Posts Tagged ‘risk’

Using On-Line Legal Research

10 Aug

Find the Law that Controls the Judge!

You cannot win without controlling judges.

You cannot control judges unless you research and cite controlling “legal authority” for every point you seek to make on the court’s record!

The judge is not the authority!

You must make it crystal clear on the court’s record that the judge will be reversed on appeal if he rules against you.

Otherwise, a judge is free to ignore everything you say and rule any way he pleases in spite of what the law and facts may prove to the contrary … because he knows he will not be reversed on appeal.

The appeal process will not give you another bite at the proverbial apple. Either you make your points with the trial judge by researching and properly citing controlling“legal authority”, or you run the risk of losing your case and being stuck with the judge’s unjust decision forever!

Don’t believe me?

Go tell a judge what your personal opinions are about the law and how you think he should rule in your case, and see how far it gets you!

The only opinions that count in court are the written opinions of appellate court justices who stand in judgment of trial level judges and have power to reverse them if they disagree with appellate decisions in any way!

Your opinions (no matter how clever or persuasive) count for nothing in court.

You must clearly show the judge on the record by citing official legal authorities from appellate decisions, exactly what will happen if the judges rules against you!

Controlling judges is what wins lawsuits!

You control judges by making clear on the record what higher level appellate courts have ruled in the past, what opinions those higher courts have passed down, and why the higher courts will reverse the trial judge’s orders if he rules contrary to what the appellate courts require.

You must tell the judge why you should win – by citing official legal authorities the judge is required to obey:

  • court rules,
  • constitutional provisions,
  • statutes,
  • codes, and
  • most importantly the opinions of higher courts that clarify what those rules, constitutional provisions, statutes, and codes really mean!

What you think these things mean doesn’t count! Trust me!

How you choose to read and interpret those things doesn’t count.Learn from Jurisdictionary step-by-step

The only thing that counts is how the controlling appellate courts read and interpret them, and what they say those things mean in regard to the facts of your case.

The other side will cite legal authorities for their case.

You must do the same … if you want to win.

If you’ve wandered through a law library in search of legal authority, you were probably amazed to find crowded shelves stuffed with volumes of similar-looking books differing only by the mysterious numbers printed on their spines. Books that give no hint which one might hide the key to unlock the judge’s favor in your case.

In a well-stocked law library there are thousands of books.

You cannot possibly read them all to find what you seek, and even the indexes, appendices, and annotations are a complex nightmare that requires years of experience to master.

On the other hand, on-line legal research is easy.

We show you how in our course.

Learn how to use on-line legal research and how to cite case-winning legal authority with the affordable, official, step-by-step 24-hour Jurisdictionary self-help course!

So easy an 8th grader can do it!


Bloomberg v Thomson: Playing Risk for World Domination

29 Nov

In The Daily Beast article titled Bloomberg’s Plan for World Domination, Nick Summers profiles media giant Bloomberg (the company) while observing that It’s impossible to talk about the aspirations of Bloomberg the business without addressing Bloomberg the man: it is…


Declining Academic Credentials of 1Ls: Will the mad dash to fill seats in the legal academy put lower-tier law schools at risk of losing ABA accreditation?

14 Oct

After presenting a statistical analysis showing that enrollment rates at ABA law schools have been increasing while LSAT takers and law school applicant rates have been declining over time, Gary Rosen writes If the sharp drop in takers in June…


Supreme Court Decision in Turner v. Rogers Discusses Right to Paid Counsel

20 Jun

The Supreme Court has decided Turner v. Rogers, the case dealing with what procedures are required in child support civil contempt cases, not brought by the state, in which a non-payer is at risk of incarceration.

Opinion by Justice Breyer (5-4), with Justice Kennedy joining the majority.

It turns out to be a very important decision for self-represented litigants and our work.

The Court basically takes the position that reversal is required, not because there is a categorical right to counsel, but because the trial court failed to follow available procedures to establish whether the non-paying father had a current ability to pay.

Here are the major highlights of the majority Opinion:
•       In determining whether there is a right to paid counsel at a civil contempt hearing, the Court applies the Mathews v. Eldridge factors of private interest impacted, risk of erroneous deprivation, and countervailing interest in not providing additional protections.  (Slip Opinion at 11.)
•       Arguments AGAINST need for counsel in all cases are: (1) Ability to pay is like indigence in that it is something that can often be determined before decision as to whether counsel can be provided; (2) the opposing side is NOT the state, and often there is no opposing counsel, and creating a right to counsel would “create an asymmetry of representation” increasing risk of unfair decisions; (3) as pointed out by the Solicitor General, there are “available at set of ‘substitute procedural safeguards’ quoting Mathews.  (Slip Opinion at 13-14.)
•       Importantly for the decision: “Those safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about his financial status, (e.g., those triggered by his responses on the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay.”  (Slip Opinion at 14).  Citing to Solicitor General Brief and oral argument.
•       The Court is careful to limit its holding to cases in which the opposing party is not the state. (Slip Opinion at 14.)
•       Also: “Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant ‘can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate.'” Quoting Gagnon.  (Slip Opinion at 16.)
•       Dissent, per Justice Thomas, argues, inter alia, that the procedures suggested by the Solicitor General are not properly before the court, and so “[a]lthough I think that the majority’s analytical framework does not account for the interests that children and mothers have in effective and flexible methods to secure payment, I do not pass on the wisdom of the majority’s preferred procedures. (Slip Opinion [dissent] at 12.)