PRO SE INFORMATION Self-Representation (Pro Se) INDEX
News & Views by Year	Pro-Se Specials
News & View 2008	Special Reports & Research Papers
News & View 2007	Unauthorized Practice of Law
News & View 2006

---

Pro-Se News & Views

December 2007

INDIANA  

Judge Orders Couple To Pay $41,000 For Lawsuit
Over Dress Code

By Tiffany Griffin

12-26-07 -- (AP) — A couple whose lawsuit challenging a school district's new dress code was rejected has been ordered by a federal judge to pay nearly $41,000 in court costs. . . . Laura and Scott Bell's lawsuit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in August after the couple missed critical deadlines and pressed claims he deemed frivolous. . . . Now, Tinder has ordered the couple to pay Anderson Community Schools the $40,931 the district says its law firm charged for defending the couple's lawsuit in July and August. . . . "It's flat ridiculous," said Laura Bell, noting that the amount is more than the family's annual income. . . . The judge's decision underlines the risk of wading into legal waters without a lawyer, as the Bells did. In litigation, paying the winning side's attorney fees is common. . . . The Bells of Anderson sued in July to try to prevent a new dress code policy from taking effect. The couple, who has five school-age children and stepchildren, contended the policy would wrongly take control away from parents.

---

WASHINGTON

It's not justice if it's not equal, even when it's a civil proceeding

Stanley A. Bastian & Scott A. Smith, Guest Columnists

12-26-07 -- We know from movies and television shows that if you're arrested, the police will read you your rights, which includes the right to an attorney if you cannot afford one. That's been the law of the land since 1963 when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that to have a fair trial, you need adequate legal representation. What many people do not realize is that you are not entitled to legal representation in civil cases even when fundamental rights are at stake. . . . The Brenda King case is a good example. Mrs. King stayed at home to raise her children. When her marriage ended, her husband hired an attorney to sue for custody. She could not afford a lawyer or find a free one to help her out. The stakes were enormous and she was forced to defend herself at trial. With a ninth-grade education and no legal training, she did not understand the complex laws and procedures of the courtroom. Pitted against her husband's experienced trial lawyer, she lost. Her husband was granted primary custody and decision-making authority for raising their children. . . . Unfortunately, the Brenda King situation happens far too often in our legal system. On any given day, someone faced with losing basic personal or family needs such as shelter, sustenance, health care, or child custody must do so without legal assistance. For low-income individuals our open public courts might as well remain closed. . . . Judges traditionally accommodate pro se, or unrepresented individuals, by helping them understand legal procedures or slowing courtroom proceedings. In Brenda King's case, the court allowed what probably should have been a two day trial to take more than twice as long. Such delays are needed in pro se cases, but they eat up valuable court time and public resources.

---

---

November 2007

PENNSYLVANIA

Woman Rubbed the Wrong Way by Toilet Paper Tax
Wins Suit Against Kmart

New York Lawyer, The Associated Press

11-30-07 -- A western Pennsylvania woman won $100 plus court costs after she sued Kmart for twice collecting sales tax on a nontaxable necessity: toilet paper. . . . Mary Bach, of Murrysville, said Kmart offered to settle the case out of court before a Thursday hearing at which a Monroeville district judge sided with her. But the settlement required her to sign a confidentiality agreement, which would have defeated the purpose of her suit, Bach said. . . . "I want consumers as they shop during the important holiday to be aware of what is and what isn't taxable," Bach said after the verdict. "I would lose my ability to spread that message if I were gagged." . . . Bach sued in October after a Kmart store in Monroeville twice collected a 7 percent tax — 28 cents — when she bought a 12-roll package of toilet paper for $3.99. . . . Although most paper goods are taxable in Pennsylvania, toilet tissue is listed as a nontaxable item by the state Department of Revenue. . . . Kmart, a unit of Sears Holdings Corp., will not appeal the verdict.

