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.
|
Eleven years ago eBay did not have any
customers; today they have over 150,000,000 users and are growing
globally at a rate of 100,000 users per day.
|
Click logo now!!!!
 Proceeds from your membership benefit us! |
With NiceSale you have the opportunity to be a part of Internet
history and be one of the early members. Membership with NiceSale is
very exciting because your membership allows you to share in
NiceSale's revenues. Each item you list can attract a buyer and a
potential new member or user for you. EBay is nothing like
NiceSale; with NiceSale you can share in the growth and success.
|
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
|
Victims-of-Law Comment:
How Pro Se's are perceived. "***misfits
pursuing preposterous cases***"
"***colorful eccentrics who regarded the courtroom
as a theater ***" |
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.
|
The next
generation RAZR package includes a voice
plan and feature of your choice at
lightening-fast 3G speed! The MOTORAZR V3xx
has a 1.3 MP camera, video playback and
music capabilities. Listen to your favorite
tunes on the MP3 music player and customize
your own playlists. Stay hands free with
stereo Bluetooth® wireless music profiles.
Snap crisp photos on your 8x zoom camera or
watch news, sports, and more with Cellular
Video capabilities. With 3G abilities you
can download music and videos at ultra fast
UMTS speeds. The ultra sleek design,
enhanced speech recognition, and multiple
messaging options will keep you connected in
style. The MOTORAZR V3xx is as hot as it is
cool!
 |
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