Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11878Re: [tips_and_tricks] The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Aug 4, 2006
      On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Black Spatula wrote:
      >  
      > Hindsight is always 20/20.   I admit I was incompetent---I had never
      > been involved with the court system before and had absolutely no
      > knowledge of court procedures or my option to appear without counsel. 

      There's always a next case to come along. You NEVER want to appear
      without counsel, although you may be forced to do it. Don't do it
      voluntarily. Demand counsel of your choice, even if you have to resort
      to some homeless bum by the freeway you hire with a case of beer. The
      idea is to get your counsel of choice DENIED, which is then an
      appealable issue leading to automatic reversal. If you already know
      that NOBODY has the required license, you can have lots of fun.

      >  Once my (also incompetent) attorney blew all the money I had I had no
      > other recourse than to proceed as a pro se.

      Pro se means you know what you are doing. Much better to be "pro per",
      in my opinion. When you hire an attorney, if you ever want to be able
      to overturn a conviction based upon incompetent counsel, you will have
      to prove that you gave him written instructions on how to represent
      YOU, and that he failed to perform as instructed. This means that YOU
      tell HIM how to win, not he tells you. As you can see, most people
      have this all wrong.

      >   I'm still incompetent by most standards....which is why I posted
      > here...looking for tips and tricks.

      You need Bear's courses in law. And lots of your local books.

      > If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions? 

      Demands. Looks just like a motion, but doesn't use that word. It uses
      "demand" instead. It doesn't say "please" or "prays" or any other
      grovel language. Comes from the point of view of the master over the
      servants, not the subject under the rulers.
       
      > I'm curious just "how" you refuse to "permit" attorneys who are not
      > "in compliance with the statutes regulating the practice of law" to
      > file motions?  Seems like they can file whatever they want..it's the
      > judge who decides to rule on whatever comes across his/her desk.

      You misread my words. I said that I do not permit them to SPEAK. But
      since you mention it, anyone can file anything as a "friend of the
      court". However, for one to file, there must be a "case". Here,
      often there is no case until the chosen victim authenticates that there
      is one by answering or otherwise filing after being TOLD that there is
      a case against them. Apparently, few people actually take the time to
      find out by seeing a formal verified complaint filed against them.
      Instead they take an impersonator's word that "there are some very
      serious charges leveled against you, Mr. Sixpack. How do you plead,
      guilty or not guilty?" You can watch this over and over again, and few
      sixpacks will ever demand to see a complaint, or will ever demand a
      formal arraignment with all of the required elements. They WILL look
      at the "judge" with that deer-in-the-headlights look and beg for mercy
      though.

      Regards,

      FF
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic