The purpose of this thread is to get comments on what the general world public thinks about civil lawsuits to individuals or establisments by Pro per litigants. If you have any experiences or doubts.

Also criminally a Private citizen can request a Grand Jury Hearing for a Federal offense and the Grand Jury can order an investigation and arrests.
http://www.stewwebb.com/Grand%20Jury%20Demand%20Aug%204%202004.html
I have noticed that many people associate Lawsuits with lost of money and mental anguish well that is not always the case. Of course defendants must pay their attorney fees. And must be represented if it is a Corporation.
A Pro per or a lawyer can sue anyone for no money in what it is called "Declaratory Relief" or "Injuntive Relief". You need to be involved or affected somehow. The Judge will order the Defendant to perform personally or collectively or to declare in Court certain duties that must be met.
The US supreme Court and other Courts have established that one of the most important rights on the Constitucion is the right to bring a Lawsuit by a Pro se litigant. An a Jury trial to be the most important right.
Juries also are more sympathetic to Pro se litigants too. Pro se litigants also enrich the Law by bringing controversial issues which lawyers will be reluctant to do.
". . . the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws." (Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F.Supp. 905,911)..(1).

 

The purpose of this threat...

May we assume you have made a typographical error? "Thread" is "hilo," whereas "threat" is "amenaza."

 

I am sorry that was funny. I will edit that.

 

I have personal knowledge of only one pro per litigant. A Texan was suing an internet forum administrator for slander and loss of potential income. (Some forum members had been giving unfavorable reviews of the Texan's products.) The Texan did not represent their self very well. The judge held them in contempt and threw the case out of court. I don't know the proper legal term, but the judge threw the case out vigorously.

Clearly, some litigants are better off paying for an attorney...

 

Yes that is the main problem pro se litigants because they are a party get carry away with their emotions in Court and ruin everything. Judges don't like to have a circus. Actually I sued attorneys and they never represent themselves because they know they can get emotional.
Also many Pro ses asume the judge knows everything about their cases. Actually judges rarely read cases they have attorneys in their staff that just tell them whats up they just grant or deny.
As a main rule just be straight to the point make sense and explain everything to him/her like he/she is a 5 year old.
The case you said was probably a Libel case, actually Slander has to be made by voice and Libel is written.
That case was probably dismissed with prejudice (res judicata) meaning he cannot continue that case in that Court or any other with the same jurisdictional power. But he certainly can appeal that decision in a superior court. Certainly for some Pro ses small claim Court is more suited. Small Claim Judges are a lot more liberal and have seen practically everything. Superior Court Judges are Midway there. Federal Judges are way too conservative and actually some of them are too old to understand what is going on. They very rarely have hearings and always make rulings by mail. Rarely you will talk to them directly.They even call the litigants inside their chambers and talk like in an office settings I have experienced that. In my experience I have never seen a Marshall inside their Courts. Even their clerks helps them to make phone calls and stuff. Federal Judges are appointed for life. Once I saw one really old woman Federal Judge that could barely heard or walk. Usually to remove them from office must be done in the Appellate Circuit through impeachment or because of mental incompetency but It is very rare, most of them just quit when too old but some remain until death.

 

President Lincoln is reported to have said that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. I agree.

I represented myself in a civil action (contractor dispute, not small claims) several years ago. We settled during trial before verdict, but the lesson I learned was that an attorney can be the biggest jerk, and that does not reflect on the client. It does, if the client is the attorney.

Frivolous lawsuits, pro per or not, need to be dealt with, and unfortunately the American system has not worked out how to do that.

John

 

I said President Lincoln was a fool to say that (he was a lawyer). No one knows a case better than a Party. What Lincoln did was really foolish. Liberating slaves suddenly without a propper program without a process of insertion. Created more problems for them as they could not even find shelter nor food for many years after their liberation. Many opted to still remain with their owners as it was actually worse being outside with 0 property, no education etc..., others opted for committing crimes. This was carry over for many years as the African American comunity very slowly has been integrated in the actual society.
You know what is the problem in the system? LAWYERS.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Thomas Jefferson

Pro se litigants enrich the law by raising controversial issues which lawyers would be reluctant to do. For example, William Penn (founder and proprietor of Pennsylvania) who never obtained an academic degree was a pro se litigant in Bushel’s Case (1670) which "established the independence of the jury beyond question in English jurisprudence"."At his trial in the Old Bailey on Sept.1,1670 he skillfully exposed the unconstitutionality of the proceedings and inspired the jury to withstand the brutal pressure of the judges for a verdict of guilty." (21 Encyclopedia Americana (c.1992) s.v. "Penn, William").
Some more Intersting info here:
http://www.squidoo.com/williampenn

 

This is becoming like your other thread. Apparently, you know it all. How many cases have you WON? How many cases have you tried before a jury?

