I took a paralegal course because I don't have the $25000+ to hire someone to protect my interests. It's either do nothing and lose for sure, or stand up for myself. I also always said, "why do they insist on you getting an attorney"? What do they know that I don't. Well let me tell you something, if you have passion to learn anything and know that knowledge is power, you will empower yourself like no other when you learn the rules and procedure of the court. If they taught basic law in school like they do history, I GUARANTEE YOU this would be a totally different country.
If attorney fee's were more affordable I think more and more people would be inclined to hire one. I hired an attorney for my divorce. He cost me over 20k and did absolutely nothing. I managed to do more work for myself Pro Se and accomplished more than he did in two years. I have motions granted where he failed to include the information I told him to include.
These people make my point why their should not be a BAR or licensing system to representation another person in court. They are about the money and control. If you are not part of the "Club" then a judge will not seek protection of both parties rights, but rather allow an BAR member "Member of the Club" to use the majority of rules and regulation designed to create a platform for deception of manipulation to their control. I have represented my self many times in court. The only times I have lost is when Judges fails to follow the law or are aiding members of the "Club" so their is No embarrassment to their profession. Lawyers have stolen our country without question.
Lawyers are the worst professional. Can’t imagine a young person spending years and hundred of thousands of mom and dad just so they can represent and help scammers.
Here is a sample of what the Colorado Bar Association Continuing Legal Education [CBA CLE] calls some great tips on legal writing: "Before you write a story you need goals: (1) Identify the facts a court needs to decide in your favor, (2) provide the relevant procedural background, (3) preempt facts that favor the other side, and (4) for appeals, discuss the lower court’s ruling. Most fact sections have these goals. Most fact sections achieve these goals. And most fact sections stink." This is a sample of what the CBA calls 'Expect more of Colorado's best legal education'? As obviously inane as that educational tip is, it points to what a sham the practice of law is. You need to know how to read, write, prepare an argument, and research the rules on-line. A one week course in each of the following: filing a civil case, defending a criminal case, courtroom procedure, researching rules, proper form of motions. Does one need any more than that and watching a few episodes of Judge Judy and Law and Order to actually argue an issue in front of a judge? The fact that the legal system retains the archaic, medieval, and unwarranted title of 'your honor' for any judge shines a light on the over indulgent sham the practice of law actually is. At minimum states should authorize a family court paralegal for domestic cases. Would save families drawn in to the divorce pit millions.
See my comments and reply to Baru Curry. Btw, once I ascertained the true status of the allegedly neutral judge as a presiding prosecutor I dropped any address of ma'am, sir and certainly "your honor".
if the lawyer defendant in a court case tells the magistrate who is not a lawyer to hold the plaintiff pro se and strict adherence to the rules what the hell???
People who are considering representing themselves need to be very careful about who they listen to on the internet. Many of the commenters on here and elsewhere know absolutely nothing about the law and will only get them in trouble. Look at the articles at LessonsInLaw for good info and read the rules for your court.
What do you do if legal aid will not take the case and no one is available for pro bono?? I need defenate help and I am a single mother with no extra money at all>??
So many of them keep saying how dumb it is bacically to represent yourself...but alot of us..me included right now...have no choice...I can't afford a lawyer..what do we do???
That's true that it's less expensive to do it right the first time. Representing one's self can and has been done successfully. Yet, there are more instances where litigants who went into court pro se failed miserably.
I am an educator by profission. I beet winning cases against the education department many times representing myself. Currently I also won the state three times representing myself . I encourage people to read a lot of law and make research about their. Above all I invited God the Father ,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I was able to have out standing results.
Legal aid? court appointed lawyer? are you kidding me! those lawyers work for the city or county and so do the Judges. I see that as a Conflict of interest.
the Magistrate Court the magistrate who is not a lawyer magistrate Dow Liberty South Carolina has prohibited me from pro se they waved the book at me and told me I will be held to the same accountability as a licensed attorney also Alex kinlow Greenville Court county admonished me the same thing when I sued the sheriff and even though the judge violated by rights... because he knew I would have to appeal for thousands of dollars denying me my right to lobby video in the sheriff's domain which is public..... I want to know how to get around with the legal stand is for a pro se against the strict adherence to civil rules etc....
