people and powerful 
     institutions on one hand, and the poor on the other, . . . 
     Yahweh will always be found on the side of the poor. That is 
     what my reading of Scripture tells me. but not only that, 
     Scripture seems to reserve its harshest words for all those 
     who oppress the weak, the poor, the orphans and widows of 
     society. And so, as a lawyer, and as a Presbyterian minister, 
     I have unashamedly represented the poorest members of our 
     society--in our great courts of law--from Lawrenceburg to 
     English, an eleven (11) county area in southeastern Indiana 
     with 38,000 poor persons, for the past 17 years. It has been 
     a great privilege.
       See and Hear Their Problems: What do legal problems of poor 
     people look like? What do their voice plead for? Let me 
     sketch out several real cases from my practice here in 
     southeastern Indiana.
       A. Domestic violence: 1. A Woman from Salem.--Our office 
     received a call from the Spouse Abuse Center; it was an 
     emergency; the time was approximately 3:30 p.m. When she 
     arrived in our offices her first words were: ``Don't anyone 
     touch me, not my shoulders, and please don't even shake my 
     hand''. Strange initial words. We quickly learned why.
       Her husband had finally managed to strike the decisive 
     blow. He had hit her with such intensity that the blow had 
     pulverized the bone structure around her left eye; there was 
     no effective socket to hold in the eyeball. She was scheduled 
     for facial reconstructive surgery the next morning at Floyd 
     Memorial Hospital. Any slight jar of her body might cause the 
     eye to pop out! After years of physical abuse, this was the 
     defining moment; she knew the marriage must end.
       I ask each of you: if she were your daughter, or your 
     sister, would you not agree with her decision, and support 
     her fully?
       By 4:30 p.m., an hour after her arrival to our office, we 
     had gathered all relevant information, prepared all necessary 
     legal pleadings, motions and orders and sent her back to her 
     protective shelter.
       By 9:00 a.m. the next morning, before Judge Henry Leist of 
     the Floyd Circuit Court, the case was filed and the Temporary 
     Restraining Order was immediately issued.
       This woman needed the remedies offered by our civil justice 
     system. She had no money. She depended on Legal Services 
     lawyers to make the civil justice system of our country work 
     for her. Making civil justice work, even for the poor, is why 
     President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 signed into law the Legal 
     Services Corporation Act. My friends, if there is only one 
     system of justice, then the poor must have access to our 
     courts. Yet that very Act, 21 years after Nixon signed it, is 
     now at genuine risk of being abolished by our present 
     Congress.
       2. A Woman in Jeffersonville.--In Clark Superior Court I, a 
     young ``twenty-something'' caucasian mother of two small 
     children testified: ``When he threw me on the carpet and 
     stomped on my chest with his combat boots on, that was bad 
     enough, but I took it.'' ``But the last straw was when I was 
     giving our baby its evening bottle. I was in our living room, 
     in the rocker, in front of our window. My sister was sitting 
     across the room; we were just talking. My husband threw a 
     brick through the window, and shattered glass went flying 
     everywhere; it hit my sister, it hit me, it hit our baby.'' 
     This mother, trying hard to rear two children, knew one thing 
     with certainty: ``I've got to get out!''
       The issues which arise in dissolving a marriage involve 
     custody, support, visitation, medical expenses for the 
     children's care, who gets the car, the refrigerator, the 
     bills; all are issues worked through in our civil courts.
       3. An Amish Woman.--Here is one last glance at violence in 
     modern marriage. She is an Amish woman, living near New 
     Albany, married, mother of 4, three of whom are teens. A 
     person of considerable faith, she described how her religious 
     community might shun her if she did what she knew she had to 
     do. I can't imagine anyone here at St. John engaging in such 
     insensitive conduct; but to her, the possibility of being 
     shunned caused her real fear. She described her husband as 
     oppressive and dictatorial. She could not leave the house 
     without a listing of each place she planned to go; upon 
     return, there awaited an inquisition. He demanded a strict 
     accounting of time and place. But, she had managed for years 
     to bear that reality.
