4 ms·

No. A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge, and while not everyone with that knowledge must necessarily be an attorney, of c

by s_q_b 12y ago

No. A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge, and while not everyone with that knowledge must necessarily be an attorney, of course the courts use a law degree and the bar exam as heuristics. The simple fact that you think legal documents are no more difficult to understand than manuals is a perfect example of how woefully unprepared for the legal arena certain members of the general public are. It takes a long time to learn statutory law, case law, common law, constitutional law, regulatory law, and their interconnections about even a single subject, and it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. Is it possible to represent yourself and win? Yes. If you really know the law that well, you won't have a problem, even pro se. The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you. They hubristically believe the law is like an IKEA instruction booklet, advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose.

hurin 12y ago
> The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you...hubristically believe...advance wildly incorrect theories Thank you for the ad-hominem attacks. Usually these come when the interlocutor has little left to say of merit. > A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge. And the key part of this statement is the mystical belief that requisite legal knowledge is something intangible to the case and which defies normal logic. So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. >it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. More mysticism? You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. >advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose Actually I have had the occasion to defend myself in court. For what it's worth it took me three court appearances, because the prosecutor was completely oblivious to how groundless the case was; thus happily wasting three days of my economic productivity (which cost more than the fine would have) as well as tax payer money.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  > So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? > You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century).
  - hurin 12y ago
    > Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? I'm not citing Einstein as a prototypical example by any means, but I'm citing the idea about how we verify knowledge in a subject. If a guy from a Burger King comes and says, hey I've got a result in theoretical physics, or hey hire me as a developer - we have a method to verify whether they can do those things in a practical way and this shouldn't require platitudes about complexity and history of jurisprudence etc. (or the equivalent for those fields). >This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century). Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. I don't know about the actual application of law - indeed your average jury may very well be swayed (I'll quote from yesterday): "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We will show you how the defendant used the notorious hacker tool known as 'strings' to facilitate his vendetta against Lenovo." But that a Jury would be swayed by something like that and that it's the business of prosecution to make such arguments (hypothetically) is I think precisely in support of my point about the law. On the other hand the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic.
    - 12y ago

by s_q_b 12y ago

hurin 12y ago

> The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you...hubristically believe...advance wildly incorrect theories Thank you for the ad-hominem attacks. Usually these come when the interlocutor has little left to say of merit. > A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge. And the key part of this statement is the mystical belief that requisite legal knowledge is something intangible to the case and which defies normal logic. So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. >it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. More mysticism? You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. >advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose Actually I have had the occasion to defend myself in court. For what it's worth it took me three court appearances, because the prosecutor was completely oblivious to how groundless the case was; thus happily wasting three days of my economic productivity (which cost more than the fine would have) as well as tax payer money.

nmrm2 12y ago
> So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? > You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century).
- hurin 12y ago
  > Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? I'm not citing Einstein as a prototypical example by any means, but I'm citing the idea about how we verify knowledge in a subject. If a guy from a Burger King comes and says, hey I've got a result in theoretical physics, or hey hire me as a developer - we have a method to verify whether they can do those things in a practical way and this shouldn't require platitudes about complexity and history of jurisprudence etc. (or the equivalent for those fields). >This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century). Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. I don't know about the actual application of law - indeed your average jury may very well be swayed (I'll quote from yesterday): "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We will show you how the defendant used the notorious hacker tool known as 'strings' to facilitate his vendetta against Lenovo." But that a Jury would be swayed by something like that and that it's the business of prosecution to make such arguments (hypothetically) is I think precisely in support of my point about the law. On the other hand the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic.
  - 12y ago