---

---

FLORIDA

Murder case takes a bizarre turn

By Larry Keller, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

11-12-07 -- The upcoming trial of octogenarian and synagogue murder suspect Marc Benayer already figured to be odd, given that he insists on acting as his own attorney. . . . A court hearing Friday illustrated another wrinkle that holds the potential to turn the trial into farce: Benayer, 81, is practically deaf. And Circuit Judge Richard Wennet - who alternately referred to Benayer as "Mr. Bennington" and "Mr. Benay" - also has some hearing loss. . . . That combination led to the following exchange Friday: . ..  Wennet to Benayer: "I didn't hear what you said." . ..  Benayer in response: "I didn't hear what you said, Your Honor." . . . Court personnel provided Benayer with a headset that amplifies sound. No dice. . ..  "It's not clear, your honor," Benayer said. . . . "Well, that's because I'm not talking," the judge replied. . . . Benayer couldn't hear that either. . . . From then on, Wennet almost shouted every time he addressed the white-haired defendant. . . . "Can you hear me now?" he bellowed to Benayer, sounding like the ubiquitous TV commercial. Benayer said he could.

---

---

Not all accused want a lawyer, even at the taxpayers' expense
More litigants forgo counsel in civil issues

By Erica Blake, Blade Staff Writer

11-5-07 -- When witnesses offered testimony during a recent hearing in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, they responded by looking into the eyes of the man accused of robbery, who also happened to be the one asking the questions. . . . Despite a defendant's Constitutional right to attorney representation, some choose to go it alone. . . .Take Eddie J. Moss, for example. Although Moss eventually agreed to be represented by an attorney when he entered a no-contest plea to a robbery charge late last month, the North Toledo man insisted throughout the proceedings in his case that he wanted to go pro se, or represent himself in court. . . . That means he filed his own motion to suppress the one-on-one identification that led to his arrest. And he conducted his own questioning of witnesses. . . . While his tactics were never taught in law school - including opening his brown jail-issued jumpsuit to reveal to a witness the color of the shorts he was wearing when he was arrested - his right to defend himself was absolute. . . . "The Constitution says that your right to counsel is guaranteed and courts quite properly go out of their way if the defendant is going to be his or her own attorney to make sure he knows all the risks," said Jim Yavorcik, a vice president of the Toledo Bar Association. . . . "While a layman might think they are familiar with their case, they certainly will not be familiar with the court procedures and rules of evidence." . . . According to information released last fall by the National Center for State Courts, the numbers of litigants who represent themselves in civil matters continues to increase.

---

---

October 2007

The Pro Se Litigant

Sometimes justice is constrained by the law—but all can pursue a day in court

By Bonnie Walker, ABA Journal EReport

It was always an event when a pro se plaintiff appeared in the courtroom. Anything could happen when someone unacquainted with the culture and ritual of the court stood at the podium to argue his case. Pro se litigants were often misfits pursuing preposterous cases in a desperate effort to imbue their lives with purpose. Others were colorful eccentrics who regarded the courtroom as a theater and relished the opportunity to perform before a captive audience. There was, for instance, the gentleman who feigned a limp and insisted on being called “captain.” . . . Maria Jaretzki* was different. She was no lost soul, no kooky pretender. There was something regal about this woman who stood before the court, straight and proud like a timber tree. The panel—three judges renowned for making even experienced attorneys tremble—scrutinized her sternly. But she was not in the least intimidated. She would not bend. [Emphasis added].

---

NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE ON PRO SE REPRESENTATION

Clients taking on own cases in court

By Diane Krieger Spivak Post-Tribune staff writer

10-7-07 -- More often than not, in civil courts these days lawyers are being replaced by their own clients. . . . According to statistics provided by the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada-Reno, more than 80 percent of family law cases in the United States involve at least one person who represents himself or herself. . . . Called pro se, or self-represented litigants, they are increasing in greater numbers than ever before. . . . In half of the family law cases both litigants represent themselves. By 2010 it's estimated that the vast majority of legal proceedings will be self represented. . . . “We're seeing more," Porter Superior Court Judge David Chidester said. . . . Reasons range from the cost of hiring an attorney to anti-lawyer sentiment to easy access to information on the Internet, Chidester said. . . . "There are people in gray areas who have an income but their money is earmarked for bills," Chidester said. "They can't afford a private attorney but they don't qualify for a public defender." . . . Most self-represented litigants are seen in small claims courts. . . . "But family law is seeing more in juvenile and divorce court," Chidester said. . . . Chidester recently attended a course for judges in how to handle pro se litigants at the national Judicial College. . . Self representation often presents a problem for judges for a number of reasons. . . . "It takes up more time in court, and its a struggle for judges," Chidester said. "We're not allowed to help one side or the other, but we often have to ask them questions or have them rephrase something."

---

---

September 2007

NORTH CAROLINA

Inmate files frivolous suits against celebs

By Taylor Bright · The Charlotte Observer
9-20-07 -- Jeff Gordon has secret plans to put wings on the No. 24 car and fly it into Fort Knox. The car also time travels. . . . Gordon has a secret trap door in the car to "drop tic tacs and oil" on the racetrack, not to mention he stole the talking Trans Am, Kitt, from the television show "Knight Rider." . . . All of the claims and much more are in a federal lawsuit filed by Jonathan Lee Riches, a prolific and litigious inmate in South Carolina. . . . Riches, 30, is serving more than 10 years at Williamsburg Federal Correctional Institution in Salters, where he churns out fantastic lawsuits against everyone from President Bush to NBA phenom LeBron James. . . . His outlandish suits have a following on the Internet and have been featured on The Smoking Gun Web site, among others. . . . Calling himself the "Litigator Crusader," his most recent suit was filed against Gordon and Hendrick Motorsports in federal court in Charlotte last week. . . . Filed with a heading of "Recklessly Drivin My Life Crazy," Riches' lawsuit seeks $22 billion and Gordon's race car. Hendrick Motorsports did not return several calls seeking comment. . . . Neither groups who want to curb inmate lawsuits nor those who champion inmate lawsuits are pleased with Riches.

---

FLORIDA

Can't afford a lawyer? Be one

System adjusts as DIY approach to legal matters gains popularity

By Todd Ruger

9-4-07 -- Vanessa Rosario works on her own car problems and home repairs, so when her husband filed for divorce she decided to save money and do without an attorney. . . . There is no fight over child support or property, and her husband did not hire an attorney, either. The court filing fee was $300. . . . "We did all the paperwork at my son's football game," Rosario, 36, said outside a courthouse office where her case was heard Wednesday. "This was easy." . . . At a time when people forgo travel agents for booking trips online and favor do-it-yourself stores over home contractors, area courts are working to accommodate a growing number of people who cannot afford a lawyer or do not want to pay one. . . . The traditional saying about a person who acts as his own attorney is that he has "a fool for a client." But that may apply more to criminal defendants and less to small claims and family law. Actions such as divorces, paternity cases, domestic violence injunctions, small claims lawsuits and tenant evictions are all routinely handled without the help of an attorney, court workers say.

---

---

CONNECTICUT

Laborina has experience as his own lawyer

By Stephen P. Clark, Staff Writer

9-2-07 --  Vincent Larobina, who is suing the city for eliminating backyard trash pickup, is no stranger to the courts. . . . In the past decade, he has brought many lawsuits against city and state government, corporations, and state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford. . . . And Larobina, a 55-year-old retiree who has studied the law for 15 years but does not hold a law degree, has represented himself in all of them. . . . "Most people can't fight and that's what corporations understand," he said. "That's what (Mayor Dannel) Malloy and these guys understand. People know they're getting ripped off. They also know to hire a lawyer is going to cost them an exorbitant amount of money. But I'm not in that position."

---

What’s the Real Crisis in Pro Se Litigation? Lack of Access to Counsel.

Kia Franklin

Any person who chooses to represent himself has a fool for a lawyer and a damn fool for a client. That’s what they say, and in some cases, this assessment is spot on (which reminds me…I wonder how many google hits Roy Pearson gets these days…). But taken without qualification, this axiom can lead to a troubling and short-sighted condemnation of individuals who cannot afford an attorney and may be in serious need of legal services. . . . Self representation in court, or pro se litigation, has had its fair share of the spotlight on the web recently: in an article in Forbes, an article in the American, and a (more balanced peice) blog on WSJ. To greater and lesser extents, these pieces mischaracterize pro se litigation as a “problem” that is emblematic of big bad evil crazy plaintiffs preying on poor little businesses who’ve done absolutely nothing wrong but mind their own. These vindictive vamps, according to these articles, are sucking innocent corporations dry with ludicrous and lucrative lawsuits. . . . Rather than addressing the access crisis pro se litigation reflects, this coverage portrayed pro se litigants as crazy—as in both colloquially loo-loo and clinically in need of mental health services—and opportunistic. Each peice opens with a laughable lawsuit anectode: one about the guy who has filed lawsuits against Michael Vick, Jimmy Hoffa, Skittles, George W. Bush, Plato, and Jessica Alba, to name a few; another about a woman who sued Bank of America a ridiculous number of times, quite probably out of spite; and another about someone who sued Eli Lilly multiple times per year over the course of a decade. They then go into a purportedly more sober and objective discussion of pro se litigation. Again, the WSJ blog provides a pretty fair assessment, including an interview with a lawyer who provides assistance to pro se claimants. But, as I’ll discuss, the other articles just let the pop tort fluff fly.

---

In an Amicus brief to the Washington State Supreme Court on behalf of a pro se plaintiff who lost custody of her children, a group of retired judges wrote the following:

A core principle of our judicial system is that it should provide equal justice for all. The Washington Constitution gives meaning to this pledge through the guarantee of meaningful access to the courts for all citizens. Yet it is self-evident to judges, practicing attorneys, and thoughtful persons, that in most instances indigent persons without counsel are not receiving the same quality of justice as those with counsel and are effectively deprived of meaningful access to the courts. . . . Studies show that indigent persons without counsel receive less favorable outcomes dramatically more often than those with counsel. The disparity in outcomes is so great that the conclusion is inescapable—indigent pro se litigants are regularly losing cases that they should be winning if they had counsel. . . . Efforts to provide pro bono representation for indigent litigants in civil cases have not come close to meeting the need. Accordingly, if the constitutional guarantee of access to the courts is to have meaning, courts must appoint counsel at least where basic human needs are at stake and there is no other pro bono representation available.

---

---

August 2007

California Law Libraries Offer Self-Help Web Site

HALT ejournal

When looking for legal self-help resources, the Council of California County Law Libraries provides an extensive list from which to choose. . . . Their Web site, which provides information in eight different languages, offers a variety of self-help resources, including over a dozen links to self-help centers in California and nationwide, legal research tools and law library Web sites. . . . There are also 13 mini-research classes available, with topics including how to use self-help resources, find forms and look for codes and statutes.  . . . Visit the Council's Web site here.

---

PENNSYLVANIA

The Law's Loneliest View

By Dan Hirschhorn, The Bulletin

8-3-07 -- Jose sat at the small respondent's table in front of the judge, very much alone. He had come to defend himself against allegations that he had physically abused his girlfriend. And, like so many people who come to the Domestic Relations Division of Family Court here on 11th Street near Market, Jose had come without a lawyer. . . . With the civil trial against him underway, his need for legal representation could not have been clearer. Immediately after he told Judge Ida Chen that he was ready for trial, the court learned that he didn't even have a copy of the petition against him. . . . "How could you be prepared for trial if you don't have your paperwork?" Chen asked. . . . After a clerk made a courtesy copy for Jose, what followed was a harrowing and cautionary tale of the pitfalls of self-representation. He didn't know how to cross-examine his accuser, finding it easier to simply tell his side of the story. He didn't call a single witness or present a shred of evidence in his defense. . . . Chen labored explaining to him the definition of "preponderance of the evidence," and "Do you understand?" was a question she asked him several times. She had to break in repeatedly to strike hearsay from the record. . . . And as Jose presented his closing arguments, all of a sudden, he told the judge that his accuser would sometimes beat the kids they had together. New evidence, Chen jumped in, cannot be presented in closing arguments. . . . "I don't know what to say, Your Honor," Jose told her, his head lowered in resignation, his eyes on the floor. "I'm not good at this." . . . Luckily for Jose, his accuser was just as ill-prepared to present her side, and he won his case that day. . . . Jose is one of the thousands of people who come to this branch of family court every year without legal representation - people commonly referred to as pro se litigants.

---

July 2007

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  

Lawyer Tried To Take Them To The Cleaners

Special Contributor Lloyd Garver Weighs In On A Different Kind Of Threat To The American Way

7-18-07 -- (CBS) I know the price of everything keeps rising, but when I read recently that a man in Washington, D.C. wanted somewhere between $54 and $67 million for a pair of pants, it seemed to me it was a bit high. I mean, if you were to pay $50 or $60 million for a pair of pants, wouldn't you at least expect them to come with a jacket and vest?