       What broke her heart was the husband's insistence that the 
     three teens--each evening--scavenge food from dumpsters and 
     bring their bounty home for his inspection. She said: ``This 
     isn't right. It's not even healthful; and, I can't bear it 
     anymore.'' A judicial decree, an order of child support, and 
     a protective order all came from our civil courts, which 
     rarely make the Jeffersonville Evening News or the New Albany 
     Tribune.
       Fellow believers, please hear, and understand, what is now 
     happening in our nation. The so-called ``Christian'' 
     Coalition, under Ralph Reed's leadership, wants our Congress 
     to stop all funding for the Legal Services Corporation 
     because Legal Services lawyers--meaning me--are contributing 
     to the destruction of the American family because of all the 
     divorces we do. I resent that characterization of my 
     professional work!
       In all three example I've given you, all meaningfulness in 
     human relationships was destroyed long before these women 
     sought my legal help.
       ``Faith, hope, love abide--these three'' writes the Apostle 
     Paul. But I ask each of you: Where is faithfulness at work in 
     any one of those relationships? Where does hope find 
     expression in any one of those relationships? Where does love 
     abound in any one of those relationships? 

[[Page E 2108]]

       There is no faith, no hope, no love in those marriages. The 
     marriage needed to end, so these three women concluded. 
     Respecting their decision, I helped each one use our civil 
     justice system to accomplish their goal.
       Because of our civil justice system, and these women's 
     access to it, they finally began to get a glimpse of new 
     life; new beginnings; re-birth; a sense of hope for their 
     future, and their children's future; a renewed faith that 
     once again love might find them, and surround them, and 
     nurture and sustain them. It is exactly what each of us wants 
     in our lives.
       I tell you truthfully, when I face my Maker, there are 
     parts of my life for which I will not be proud; but, I will 
     always be proud to have represented these three women, and 
     many, many more like them, Ralph Read notwithstanding.
       B. Housing: Few of us--maybe not one of us--will go home 
     tonight worried about losing our house. Right now I have six 
     (6) clients who do worry--daily--about whether they will get 
     to keep their subsidized apartments, for themselves and their 
     children. Let me share one example from rural southern 
     Indiana.
       My client is in her 30's, divorced mother, head of 
     household with two children. For reasons known only to God, 
     she is mentally short-changed, with an I.Q. possibly of 70. 
     She contributes 30% of her available monthly income for rent. 
     H.U.D. pays the balance to achieve market rent. She has a 
     small two bedroom apartment. She says, very slowly: ``Mr. 
     Robinson, it's the nicest house I've ever had.'' The 
     apartment complex has sued her and wants to evict her and her 
     children. This has been going on since July. Hence, she 
     worries daily.
       Why does management want her out? There are only two (2) 
     allegations: (1) unclean living conditions and (2) an 
     unauthorized over-night guest. Without a lawyer, she has 
     virtually no chance of receiving a just and fair decision, 
     and it has nothing to do with the presiding Judge, but rather 
     with court procedure.
       How can that be? The case was filed in Small Claims Court. 
     In Small Claims Court, hearsay is permitted. Thus, the 
     apartment manager, with her lawyer's help, will tell the 
     Judge what a maintenance worker saw (without the worker being 
     personally present in court), and what one of her 
     Indianapolis owners saw (without the owner being personally 
     present), and what certain ``notes'' in the folder say about 
     unclean conditions. Obviously this tenant can't cross-examine 
     the maintenance man who isn't present, or the Indianapolis 
     owner who isn't present. Even if they were present, my client 
     doesn't know how, and probably is mentally incapable of 
     conducting an effective cross-examination. With a lawyer, 
     however, the scales of justice are again balanced. We filed 
     the appropriate motion to move the case to the Court's 
     Plenary Civil Docket. Now, hearsay basically falls by the 
     wayside. And if the maintenance man appears, I will 
     vigorously cross-examine.