You do not go "pro se" you go in propia persona. Pro se means you are representing yourself, you want to present yourself. What these guys are doing is implementing fear. Pro bono or charging it does not matter,they still have an obligation to the court,not to the clients. You ever herd of rule 211?
He who represents himself has a fool for a client is an enforced principle of the ABA and its state franchises. You offend these self-titled Esquires and Masters of the Court. We have not a single recognized right in the justice system they are the defacto owners of. Only taking back our courts through the jury will give us a fighting chance to establish Rule of Law and Due Process.No member of the ABA not disbarred or jailed for opposing their rule can be considered for reinstatement as an officer of the court. That includes jury duty of course. Only as pro se(we can't reuse them this status as they have to us) csn they be again
@Baru Curry Baru, I give a thumbnail of a large, complex and alarming problem and the briefest solution to it. If I can walk it back for a moment and bring you to consider the situation I'd base it on a single practice of the current court system: the altering of transcripts in felony cases. When deemed necessary these forgeries may bear so little resemblance to events as they happened that participants and witnesses would not recognize them from the official record. To establish that it is done at all you'll be able to have it verified that either party may object to, say a question be ruled prejudicial and make a motion that it and its answer if any ve struck from the record. If the motion is upheld the offending words are ordered redacted and the jury if a juried trial is instructed ( or ordered!) to disregard. Now that that is confirmed we argue only on the degree of changes and their conditions. I insist that words, phrases, sentences and whole exchanges are are altered or omitted and that it takes place after the events without the juries knowledge. Rather than attempt to lead you step by step through my own take on this practice I condemn as evil I leave you to sort it out on your own. If you'd care to share your thoughts after you've had some time, feel free.
all you lawyers are the same and you alll work for the same bar. Your first duty is to the courts and the bar. Maybe you're just scared because people are learning the law and beating you at your own game. All you guys care about is how much you can shake outta the little guy. People are waking up and you're scared.
This video does not remain "objective". There are thousands of successful pro se litigants in criminal and civil court. No one knows the circumstances of your case better than you do. "Not having proper representation" does not guarantee you will lose. The same as being represented by an attorney does not guarantee you will win. The people in this video seem to have an interest in denying people the right to self representation. Their entire conversation is based on the illogical premise that "A person who represents themselves has a fool for a client". Nonsense. A pro bono attorney is like finding a unicorn that poops gold bullion. They may exist but they will not represent you pro bono through the entirety of your case. A high-conflict divorce could easily reach into the six figures. NO attorney in this country would ever see your case through multiple motion hearings, discovery and trial for free. NONE. And that is one of many reasons people are FORCED into pro se litigation. If you want a quick, easy settlement that most likely is NOT in your best interest or the best interests of your child: hire an attorney. They rely on the business model of a $2-5,000 retainer where they make a few appearances and file a few papers but quietly work out a backroom deal with the other party that wraps the case up as quickly as possible to maximize their profit margin and minimizes effort. I understand pro se may be unhelpful for many people who simply lack the cognitive abilities to learn the law and use it to their advantage. However, I believe a person with an ordinary level of intelligence can understand the law with diligent research. There is no mystery formula or some hidden code you learn in law school. Do not make your decision as to representation based on this video alone. Research, research, research.
What's crazy is how arrogant every single lawyer I've ever spoken to is, and yet I catch them lying about their knowledge of the law and case law constantly. It's not that hard folks, we live in the age of information ffs.
I took a paralegal course because I don't have the $25000+ to hire someone to protect my interests. It's either do nothing and lose for sure, or stand up for myself. I also always said, "why do they insist on you getting an attorney"? What do they know that I don't. Well let me tell you something, if you have passion to learn anything and know that knowledge is power, you will empower yourself like no other when you learn the rules and procedure of the court. If they taught basic law in school like they do history, I GUARANTEE YOU this would be a totally different country.
See my comments and replies to Baru Curry. If one is to have American representation one must go pro se as you and I have. I congratulate you.
Exactly. Pro se should be taught in school. Its our right as a citizen.
Ever since I saw the documentary "Divorce Corp" I will say🤝 I won my case representing myself and I am now studying to become a paralegal 🤗
See my comments and reply to baru Curry. The situation is more serious than you may realize.