Perhaps you wonder how Pearson found an attorney willing to take his case. Well, he didn't have to look far. He represented himself. Yep, he's a lawyer. Pearson wasn't just a lawyer, but at the time of the lawsuit, he was a judge. Presiding as an administrative judge was the new job that he was excited about and why he wanted to wear those special pants in the first place. The judge who heard this case recently ruled against Pearson. Because of his behavior, Pearson might not get re-appointed to the bench. But if he loses his job, will the Chungs be able to collect legal fees from him? And what are they supposed to do with those pants with the red and blue stripes? . . . It's bad enough when an ordinary citizen brings about a ridiculous lawsuit. But I think there should be severe penalties for lawyers and judges — officers of the court — who are deemed to have wasted everybody's time and money with ridiculous lawsuits. They should know better. . . . Obviously, The Case Of the Pantless Judge isn't the first "frivolous" lawsuit that we've heard of. People in this country sue each other all the time. Just while you're reading this, I'm sure some kid has sued his mother and father for not giving him a nicer house to grow up in.

---

NEW YORK  

Litigious NY Lawyer Barred From Suing on Her Own Behalf Says She Is Victim of Judicial Conspiracy

New York Lawyer, By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal

7-18-07 -- After filing 16 lawsuits on her own behalf - eight pro se and eight using seven various law firms - a Manhattan solo practitioner has been barred from initiating litigation as a party-plaintiff. . . . In throwing out Eleanor Capogrosso's legal malpractice action against the attorney she hired to litigate a medical malpractice claim, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Debra A. James also issued an order requiring Ms. Capogrosso to receive approval from an administrative judge before filing future actions or motions on her own behalf. . . . "Though a review of the record shows that plaintiff has flirted with placing her own license to practice law in jeopardy, of more moment is her pattern of commencing frivolous and repetitious actions," Justice James wrote in Capogrosso v. Kansas, 112291/06. "Based on a pattern of vexatious conduct and repetitive litigation and proceedings brought by plaintiff . . . this court grants a protective order prohibiting plaintiff from initiating any further litigation as party plaintiff without prior approval."

---

---

FLORIDA

No money for lawyer? Here's an option

A new computer program is free and available to help with divorce and some other processes.

By Colleen Jenkins

7-17-07 -- Need to file for a simple divorce but can't afford an attorney to help you sort through all the legal forms? . . . A new self-help computer program at the downtown Tampa courthouse is aimed at simplifying the process. . ..  Citizens now can access and complete simple divorce, tenant eviction and small claims forms using a computer system that works a lot like self-service tax programs. The free service is available at the George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E Twiggs St. . . . The initiative is one of the ways the Hillsborough court clerk's office, judiciary and local bar are heeding a statewide call for improved courthouse access for the growing number of litigants who represent themselves. . . . "We're allowing the doors to be open to a good number of people this way," Clerk of the Circuit Court Pat Frank said.

---

COLORADO

Housewife Sues Wells Fargo On Rico, Shames Attorney In Court

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

By Jeff Sedgwick, Copyright 2007 voidjudgements.net

7-14-07 -- The Debt Collection Industry is a multi-billion dollar racket run throughout the country. Just as a photo copy of a $100 bill is evidence of a $100 bill, it is not the actual federal reserve note. Its a copy. It doesn't spend. Yet, debt collectors are collecting billions on photo copies of debt. That is, evidence of debt, not the debt. . . . The evidence of debt is being sold for and purchased for pennies on the dollar, while debt collectors/attorneys are collecting on the full face value plus penalties and attorney fees. . . . There have been numerous occasions where 2, 3, and even 4 debt collectors have had photo copies of the same debt and were all trying to collect on the same debt, at the same time. How many times does one owe on the same debt? If at all? . . . The Courts have been rubber stamping these transactions for so long that it has now become custom to rubber stamp. A custom that is at its best, difficult to overcome. The Courts don't like having to actually consider the facts and evidence, it is so much easier to hand out your money than for them to behave according to their own rules of procedure and evidence. The Courts want you to prove a negative, that you don't owe. While refusing to require the Plaintiff to prove the charges he has brought against you. Does the word "kangaroo" come to mind? **************Recently, a housewife in Colorado had gotten totally fed up. She has sued Wells Fargo for their participation in this racket. What happens most often is that a bank or credit card company will bundle defaulted accounts and sell them on the debt wholesale market. This is after they have written them off on their corporate taxes and collected the bad debt insurance. Then they destroy all of their records so they cannot be compelled to show that they have collected insurance to pay off the debt. You can verify this via a GAO report. . . . The wholesaler will then rebundle and sell either to attorneys or to companies dedicated to collecting on these defaulted, already paid for, accounts. (Again, this is after they have been written off on corporate taxes and bad debt insurance has been collected.) What is being sold are photo copies of debt, they don't (except on very rare occasions) have the original thus cannot extinguish the debt when paid. What is worse, if there are a thousand photo copies, there will be a thousand claims and since none are the original, none can be satisfied/extinguished. Ain't it great!