       Let me tell you that as to the accusation of uncleanliness, 
     I have been in her home, with my legal assistant, three 
     times. It has always been neat, tidy and clean (as I 
     understand the plain meaning of those words).
       As to the allegation of an unauthorized guest, the facts 
     are these. After the funeral for her infant child, in her 
     grief, she did request a friend to stay with her for two 
     nights; the friend did. Overnight guests are not 
     categorically prohibited under the lease; management simply 
     doesn't want extended visitors--and rightly so. But one 
     visitor, for two nights, following this traumatic event, is 
     neither unreasonable, nor a violation of her lease. My 
     client, however, could not make that argument on her own! She 
     needs a lawyer. And for now, at least, she has one.
       C. Child survivor benefits: the Social Security 
     Administration.--We represented a 5 year old child who never 
     knew her daddy. While she was still in utero, her daddy 
     drowned in a tragic boating accident on July 4th. Her mother 
     and father had not yet married, but were making plans to 
     marry. They had already talked with both sets of parents, and 
     had their full support. The pregnant mother lived at home 
     with her own parents, in part because the medical costs of 
     pregnancy and delivery were covered by her father's health 
     provider. The child's daddy finally had a pretty good paying 
     job, but of course no benefits.
       Because of the untimely death, there was never a marriage. 
     Paternity was never established because everyone knew who the 
     daddy was. Eventually the mother applied for her daughter's 
     Social Security Survivor's benefits. Her initial application 
     was denied. Then came the hearing before the Administrative 
     Law Judge; the child's application was again denied. Next 
     came Appeals Council, located in Arlington, Virginia, and she 
     was again denied. Now the real question: Whether to sue the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services in Federal District 
     Court? The United States would be defended by the U.S. 
     Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
     Indianapolis. At this time, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 
     in Chicago (whose cases generally have binding precedent on 
     Indiana federal judges) had three (3) decided cases, each on 
     point, and each against our client's position. There was not 
     much to be hopeful about.
       Nonetheless, we sued in federal court. We briefed the 
     issues. We carefully distinguished each of the three 7th 
     Circuit cases. The legal issue was whether daddy, before his 
     death, had ``substantially contributed to the care of the 
     child.'' As an aside, let me tell you that if daddy and his 
     pregnant fiance had been living together, without marriage, 
     then our government would have given the child the requested 
     benefits. It would have been relatively straightforward. But, 
     this couple had chosen to live with their parents, not each 
     other.
       The end of this long and painful journey is that we won. 
     The Federal Judge, the Honorable S. Hugh Dillin, issued a 
     carefully crafted decision, following almost exactly our 
     argument. And, the Justice Department decided not to appeal. 
     That sizable award of money, invested until age 18, secured 
     this small child's college education. It was accomplished by 
     a Legal Services lawyer, namely me.
       Closing: Floyd County is unique among our 11 counties in 
     southeastern Indiana. The Floyd County Bar Association has 
     had a Pro Bono Project for the past year. I serve on that 
     committee. About 20 lawyers have volunteered up to 50 hours 
     per year of free legal services to poor people. That also 
     means that about 120 lawyers have not. But 20 is an excellent 
     start for the project's first year. I'm proud to say that an 
     attorney in this congregation is one of those 20 lawyers 
     committed to serving the poor through this project.
       In closing, with the substantial reduction in Congressional 
     funding for the Legal Services Corporation, and its very 
     possible complete elimination, may each of us here tonight 
     remember the Prophet Micah's challenge to the people of God 
     to ``Do Justice'', as thousands of poor people in 
     southeastern Indiana increasingly realize that not only is 
     Justice hard to achieve, but that access to justice is in 
     very short supply.
       Thank you for your concern.

                          ____________________