In The Oversupply of Lawyers in America, ATL’s Elie Mystal asks “if we’re producing twice as many lawyers than we need, is it time to close half of the law schools?” I’m inclined to believe Elie’s answer is “yes.” I’m…
Posts Tagged ‘state’
Justia Offers Daily Case Notifications
28
Jun
Justia announced that it will supply daily opinion summaries for cases from the U.S. Supreme Courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and all 50 state Supreme Courts. Summaries are sent via email and can be customized by jurisdiction and topic….
Supreme Court Action Today – Sixth Amendment, Free Speech and More
23
Jun
The Supreme Court issued six opinions this morning. Let’s start with Bullcoming v. New Mexico (09-10876). Bulcoming was prosecuted in New Mexico for DWI. The state called a forensic technician named Razatosr to testify about the forensic laboratory report that…
NY State Child Support
22
Jun
NY State child support resource center, online applications, videos, and New York child support calculator to help you estimate what your
child support in NY is likely to be.
Opening: Deputy Director, Maryland State Law Library
21
Jun
For details go to this announcement. [JH]
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. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf.
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.)
Want to Get an Expungement in WA State? Here is the Info You Need
15
Jun
WA State has an excellent publication on how expungements work on WA courts. All States should follow WA’s lead to help people in their job searches by making expungements accessible. Continue reading
Opening: Reference Librarian, Ohio State Univ. Moritz Law Library
02
Jun
The principal responsibilities of this Reference Librarian position include providing,in a service-oriented environment, sophisticated research and reference assistance to faculty, students and other patrons of the Moritz Law Library, and teaching the first year Legal Analysis and Writing course, teaching…
Pro-se Parties Have To Fight Harder For Justice
02
Jun
Pro se people often do not get justice.
Why?
Let’s examine a few facts:
- Most pro se people don’t know the rules.
- Most pro se people don’t know how to prevent the lawyer on the other side from playing tricks with the rules.
- Most pro se people make assumptions about what is “admissible evidence” and stuff that isn’t.
- Most pro se people don’t know how to draft their pleadings or motions properly.
- Most pro se people don’t know why it’s important 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 but only muddy the waters with court-confusing insignificance.
- Most pro se people don’t know why it’s so vitally important to cite controlling appellate cases in support of their pre-trial and trial motions.
- Most pro se people don’t know how to arrange for a written transcript to be made of all proceedings before the court, 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 their own problems to bring before the court and, as a consequence, tend to make judges dread pro se cases.
Pro se people who know what I explain so simply in the official Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course are winning and even getting compliments from judges and even opposing lawyers … because they do it right!
Not all judges are “against” pro se people “just because they are pro se”. Most of the judges I knew in my 25 years were good people who cared about other people and did their best to guarantee justiceaccording to the rules.
But! You must know how to protect yourself!
Pro se parties who know the rules and how to use them to protect themselves from courtroom corruption the way my Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course makes so easy-to-understand don’t let crooked lawyers get away with their smoke-and-mirrors tricks!
It does no good to complain after losing.
The difference between winners and losers is the fact that winners learn how to win!
If you want to make it complicated and muddy the pond with all kinds of nutty arguments, you can do so, make the judge angry, and lose when your “evidence” isn’t admitted because it isn’t “admissible evidence”, etcetera.
You can demand your Constitutional Rights, instead of learning about causes of action and their elements that win lawsuits, and you will lose.
You can refuse to learn the rules of evidence, the rules of procedure, and the tactics and strategies my course is so popular for making easy to learn, and you will lose!
But!
If you want to win, get my affordable Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course now and master the case-winning strategies and tactics I used for 25 years as a case-winning lawyer in state and federal courts.
There is only ONE “Official Jurisdictionary” course!
If you’re paying a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing to earn his fee and win your case.
If you don’t have a lawyer, know what you must do to force the judge do what’s right and prevent the lawyer on the other side from cheating.
It’s that simple.