Lincoln had a lot more experience in both.

John

 

I have seen many experienced Engineers that don't know what an earth ground does. I have seen more Lawyers that don't know much about Law but more about client psychology. Most Lawyers they just know that form 11 must be answered with form 7 and form 12 with form 9. Then comes alone form 27 (they never saw) and they get out of sync.
Many Lawyers never go to trial in their careers, and many more are real experts on getting more money from their clients. That is the reason many cases settled before trials. There is a thing called Summary Judgment as a matter of Law then you can bypass the Trial and win.
Winning a lawsuit depends on what the parties want. Sometimes there is no money involved but other motives more honorable.
Actually in a case that goes to trial both parties are right in their way of interpreting that law or in their motives for acting the way they did. Usually both learn many things from one another. Most Lawsuits can be avoided with the propper communication between the parties, but Lawyers never want you to contact the other party for that same reason. Arbitration is a very good tool for that but can also be a waste of time if one party is close minded.

 

If you don't live in the USA, why do you spend so much time in our courts? From you previous thread and the course of this one, seems like you sue people purely for profit. You walk a fine line between rights and fraud. Just because many companies pay well to avoid going to court, either the legal costs, or the publicity will encourage others to do the same, doesn't it make it right. Most companies just pass their loss on down to the rest of us. Employees don't get raises or get 'down-sized', consumers get higher prices. Libel, Slander, Emotional Distress... Such non-injury crap, the weakest reasons to sue. The weirdest part of these 'legal' threads, is I get the strongest impression that there is a website promoting this sort of thin, and probably a list of 'easy-pay' companies. The courts are about making things right, not better then ever imagined.

This topic irks me almost as much as the 'Free-Sample' threads, where guys brag on the piles of freebies they got, and ask what they should build with them.

Really don't think threads like these are appropriate for an Electronics Forum, or anywhere for that matter. Not sure if it's implemented on AAC, but would consider using the 'Ignore' function for the first time. Just seeing the topic aggravates me... Very emotionally distressful.

 

Not sure if it's implemented on AAC, but would consider using the 'Ignore' function for the first time.

First you can highlight and copy the member name of the person you wish to ignore. Then you can click on "User CP" (upper left hand corner of your screen, right below the topic name). Then, under "Settings and Options" (left hand column) click "Edit Ignore List." Paste the member's user name in the window and click "Okay."

 

When I was a juror (civil case), two different judges explained to us the responsibilities of the parties involved.

The judge is responsible for knowing the law, and determining what is and is not allowed based on his/her knowledge of the law.

The attorneys of the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for presenting the evidence.

The jury is responsible for deciding the facts.

 

Mr. Harvey you are not the only one in this forum some people may find this thread constructive. That is the reason I opened it to see if anyone cares.
Being a member of a Jury is a very noble thing, unfortunately most jury members care less about the parties or the Law and want just to get over with as fast as they can. Many jurors give veredics based on the apearence of the parties and not on their merits. The world is full of ignorant people who do not care.
I actually moved away from the US because of all the problems I had experienced there, that place is just not for me. There is a mess there too many lawyers amount to no good. Lawyers draft agreements and give advice to companies to get away bending the Laws and everyone pays the price.

 

Perhaps the jury I was on was the exception to the rule you cite. I don't know, I've only been on one.

The first judge who instructed us (prior to juror selection) claimed he had never met any individual as smart as twelve reasonable jurors.

I had many doubts about the system prior to my participation in it. In our case, the smooth-talking well-dressed & handsome lawyer with the well-groomed client and their slick professional witness lost to the dufus and his fumble-worded lawyer and their goofy professional witness.

If a pro per litigant were to stick to presenting their evidence, and if they were in the right, they just might win.

Me? If the need ever arises, I'll hire someone from the firm of Dewey, Skruim, & Howe. With any luck, I'll never need a trial lawyer.

 

Let me tell you something...
Police is criminal.
Teacher is ignorant.
Doctor is sick.
and so on just because someone is performing a certain job or has a title does not mean that person is saying or doing the right thing at all.
This may look crazy but that is the reality of life if not the world will be a perfect place.
People tent to listen to repit (the parrot effect) without analyzing first with their onw mind. I dont wan to know about 'hearsay' I am chatting with you tell me what you experienced, what you saw, what you think no what others told you, I don't care about other peoples comments even if they are judges or presiden Lincoln like happen on the other post. If you chose to mention them give also a note of what you think about it not just repiting it. I am a very bad guesser.
What I think personally is that a Jury is a general opinion of the General public it could be reasonable to some but not to others. Certainly is the public opinion and is what count. The problem is that many many many people are followers and preffer to go with the flow instead on finding their own road. But what about if the leader is wrong? Then the whole jury is wrong.