News and Updates
Stay informed about the latest developments in judicial accessibility and human rights.
IAJ Announces Major Initiative to Reform Court Accessibility Standards
Comprehensive program aims to modernize court accessibility requirements and implementation across all jurisdictions.
Read MoreLatest Articles
Most people don't realize how badly they're being manipulated right now
Insightful analysis by Elon Musk on the manipulation of the public trust, and the exercise of control through manufactured narrative. The importance of the observance of treaties is noted. A video is published on YouTube documenting his statement.
Testimony by Jessica Saxton, “civil rights advocate and litigator”, to Arizona’s Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
A “civil rights advocate and litigator”, and complainant to the IAJ, presents a statement of human rights violations to a state county government. A video is published on YouTube documenting her statement.
Not 'the gospel.' Ahead of Supreme Court term, Clarence Thomas weighs in on precedent
"At some point we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis,” Justice Clarence Thomas said about the legal term that protects stability in the law. "And it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say 'stare decisis' and not think, turn off the brain.”, Maureen Groppe, USA Today Sept 27, 2025
See also Laura Mitchell, MSN, Thomas Breaks from Supreme Court Precedent "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has claimed that precedent is not binding gospel and that judges should not follow "stare decisis" automatically. He argued that prior rulings should yield when they lack a sound legal basis. Thomas added that judges may depart from precedent if it is unpersuasive or poorly reasoned and urged reconsideration of substantive due process rulings."
Article entitled ‘Killer Family Courts’ posted by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee to Medium.com
QUOTE: Arizona Lawmakers Expose Corruption, Murdered Children, and a Billion-Dollar Custody Cartel -- Since my testimonies before the Arizona and the Idaho legislatures on Family Court violence, there have been additional hearings both in Idaho and in Arizona. I have always underscored the need to cover Family Court abuses in terms of preventable killings from murder, mayhem, and suicide — and to leave behind the convoluted legal and academic verbiage — so as to call attention to the true magnitude of the crisis, in stark medical terms. Without this, we will fall short of appreciating the true severity of this national emergency — without appeasing, pleasing, or trying to sound “professional”. This would amount to a Battered Nation Syndrome. Now, after more than three years since I started urging this approach, legislatures are hearing it, and journalists are covering it: [refers to article] Murdered Children, Abusive Exes, and a Billion-Dollar Custody Cartel By Richard Luthmann Published August 29, 2025
Read Article View VideoLong-running lawsuit against Texas’ foster care system appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court -- Texas Tribune
Lawyers representing foster children asked the high court to reinstate a contempt order against the state, and the judge who issued it. ... U.S. District Judge Janis Jack was removed from the case in October, after more than 13 years as the state’s de facto foster care czar. She issued the original ruling in the 2011 lawsuit that found kids were leaving state care more damaged than when they entered, after being “shuttled throughout a system where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm.” She placed the state system under federal oversight, which the state fought in court for many years. In the years since that initial ruling, Jack found the state in contempt three times for failing to comply with court ordered reforms. The most recent contempt order was in April 2024, when she ordered the state to pay $100,000 a day until it could prove it was properly investigating abuse and neglect allegations among the most disabled children in state care. The state appealed that ruling. In October, the 5th Circuit reversed Jack’s contempt order, ruling that it was criminal, not civil in nature, and ordered her removed from the case. Jack has been replaced by U.S. Chief District Judge Randy Crane. Jack’s increasing frustration with the state’s noncompliance was evident from the bench, which the appeals court described as “a sustained pattern, over the course of months and numerous hearings, of disrespect for the Defendants and their counsel, but no such attitude toward the Plaintiffs’ counsel.” In the petition to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the foster children said this was an overreach by an appellate court that previously had upheld Jack’s rulings on the merits. Reassigning a judge should be an extraordinary step, “not a workaday offensive weapon for disgruntled litigants,” they wrote in the petition. Lead counsel Paul Yetter said in a statement this week that Jack held the state accountable. “Removing her and overturning her contempt order sends the message that these children don’t matter, and the state need not continue its reforms,” he said. “That’s especially dangerous for children with disabilities, who face life-threatening risks in a system like this one.” From Eleanor Klibanoff, The Texas Tribune, May 16, 2025
See also: Public benefit overview of the case from Litigation Connect: "Inside the Texas Foster Care Crisis: Lawsuits, Deaths, and Federal Oversight" August 12, 2025 -- Labels the system “broken” and tracks the lawsuit from its 2011 filing (M.D. v. Perry) through contempt rulings and judicial reassignment. Highlights 49 child deaths since 2019, failed placements, and trafficking risks. Critiques the Fifth Circuit’s removal of Judge Janis Jack as a blow to accountability. Frames the case as a battle between federal oversight and state autonomy, with lives hanging in the balance. “Even with reforms underway, tragedy continues" … removing Judge Jack disrupted stabilized oversight.
See also: The official procedural timeline from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services for institutional traceability and forensic documentation: Includes every major filing, ruling, and compliance report from 2011 to 2025. Shows how the case evolved from a class-action suit to a federally monitored system. Documents the injunctions, appeals, and the role of court-appointed monitors.
You’re Not a Criminal, But You’re Going to Jail: My ICE Detention Story as a Canadian Citizen
A detailed account of the treatment of persons deprived of liberty through border control seen from the eyes of detainee Jasmine Mooney.
Federal judge abandons 6-year bright line of disability accommodation and Safe Harbor in favor of national judicial policy of human rights violation
After six years of accommodating a litigant with Multiple Sclerosis and increasing illness induced by other courts, federal judge Beth Freeman abandoned her precedent-setting national standard on court disability accommodation on March 10, 2025. This leaves no ADA-compliant and no human rights compliant model accommodation for disabled litigants in the United States, using which to compel state and federal court to accommodate (invisible) disabilities. The explanation the judge offered was that she must give Full Faith and Credit to an order by a state court judge, who is being prosecuted in a pending court case in her own federal court for violations of the ADA and human rights and other serious charges, thus, in effect, short-circuiting that lawsuit and rendering a verdict without jurisdiction. She also insisted that if a disabled litigant shows any sign of writing objections to their treatment or filing any document, they shall be punished by the removal of all disability accommodation, and will be ordered to participate in litigation. In so doing, the judge deprived the litigant of life-saving medical treatment and caused him injuries. The Freeman Bright Line of court accommodation should not have been abandoned according to the ADA, since the federal judiciary is charged with the preemptive setting of a uniform national standard on the elimination of all discrimination based on disability ON BEHALF OF disabled litigants.
Read ArticleIAJ Launches Global Research Initiative on Court Accessibility
Major study to examine court accessibility standards and implementation across jurisdictions.
Read ArticleCanceled: 83rd session of the Committe Against Torture
Due to the starvation of funds at the United Nations, particularly by the United States, the 83rd session of the CAT, scheduled for July 2025, was canceled. The non-compliance of the United States with the UNCAT was to be one of the areas of review in the 83rd session.
Read ArticleThe Supreme Court’s ‘ethics code’ is a blatant attempt to gaslight America | Opinion
The Supreme Court’s new code of ethics is little more than a naked attempt to gaslight our nation after a year of disturbing reports showing the justices have been engaged in what would be considered highly unethical conduct in any other branch of government. Chief Justice John Roberts would have Americans believe the justices’ self-inflicted ethical problems are merely a “misunderstanding” and that the justices are now simply codifying principles that already govern their conduct. In other words, “This is fine.” But recent polls show a majority of Americans — regardless of political affiliation — disagree. It’s time to demand accountability from our country’s highest legal authority by passing the ethics code introduced by Senate Democrats. Federal law requires justices to recuse themselves from hearing cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned — a mandate the Supreme Court has blatantly ignored and is now attempting to rewrite. The law says justices “shall disqualify” themselves in such cases, but the Supreme Court’s new code of conduct only suggests justices “should disqualify” themselves. Worse, the code is unenforceable. By giving individual justices sole power over their own recusals, it guarantees nothing will change. ... The justices have been brazen in their disregard for ethical standards, with Roberts refusing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request to testify on the subject and Alito asserting that Congress has “no authority” to regulate them. Already, 70% of Americans think the Supreme Court should be subject to congressional ethics investigations, and they’re unlikely to buy this fig leaf of a code of conduct. Three in every four voters — including 72% of Republicans — support taking congressional action to implement a binding code of ethics over these justices who refuse to police themselves. ... The Supreme Court claims the code it just enacted is sufficient. In truth, it greenlights the justices’ egregious conduct.
See Devon Ombres, Miami Herald, December 5, 2023