My affordable, popular, official Jurisdictionary 24-hour step-by-step lawsuit course will show you how to prepare orders, write powerful pleadings, draft and argue motions, object in court, get admissible evidence into the record, prevent the other side from getting lies into the record, do legal research, compose your legal arguments, and much, much more.
You’ll learn how to avoid filing an answer by moving the court to dismiss or strike the complaint or require a confusing or poorly-worded complaint to be re-written.
You’ll learn how to use effective discovery tools to force the other side to produce facts that may lead to admissible evidence.
You’ll discover how to move the court and demand that the judge enforce your legal rights.
In short, you’ll learn how to save money, maximize your winning power, and resolve conflicts peacefully and profitably … according to the rules!
Once you master the simple concepts I teach, you’ll be more powerful than most lawyers I met in 25 years as a licensed lawyer in state and federal courts as a licensed bar attorney!
Winning is easy if you do what I teach in my course!
I know what it takes to win. I practiced law nearly 25 years. I can help you, if you’re willing to learn from me!
To learn more, go to: www.Jurisdictionary.com NOW!
=========================================
My affordable 24-hour step-by-step course includes:
- 5-hour video CD simplifies the process of litigation
- 2 audio CDs present practical litigation tactics
- 15 in-depth tutorials on 4th CD lay out basics
- Instant On-Line Access while CDs are in the Mail
- Still Only $249 (Plus $7.50 for Priority Mail)
Save legal fees!
Control judges!
Defeat crooked lawyers!
Ask anyone who has my course: “Jurisdictionary Works!”
Richard Fine, Found Guilty of Moral Turpitude?
Our friend Richard Fine, (ex-Esq.) sat in one of the worst jails, the Men’s Central jail in Los Angeles, alone and ignored for a year and a half. He believed in a cause, the cause of honesty and fair dealing by the exalted arbiters – Judges – who hold sway on the lives and well-being of our citizens.
How is it that this can happen here in California? We are the only state of the union that has a special Court presided over by judges. If the State Bar determines that an attorney’s actions involve probable misconduct, formal charges are filed with the State Bar Court by the bar’s prosecutors (through the office of chief trial counsel). There, it’s considered whether lawyers have misbehaved. The court hears the charges and also has the power to recommend that the California Supreme Court suspend or disbar attorneys found to have committed acts of professional misconduct or convicted of serious crimes. When a finding is made, the decision then goes before the Bar, where they decide whether they agree with it. If you see signs of self-dealing and conflict of interest, you will find it here.
Richard appealed. What were his serious crimes? Read the following, from the introduction to their Opinion and Order:-
And so, by this decision, we can assume that they think that Richard has been immobilized, rendered harmless. I disagree, for what they’ve done is to anger the electorate. They will rise up in protest when enough individuals have been deprived of their freedoms, a number which is growing by the day.
Meanwhile, Richard is now one of us. He intends to file motions as an honorable Pro Per, seeking to immobilize each and every judge guilty of taking funds from Los Angeles County tax-payers, to which they were not entitled. And we can do the same, as he teaches us here.
Don’t forget that Judicial Watch has been doing its thing too. It carries more weight than Richard Fine, and it would be most unlikely that one would see their West Coast lawyer Sterling Norris, Esq., who wrote and filed the paperwork, finding himself removed from the rolls of active lawyers. They filed their original complaint back in April 2006, in the Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles case, and while it has been beaten at every turn, it remains to be seen whether they’ll take it to the United States Supreme Court. You can read the history of the twists and turns here.
Watch American democracy in action, because it’s fascinating and very very important. The Supreme Court will most likely not want to dirty its hands and will deny consideration of the issue. As a last chance, it will be left for action from the White House. Obama now has a record of stepping into places usually avoided by his predecessors. He recognizes that America has a stake in preserving the integrity of the Constitution and our Rule of Law and not just in name only. It needs to be demonstrated as a significant arm of his foreign policy, and he does have a safe law degree.
Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to new justice