If attorney fee's were more affordable I think more and more people would be inclined to hire one. I hired an attorney for my divorce. He cost me over 20k and did absolutely nothing. I managed to do more work for myself Pro Se and accomplished more than he did in two years. I have motions granted where he failed to include the information I told him to include.
These people make my point why their should not be a BAR or licensing system to representation another person in court. They are about the money and control. If you are not part of the "Club" then a judge will not seek protection of both parties rights, but rather allow an BAR member "Member of the Club" to use the majority of rules and regulation designed to create a platform for deception of manipulation to their control. I have represented my self many times in court. The only times I have lost is when Judges fails to follow the law or are aiding members of the "Club" so their is No embarrassment to their profession. Lawyers have stolen our country without question.
See my comments and reply to Baru Curry
Lawyers are the worst professional. Can’t imagine a young person spending years and hundred of thousands of mom and dad just so they can represent and help scammers.
Here is a sample of what the Colorado Bar Association Continuing Legal Education [CBA CLE] calls some great tips on legal writing: "Before you write a story you need goals: (1) Identify the facts a court needs to decide in your favor, (2) provide the relevant procedural background, (3) preempt facts that favor the other side, and (4) for appeals, discuss the lower court’s ruling. Most fact sections have these goals. Most fact sections achieve these goals. And most fact sections stink."
This is a sample of what the CBA calls 'Expect more of Colorado's best legal education'? As obviously inane as that educational tip is, it points to what a sham the practice of law is. You need to know how to read, write, prepare an argument, and research the rules on-line. A one week course in each of the following: filing a civil case, defending a criminal case, courtroom procedure, researching rules, proper form of motions. Does one need any more than that and watching a few episodes of Judge Judy and Law and Order to actually argue an issue in front of a judge? The fact that the legal system retains the archaic, medieval, and unwarranted title of 'your honor' for any judge shines a light on the over indulgent sham the practice of law actually is. At minimum states should authorize a family court paralegal for domestic cases. Would save families drawn in to the divorce pit millions.
See my comments and reply to Baru Curry. Btw, once I ascertained the true status of the allegedly neutral judge as a presiding prosecutor I dropped any address of ma'am, sir and certainly "your honor".
This presentation would have been more balanced if there was a successful pro se litigant present.
See my comments and reply to baru Curry
if the lawyer defendant in a court case tells the magistrate who is not a lawyer to hold the plaintiff pro se and strict adherence to the rules what the hell???
People who are considering representing themselves need to be very careful about who they listen to on the internet. Many of the commenters on here and elsewhere know absolutely nothing about the law and will only get them in trouble. Look at the articles at LessonsInLaw for good info and read the rules for your court.
What do you do if legal aid will not take the case and no one is available for pro bono?? I need defenate help and I am a single mother with no extra money at all>??
@artsychic2000 have you ever been to court by yourself?
So many of them keep saying how dumb it is bacically to represent yourself...but alot of us..me included right now...have no choice...I can't afford a lawyer..what do we do???
Its to keep u afraid of the system...they are part of the corruption...no other profession is like this...
@@timothystarks5053 How right you are! See my comments and reply to Baru Curry.
They all got it wrong any lawyer thats hire has a fool for a client. AND P.S I NEVER HAD A LAWYER BEAT ALL MY CASES BY MY SELF YOU CAN GOOGLE ME
That's true that it's less expensive to do it right the first time. Representing one's self can and has been done successfully. Yet, there are more instances where litigants who went into court pro se failed miserably.
That happens in no small part because they gang up on you. See my comments and replies.
Lawyers telling you that you need their services, and not to represent yourself. Of course there is no bias in what they say.
hahahahahaha
Lawyers = Leeches
I am an educator by profission. I beet winning cases against the education department many times representing myself.
Currently I also won the state three times representing myself .
I encourage people to read a lot of law and make research about their. Above all I invited God the Father ,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
I was able to have out standing results.
@@williamchauke2823 You're an educator writing like this?!
See my comments and reply to Baru Curry.
