( From “How to Win in Court” Course )
Click or Call 866-LAW-EASY Toll Free!
Why Pro Se Litigants Have a Hard Time.
Many pro se people are winning.
Unfortunately, a great number who should be winning are losing … needlessly!
Going to court without a lawyer is a growing phenomenon. Whether it’s the high cost of legal fees or growing distrust of lawyers in general, the trend is for more people to fightwithout lawyers
The American Bar Association reports nearly 1/2 of all pro se folks believe lawyers care more about their own self-interest than their client’s rights.
If you go by calls and emails Jurisdictionary receives, there’s good reason for this! Lawyers who bail at the last minute. Lawyers who don’t know what they’re doing. And, worst of all, lawyers wishing to curry favor with judges, afraid to stand up to the buffalo in the black robe and demand their clients’ rights by making timely objections and threatening appeal.
60% of pro se people say they can’t afford a lawyer.
20% say they simply don’t want to spend the money.
Nearly ½ of all court proceedings in the U.S. involve at least one pro se party … and too many of them are losing all because they don’t yet know the “rules of the game” or how to play to win!
Good people who should be winning are losing needlessly simply because they were never taught what it takes to win!
Ever ask yourself, “Why?”
Ever wonder if there might be a sinister reason nothing about law is taught to our children in schools supported by our tax dollars?
Who benefits from your legal ignorance?
You have a Constitutional right to justice.
You have a Constitutional right to go to court and win pro se!
Your rights were paid for by the blood of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for you!
BUT, THE KEYS TO JUSTICE HAVE BEEN HIDDEN FROM YOU – UNTIL NOW!
Pro se people too often do not get justice.
Why?
We at Jurisdictionary receive emails every day complaining there’s a judicial “conspiracy” against pro se litigants.
Let’s examine facts:
- Most pro se people know nothing about the official Rules of Evidence that control the judge and all parties and their lawyers.
- Most pro se people know nothing about the official Rules of Procedure that control the judge and all parties and their lawyers.
- Most pro se people have no idea what “due process” really is.
- Most pro se people can’t recognize the opposing lawyer’s dirty tricks.
- Most pro se people assume what “admissible evidence” is and don’t know what stuff isn’t.
- Most pro se people draft their pleadings and motions incorrectly – usually with far too many words!
- Most pro se people don’t know why it’s vital to write proposed orders for the judge to sign.
- Most pro se people don’t know why, when, or how to make effective objections in court.
- Most pro se people don’t understand what facts are critical to winning a case and what facts are of no consequence.
- Most pro se people muddy the legal waters with court-confusing insignificance.
- Most pro se people don’t know how to find and cite controlling appellate opinions in support of their motions.
- Most pro se people don’t arrange in advance of every proceeding to have a court stenographer present, so they can control the judge.
- Most pro se people waste valuable court time with non-essentials, fail to appreciate the needs of others who have other problems to bring before the court and, as a consequence, tend to make judges dread pro se cases and hate pro se people.
BUT!
Pro se people who know what I explain so simply in my affordable, official, 24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary “How to Win in Court” self-help course winning consistently and getting compliments from judges and even opposing lawyers.
It’s so easy to learn how to do things the right way!
If you and friends were playing a game of basketball, and some bystander wanted to play but didn’t know the rules … how would you feel when he or she kept fouling and arguing he or she has a right to do as he or she pleases because she doesn’t know the rules?
Put yourself in the judges’ robes!
Many years ago, after winning a motion, an older judge asked me to stay behind after the parties left. He took me aside and said simply: “I want you to know that the case before yours today was to protect a little girl who’s grandfather thinks it’s fun to extinguish cigars on her legs.” I knew what he wanted me to know, and I never forgot. Other people’s case are serious, too.
Pro se people who know what I explain in my affordable, official, 24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary “How to Win in Court” self-help course don’t waste the court’s time and get justice by knowing the rules and how to use them tactically to control the judge and opposing counsel.
Winners learn the rules and how to use them!
If you want to win, get my affordable, official, 24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary “How to Win in Court” self-help course.
www.Jurisdictionary.com
|
Affordable 24-hour Step-by-Step Self-Help Course Includes:
5-hour video CD simplifies the process of litigation
2 audio CDs present practical tactics and procedures
15 in-depth tutorials on a 4th CD lay out the basics
Free EasyGuide to the Rules of Court
Instant On-Line Access while CDs are in the Mail
Still Only $249 … plus $7.50 Priority Mail Shipping & Handling
Save legal fees! Control judges!
Defeat crooked lawyers!
www.Jurisdictionary.com
Ask anyone who has our course … “Jurisdictionary Works!”
Call Toll Free for details: 866-Law-Easy |
ANN O’NEILL, LOUISE ROUG, GINA PICCALO
Wikipedia would consider the LA Times to be a “reliable source” in their category “Biographies of Living People”. After all, they were the only ones attending the trial to report on it. So let’s analyze the newspaper’s report, forensically, for the sake of the record, just to investigate whether they are reliable. This is what I wrote immediately after the news appeared:
March 13, 2001
These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.
The press seems to maintain an unholy alliance with celebrities, probably because they are the source of countless future interviews and collaborative undertakings of mutual benefit, and their unfortunate spouses are not. And as for the general public, they would really prefer not to know any bad things going on in the lives of their favorites, which is understandable, but neither should they be misinformed with celebrity white-washing by the media.
Because I wanted the press to be present at the trials to report on the truth of what was going on for the all important reason that my reputation was at stake, I was glad to meet up front with Louise Roug, sent by the Times. I took her out for lunch. I wanted to know where she was coming from, I wanted to free up her mind in case it was set already. I discovered that she’s full-blooded Danish, as was my mother. We got on fine, and I thought I had an ally in truth. She attended for several days, and had access to the facts.
I had been living for two years under the effects of the stunningly awful reports in the press and television media of what a cad I had been, and I was defending Lynn and my kids by not speaking up. Now the truth was about to be revealed, under oath at trial. What better way for me to clear my name. And to do this, unavoidably without a lawyer, I thought at least would attract attention. The air would be cleared, and I could get on with my life. She attended for several days, and had enough of the facts to create a real story. (As a side note, interesting that not one member of the public dropped by to take a look over the entire ten days of trial.)
Instead, to my utter astonishment, she presented this biased and misrepresented account against me in the service of celebrity Lynn, and to please her editors in support, I now see, of her ambition to become a serious journalist with a foreign posting (at this time, unbelievably, she’s reporting for them from Iraq!). Her publicized view of me still sticks as part of the false view held by Lynn’s fan club. At least that was true until now, where I have a chance to reveal the smoke and mirrors surrounding the case, and provide context with this blawg. If, that is, people will read it.
The account of this trial, of course, belonged on the Business page or the News pages where other trials are reported for the enlightenment of serious readers, not the Entertainments page.
I filed this document with all of its ersatz dirty laundry as part of my Appeal. And it’s on the public record, so that other media, like CNN, could read it.
Bear in mind that much of the detail is for the benefit of others contemplating divorce, to correct the serious smear to my reputation, and to show what the courts can do to you if you are not represented. I don’t think anyone else has the stomach to do this.
I risk revealing the details of how they play dirty with pro per defendants. They may be emulated by opposing professional attorneys, but I know that their law-schools already taught them the same tricks.
Download PDF file
Posted in COMMENTARY, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to Media