---

---

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Seven Peace Activists Acquitted by Jury
Right to Dissent Inside Senate Office Building Upheld

7-13-07 -- Seven peace activists were acquitted today by a jury of their peers in a criminal case stemming from an anti-war protest inside a Senate office building. . . . The group of activists from three different states and the District of Columbia were arrested on March 29, the same hour the U.S. Senate voted to spend $95 billion more on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were charged with unlawful conduct. . . . "Today was a victory for justice and the people of this nation," said Gordon Clark one of the seven defendants pro se, and the coordinator of the National Campaign of Nonviolent Resistance. . . . The jury deliberated for four and a half hours Thursday before returning a unanimous not guilty verdict. The defense successfully argued their group was not any more disruptive than a comparable sized group of tourists, school groups or others. . . . The protest was organized by organizers of the National Campaign of Nonviolent resistance and a couple local peace activists. ******* The other defendants pro se in this trial were David Barrows, Gordon Clark, Joy First, Ellen Barfield, Samuel Crook and Malachy Kilbride. The seven had faced a maximum sentence of 6 months in prison and a $500 fine.

---

CALIFORNIA

Court Tosses Conviction of Misinformed Pro Se Defendant

By Tina Bay, Staff Writer

7-9-07 -- A criminal defendant opting for self-representation did not knowingly waive his right to a lawyer where the court never informed him of the charge against him and misstated the potential sentence he faced, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday. . . . Holding Mark Stephen Forrester’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated, a unanimous panel reversed his conviction and 30-year prison sentence in connection with a drug-manufacturing operation in Escondido. . . . Forrester was charged in Oct. 2001 with conspiring to manufacture and distribute the substance popularly known as “Ecstasy.” He and his alleged partner in crime, Dennis Louis Alba, were accused of running an Ecstasy lab that was intended to produce about 440 kilograms of Ecstasy—and $10 million in profit—per month. . . . The pair pled not guilty to the charges. . . . A year later, Forrester, who had been represented by counsel from the time his indictment was filed, brought a motion to represent himself. . . . At the hearing on his motion, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan of the Southern District of California repeatedly warned Forrester that defendants who represent themselves rarely succeed. . . . His remarks included the admonishment, “I want to unequivocally tell you and strongly recommend to you that you don’t do this. In most cases it’s a disaster.” He also told Forrester that “in all cases it is not a good idea for a nonlawyer to oppose a lawyer in a criminal trial.” . . . Though he did offer caveats, Whelan did not inform the defendant of the charge against him. He also told Forrester incorrectly that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years to life in prison when, in fact, he faced no minimum sentence and a maximum of 20 years behind bars. . . . After Forrester gave repeated assurances that he was “coherent,” “literate,” and aware of the consequences of self-representation, Whelan granted his motion to appear pro se at trial as well as at some of the post-trial proceedings.