Legal aid? court appointed lawyer? are you kidding me! those lawyers work for the city or county and so do the Judges. I see that as a Conflict of interest.
the Magistrate Court the magistrate who is not a lawyer magistrate Dow Liberty South Carolina has prohibited me from pro se they waved the book at me and told me I will be held to the same accountability as a licensed attorney also Alex kinlow Greenville Court county admonished me the same thing when I sued the sheriff and even though the judge violated by rights... because he knew I would have to appeal for thousands of dollars denying me my right to lobby video in the sheriff's domain which is public.....
I want to know how to get around with the legal stand is for a pro se against the strict adherence to civil rules etc....
They can NOT prohibit or impede your right! See my comments and reply to Baru Curry as as caution, however... and spread the word.
You do not go "pro se" you go in propia persona. Pro se means you are representing yourself, you want to present yourself. What these guys are doing is implementing fear. Pro bono or charging it does not matter,they still have an obligation to the court,not to the clients. You ever herd of rule 211?
Pro Per and Pro Se mean the same thing.
See my comments,especially my reply to Baru Curry.
Tell me about it.
Yeah I have learned how true that is.
He who represents himself has a fool for a client is an enforced principle of the ABA and its state franchises. You offend these self-titled Esquires and Masters of the Court.
We have not a single recognized right in the justice system they are the defacto owners of. Only taking back our courts through the jury will give us a fighting chance to establish Rule of Law and Due Process.No member of the ABA not disbarred or jailed for opposing their rule can be considered for reinstatement as an officer of the court. That includes jury duty of course. Only as pro se(we can't reuse them this status as they have to us) csn they be again
an officer of our,yes our court.
@Baru Curry Baru, I give a thumbnail of a large, complex and alarming problem and the briefest solution to it.
If I can walk it back for a moment and bring you to consider the situation I'd base it on a single practice of the current court system: the altering of transcripts in felony cases. When deemed necessary these forgeries may bear so little resemblance to events as they happened that participants and witnesses would not recognize them from the official record.
To establish that it is done at all you'll be able to have it verified that either party may object to, say a question be ruled prejudicial and make a motion that it and its answer if any ve struck from the record. If the motion is upheld the offending words are ordered redacted and the jury if a juried trial is instructed ( or ordered!) to disregard.
Now that that is confirmed we argue only on the degree of changes and their conditions. I insist that words, phrases, sentences and whole exchanges are are altered or omitted and that it takes place after the events without the juries knowledge.
Rather than attempt to lead you step by step through my own take on this practice I condemn as evil I leave you to sort it out on your own. If you'd care to share your thoughts after you've had some time, feel free.
all you lawyers are the same and you alll work for the same bar. Your first duty is to the courts and the bar. Maybe you're just scared because people are learning the law and beating you at your own game. All you guys care about is how much you can shake outta the little guy. People are waking up and you're scared.
See my comments and reply to Baru Curry
This video does not remain "objective". There are thousands of successful pro se litigants in criminal and civil court. No one knows the circumstances of your case better than you do. "Not having proper representation" does not guarantee you will lose. The same as being represented by an attorney does not guarantee you will win. The people in this video seem to have an interest in denying people the right to self representation. Their entire conversation is based on the illogical premise that "A person who represents themselves has a fool for a client". Nonsense.
A pro bono attorney is like finding a unicorn that poops gold bullion. They may exist but they will not represent you pro bono through the entirety of your case. A high-conflict divorce could easily reach into the six figures. NO attorney in this country would ever see your case through multiple motion hearings, discovery and trial for free. NONE. And that is one of many reasons people are FORCED into pro se litigation.
If you want a quick, easy settlement that most likely is NOT in your best interest or the best interests of your child: hire an attorney. They rely on the business model of a $2-5,000 retainer where they make a few appearances and file a few papers but quietly work out a backroom deal with the other party that wraps the case up as quickly as possible to maximize their profit margin and minimizes effort.
I understand pro se may be unhelpful for many people who simply lack the cognitive abilities to learn the law and use it to their advantage. However, I believe a person with an ordinary level of intelligence can understand the law with diligent research. There is no mystery formula or some hidden code you learn in law school.
Do not make your decision as to representation based on this video alone. Research, research, research.
What's crazy is how arrogant every single lawyer I've ever spoken to is, and yet I catch them lying about their knowledge of the law and case law constantly. It's not that hard folks, we live in the age of information ffs.
yeah...to see who conceids first