If you find yourself up against a lawyer who won't stop rattling off legal citations or won't let you get a word in edgewise, you'll have to stand up for yourself. Tell the judge that you are representing yourself without a lawyer because you can't afford or justify the expense, and that you'll rely on the judge to apply the correct law and reach the right conclusions. Many judges will make an effort to keep the proceedings comprehensible to a self-represented party -- and will take steps to rein in an opposing lawyer who tries to take unfair advantage.
Your theory must also be based on the law. For example, if you are accused of deliberately crashing into someone’s car, your theory of the case may be that the victim was negligent when she backed into the road. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s negligence will not relieve you of liability if you deliberately hit her. Therefore, your “theory of the case” could instead be that you didn’t deliberately hit her but only negligently did, or that she deliberately backed into you.
I took the time to watch a recent course produced by Courtroom5 and the great information it gave, and I couldn’t help thinking how I definitely would have turned to Courtroom5 to help with my case had I known about it while my case was going on. Courtroom5 offers a magnificent service that can be very helpful to pro se litigants. I would highly recommend to any pro se who is in need of some help in prosecuting his/her case to turn to Courtroom5.

Many people presume that judges issue rulings in court based simply on the facts at hand, without public opinion playing any role at all.  However, history tells us that how judges read laws and constitutions very much reflects where public opinion is (or, at least, what they think the public will accept).   Leading up to the final Supreme Court marriage victory, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview that “there hasn’t been any major change…in which there wasn’t a groundswell among the people before the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the inclusion in the equality concept of people who were once left out.” 
RobecoSAM AG and its related affiliated and subsidiary companies can not guarantee that the hyperlinks set out on the sites will be accurate at the time of your access. Moreover, the sites pointed at by hyperlinks are developed and possibly maintained by persons over whom RobecoSAM AG or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have no control. We cannot and do not monitor the sites linked to our pages on the Internet. Accordingly, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies assume no responsibility for the content of any sites referenced to by any hyperlink or otherwise. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies believe that their making hyperlinks available to publicly accessible Web pages and newsgroups is legally permissible and consistent with the common, customary expectations of those who make use of the Internet.
I'd been planning to spend a few days in a nearby city, so I hired a nurse to look after my mother while I was away. Two hours after I left, while I was still on the airplane, APS came to my mother's place and found her alone. The nurse I hired foolishly stepped out for some reason, and when she returned APS was there. They took my mother to a nursing home against her will.
8. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Williamson v. Berry, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
Kill them with kindness. “Be nice to everyone in the courtroom. Kindness makes the world a better place, and it makes you a happier person. But if that’s not enough to convince you, consider this: Kindness makes you more likely to win your case. When jurors think you’re a good person, they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe good motives to what you say. If they think you’re nasty or dishonest, they’ll discount everything that comes out of your mouth.

Many people presume that judges issue rulings in court based simply on the facts at hand, without public opinion playing any role at all.  However, history tells us that how judges read laws and constitutions very much reflects where public opinion is (or, at least, what they think the public will accept).   Leading up to the final Supreme Court marriage victory, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview that “there hasn’t been any major change…in which there wasn’t a groundswell among the people before the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the inclusion in the equality concept of people who were once left out.” 
There are many reasons to be kind to your paralegal, but a bonus is that the jury will notice. Be nice to the stenographer (who also has the power to make things go your way, or not, in the transcript). And, especially, have a positive relationship with the courtroom clerk. The clerk checks in the jurors every morning, brings them pencils and leads them to the jury room. This person inevitably forms a stronger bond with them than anyone else in the courthouse. If the jurors see that you’re the clerk’s friend, you’re the jurors’ friend by association. If the clerk hates you, the jurors probably will, too.”
AALL and chapter volunteers researched primary legal materials in the 50 states plus District of Columbia to determine if online legal materials are trustworthy and preserved for permanent public access. This collection brings together information from AALL's National Inventory of Legal Materials and updates, the Preliminary Analysis of AALL’s State Legal Inventories, the 2007 State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources and the 2009-2010 State Summary Updates.
It would have taken six or seven months to get exact numbers. But every expert we talked to agreed that the volume was much higher for the Trump administration. The question then became why. As I wrote in an earlier story, when the losing streak started, it’s kind of like relationships. When one or two don’t work out, you can plausibly blame the other people. When the numbers mount, you have to think, maybe the problem is me, that is, maybe I’m doing something wrong.
As often as possible (as we did with the plaintiffs in Texas, Mark Phariss & Vic Holmes and Cleo & Nicole Dimetman-DeLeon) Freedom to Marry would work with private legal teams or our movement partners to write in-depth profiles and stories about the plaintiffs involved in the legal cases. By spotlighting their story in this way, we were able to extend the reach of the case and allow thousands more to connect with the personal reasons behind fighting for the freedom to marry.
Substantial assistance is affectionately known as snitching. While it has a bad rap, it is an extremely useful tool when dealing with criminal cases. If you are not yet charged with a crime and are being investigated, providing substantial assistance can actually prevent you from being charged in some cases. If a warrant cannot be prevented with substantial assistance, charges can often be minimized and/or consequences can be reduced, often significantly.
But these attacks backfired and motivated the conservative base. They saw that the attacks on Hagedorn’s school were in effect imposing an unconstitutional religious test: that you cannot be a Christian and a judge. These groups were functionally persecuting Hegedorn for his religious beliefs. And whether voters held those same beliefs or not, they didn’t fall for the bigoted attacks. When voters heard about this, they were upset and motivated to take action. The conservative grassroots went out and knocked on doors, texted friends and family members, and delivered more votes for Hagedorn.  
Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a nearly 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.
If the defendant chooses to file an answer within the time permitted, the answer must address each of the plaintiffs' allegations. The defendant has three choices to make, which include either admitting to the allegation, denying it, or pleading a lack of sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation. Some jurisdictions, like California and Florida, still authorize general denials of each and every allegation in the complaint. At the time the defendant files an answer, the defendant also raises all "affirmative" defenses. The defendant may also assert counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff. For example, in the case of "compulsory counterclaims," the defendant must assert some form of counterclaim or risk having the counterclaim barred in any subsequent proceeding. In the case of making a counterclaim, the defendant is making a motion directed towards the plaintiff claiming that he/she was injured in some way or would like to sue the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this example would then receive some amount of time to make a reply to this counterclaim. The defendant may also file a "third party complaint", which is the defendant's privilege to join another party or parties in the action with the belief that those parties may be liable for some or all of the plaintiff's claimed damages. An answer from the defendant in response to the claims made against him/her, can also include additional facts or a so-called "excuse" for the plead. Filing an answer "joins the cause" and moves the case into the pre-trial phase.
×