---

---

June 2007

NEW JERSEY  

Industry Insider: Can't afford a divorce lawyer? Self-help guide may be for you

The Star Ledger

6-22-07 -- Divorce can be an emotionally messy and legally complicated affair. . . . It usually requires a lawyer. But many people cannot afford to hire one to help navigate family court. . . . Yesterday, Legal Services of New Jersey released an updated edition of its divorce self-help guide. Because legal services can only help about one-fifth of the es timated clients with civil legal problems, the guide hopefully will be useful for some of the people whom the non-profit agency cannot take on as clients, said President Melville Miller. . . . "This guide has been carefully put together to make it as helpful as possible for those who want to get a divorce on their own," Miller said. "And those who decide to hire a lawyer will also find it useful. It will help them see the process more clearly and be more organized, which will help save time for them and their lawyer." . . . The 270-page manual explains how to file for divorce, and contains forms and sample letters, said Susan Perger, editor of the guide. . . . Officials emphasized the guide is not a substitute for having an attorney. . . . Copies are free to clients of Legal Services and others with low incomes. Others can get a copy for $25 by writing to LSNJ. . . . Those interested in obtaining a copy of "Divorce in New Jersey: A Self-Help Guide" should write to LSNJ at 100 Metroplex Drive, Suite 402, Edison, N.J. 08817; call 732-572-9100; or visit the LSNJ Web site at www.lsnj.org.

---

---

May  2007

NEW YORK

NY Beggar Does His Legal Research, Wins His Case

New York Lawyer, By The Associated Press

5-31-07 -- A homeless man who argued that begging is a form of free speech _ after he was arrested for asking a policeman for a dollar _ has won his case. . . . By invoking a 15-year-old federal court decision that said New York's loitering law violated First Amendment protections, 36-year-old Eric Hoffstead got New Rochelle City Court Judge Gail Rice to dismiss his case. . . . The Wednesday ruling nullified both the loitering charge and a misdemeanor drug charge stemming from the crack pipe allegedly found on Hoffstead when he was arrested. . . . The 1992 case applied specifically to enforcement in New York City and the state law, which prohibits begging in a public place, had never been changed. But when Hoffstead, who has been arrested 20 times in Westchester County _ read about the decision, he urged his lawyer, Carl Birman, to use it.

---

MINNESOTA   

Courts To Help People Handling Their Own Cases

5-29-07 -- (AP) St. Paul Dana McKenzie was busy dispensing free expert advice to a bunch of do-it-yourselfers. But this wasn't a hardware store, and they weren't learning how to replace a faucet. They were at the Ramsey County Courthouse last Thursday, finding out how to represent themselves in court in family-law cases -- divorce, child support and child custody.. . . Anecdotal evidence and national studies suggest that more people are going to court on their own behalf without the help of an attorney. And while Minnesota courts don't keep statistics about the number of cases involving parties that the legal system calls pro se litigants -- a Latin term meaning "for self" -- local courts are expanding efforts to meet the demand and finding new ways to help. . . . There are two Hennepin County District Court self-help centers, one in the Government Center and one at the family courts building.

---

NEW YORK  

Federal Judge Slashes Fees Sought by Attorney in Pro Se Tax Victory

Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal

5-29-07 -- A federal bankruptcy court judge has slashed the fees sought by an attorney for representing himself in an action against the Internal Revenue Service. . . . Northern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Littlefield Jr. last May took the unusual step of allowing Paul S. Hudson to seek attorneys fees for his successful pro se efforts. Shortly afterward, Hudson submitted a bill for $21,206. . . . But in a recently completed review of Hudson's application, which Littlefield described as "replete with deficiencies and problems," he reduced the fee award to $6,831. . . . In fact, Littlefield suggested in In re: Hudson, 00-11683, he was so frustrated with the application that he considered exercising his discretion to deny it entirely. . . . Hudson filed a motion for Littlefield to reconsider the fees determination. The judge scheduled a hearing for May 30 in Albany, N.Y.

---

NEW YORK  

Do-it-yourselfers have better access to justice

Pro Se office helps make the courts more accessible and user-friendly to the public

By Frank Donnelly, Advance Staff Writer

5-14-07 -- Do-it-yourselfers typically bee-line to The Home Depot and Lowe's for materials and help before they get cracking on home-improvement projects. . . . But fewBorough residents who either don't have the money to hire a lawyer or decide they don't want to retain one, can obtain information about court rules and procedures at the office of the Self-Represented or (Pro Se) in state Supreme Court, St. George. . . . The one thing they can't get, however, is legal advice. . . . Open five days a week, the Pro Se office is among Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye's prime initiatives to make the courts more accessible and user-friendly to the public. . . . In the tiny first-floor room, those involved in lawsuits can get appropriate legal forms and find out what they need to do to answer complaints or submit motions in personal-injury, matrimonial and other civil actions, including foreclosures, in state Supreme Court. They can even learn how to file a lawsuit. . . .  Staten Islanders may know the court system also is open to those who want -- or need -- to go it alone.

---

Why Pro Se Fathers Should Not Sue Judges

By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

5-14-07 -- A recent case, RIEMERS v. STATE, 2007 ND App 2, filed April 27, 2007 shows why it is advisable not to sue judges that have been unfair to fathers in family court. I say this because I often receive calls, due to my civil rights lawsuits, about suing judges that have been unfair to dads in court. . . . Roland C. Riemers appealed a district court decision to the North Dakota Court of Appeals pro se (without an attorney). He sued a district court judge and members of the state’s highest court. The court did not even listen to his claims ruling that judges have judicial immunity: . . . Here are some excepts from the case:

“[ 4] Riemers argues the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because his claims for damages are not barred by judicial immunity. He contends common law judicial immunity no longer exists, judicial immunity is unconstitutional, and judicial immunity does not apply in this case because the judges' actions were unlawful and outside the scope of their employment.”

To this the court replied:

“[ 5] Judicial immunity is a long-standing common law doctrine that protects judges from civil liability for their judicial decisions: The principle of judicial immunity recognizes that although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Thus, judges are not liable in civil actions for their judicial acts unless they have acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Moreover, a judge will not be deprived of immunity even if the action was in error, was done maliciously, was in excess of his authority, and even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”

For a website with a different viewpoint go to THIS LINK HERE

* Some cases, such as RANKIN v. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), posted at the website does indicate that judicial immunity is not infinite.  For instance, there it was ruled that a judge could be held liable if he acted in clearly without jurisdiction.

---

CALIFORNIA

5-2-07 --  Howard Bashman reported that the Ninth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to California's vexatious litigant statute: You can access today's ruling at this link. The challenger to the law's constitutionality appeared pro se on appeal.

---

April 2007

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court to Consider Case of Inmate Who Claims Jail Gave Him Tuberculosis

Conference Call: Prisoner argues TB risk was a violation of due process

Legal Times

4-27-07 -- Ronald Butler didn't have tuberculosis when he entered Minnesota's Ramsey County Adult Detention Center in July 2001 to await trial on charges that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter. But when he entered prison after his conviction, he tested positive for the deadly pulmonary disease. According to Butler, because he spent all of his time awaiting trial in a detention center, there is but one conclusion to draw: He must have contracted the disease while in the detention center because of that center's "deplorable sanitary conditions." He filed a pro se complaint against the sheriff in charge of the center, alleging that his treatment rose to the level of a civil-rights violation under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §1983), but it's doubtful that he ever suspected his case would reach the U.S. Supreme Court. But now, aided by professor Bruce LaPierre of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law's appellate clinic, his petition for certiorari in Butler v. Fletcher, No. 06-955, will be considered by the justices in their private conference today. . . . In the district court, Butler contended that while in the detention center he and others were confined in "two-person cells and in larger holding cells, where as many as twenty-six short-term detainees were held." In Butler's view, holding so many detainees -- all of whom had been charged but not convicted -- in such close quarters without taking basic steps to prevent the spread of disease violated his right under the 14th Amendment to substantive due process. Ergo, claimed Butler, Sheriff Robert Fletcher should be held legally responsible.

---

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  

She's Not That Kind of Pro:

No More Pro Se Filings for Madam After She Drops John's Name

New York Lawyer, By Emma Schwartz, Legal Times

4-21-07 -- Accused D.C. madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s legal defense has generated an unusual array of tactics. Last week, she dropped the name — as well as the address and phone number — of someone she says used her, um, professional services. . . . The April 12 filing was made as part of a protest to an earlier court order that refused Palfrey’s request for $500,000 to hire a new criminal-defense team. . . . At a hearing, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said she was upset that the filing included private information normally barred from disclosure. . . . Palfrey’s “alleged” pro se filing was hardly ordinary. At the bottom of the motion, her civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley (who has had his own share of legal trouble), indicated that he had