4 ms·

> The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you...hubristically believe...advance wildly incorrect theories Thank you for the ad-hominem attacks. Usuall

by 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.
  - nmrm2 12y ago
    > 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. The author explicitly stated it's not impossible to represent yourself adequately, it's just very rarely done well. Your theory about how judges should act only makes sense if evaluating arguments is free. But evaluating arguments -- especially unconventional ones -- is really expensive! There is significant cost associated with evaluating an "out there" legal theory (in terms of research, opinion writing, etc.); it's entirely reasonable for judges to not invest public time/money into a point-by-point analysis of an unorthodox legal theory, especially if that theory comes from someone without formal training. Most professionals know that certain non-professionals are capable of doing their jobs, but also know that in the general case hubris is far more common than untrained competence. The parent's point was essentially this -- it's not impossible to represent yourself, but it's much harder than most people realize. Most judges aren't willing to invest the time necessary to investigate/help articulate apparently crazy legal theories, and that's both rational and justified. Explaining point-by-point why a crazy legal theory is crazy is not a good use of public time and money. > Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. That's my point -- typically "formal logic" means exactly deductions in/about formal systems. Wikipedia redirects "formal logic" to "mathematical logic". Law has no formal logic, and (edit: a lot of) what's taught in law school pre-dates the advent of formal logic (late 1800s) by a hundred years. The ability to prove soundness or completeness or first order logic (the sort of thing I would expect to appear in an introduction to formal logic course) is really completely irrelevant to the practice of law. > the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic This is simply not true, or else you have an uncommon definition of "formal logic".
s_q_b 12y ago
Attacking your viewpoint is not ad hominem. There is nothing mystical about correctly understanding that the law is complex, or knowing that there are legal concepts that form a background to understanding those laws that are not contained in the statutes. And God help you if you thought defending yourself in a criminal prosecution was a good idea. You're lucky you're not surfing this from a county jail. Lucky. Nothing more.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  There are many of us who are just as lucky. Judges have a duty to assist pro se's in most jurisdictions, in order to ensure a fair trial, and are known to take great steps in assisting them. Lucky he lived in a jurisdiction with fair courts. Nothing more.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    Yes, you get assistance and leniency regarding court procedures as a pro se litigant, in some jurisdictions. Not a chance upon which I'd want to rely. But if you're dealing with an even mildly complex legal issue, I wouldn't chance it. For example, do you know all of the hearsay exceptions off-hand? If not you could fail to make an objection barring you from even raising it on appeal.
    - nmrm2 12y ago
      > do you know all of the hearsay exceptions off-hand? I'm completely on your side here, but as someone who bowed out of legal ambitions by late high school (and took them quite seriously prior to that), my answer is yes -- they are still burned into my brain. That said, even having memorized these rules, I very much doubt I'd be quick enough to recall and react in a court room setting. More like I'd have to object and anything that feels like hearsay and then take a minute or two to dredge up the right thing to say (or look it up). I suspect that's the sort of thing that's an annoying waste of time to trained professionals :-) And hearsay just kind of scratches the surface, from what I understand...
      - 12y ago
anonbanker 12y ago
Take it from one active pro se to another, lawyers (and their clients) will always perpetuate the myth that lawyers are needed to navigate the seas of law and commerce, in order to justify the money earned by/spent on them. Canada recently did a rather robust housecleaning on pro se litigant tactics. Meads v. Meads , amongst all the humor, provides examples of how to obtain remedy as a pro se, even if you fall into one of the vexatious litigant traps they mention.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  First of all, any pro se litigant is going to see the following off the bat in civil litigation: motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion to change venue, motion to suppress... Even if you defeat them, it will take over your life, if the case is of any complexity at all. Now, that's not say pro se representation can't be done. But it is neither a wise choice, nor a good way to structure the system for the majority of the population.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    Motions to dismiss/strike are fantastic examples of legal tactics lawyers immediately throw out when they underestimate the other side's knowledge. Thankfully, the bar to strike or dismiss is extraordinarily high for the judges, so these amount to little more than a delay, and if used in excess could be grounds for an abuse of process claim. I've personally been awarded substantial court costs due to frivolous filings by state actors. The payoff at the end, where you receive an actionable judgement, is always worth the marathon. Even if you lose, the lessons learned are extraordinarily valuable in future encounters.

by hurin 12y ago

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.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  > 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. The author explicitly stated it's not impossible to represent yourself adequately, it's just very rarely done well. Your theory about how judges should act only makes sense if evaluating arguments is free. But evaluating arguments -- especially unconventional ones -- is really expensive! There is significant cost associated with evaluating an "out there" legal theory (in terms of research, opinion writing, etc.); it's entirely reasonable for judges to not invest public time/money into a point-by-point analysis of an unorthodox legal theory, especially if that theory comes from someone without formal training. Most professionals know that certain non-professionals are capable of doing their jobs, but also know that in the general case hubris is far more common than untrained competence. The parent's point was essentially this -- it's not impossible to represent yourself, but it's much harder than most people realize. Most judges aren't willing to invest the time necessary to investigate/help articulate apparently crazy legal theories, and that's both rational and justified. Explaining point-by-point why a crazy legal theory is crazy is not a good use of public time and money. > Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. That's my point -- typically "formal logic" means exactly deductions in/about formal systems. Wikipedia redirects "formal logic" to "mathematical logic". Law has no formal logic, and (edit: a lot of) what's taught in law school pre-dates the advent of formal logic (late 1800s) by a hundred years. The ability to prove soundness or completeness or first order logic (the sort of thing I would expect to appear in an introduction to formal logic course) is really completely irrelevant to the practice of law. > the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic This is simply not true, or else you have an uncommon definition of "formal logic".

s_q_b 12y ago

Attacking your viewpoint is not ad hominem. There is nothing mystical about correctly understanding that the law is complex, or knowing that there are legal concepts that form a background to understanding those laws that are not contained in the statutes. And God help you if you thought defending yourself in a criminal prosecution was a good idea. You're lucky you're not surfing this from a county jail. Lucky. Nothing more.

anonbanker 12y ago
There are many of us who are just as lucky. Judges have a duty to assist pro se's in most jurisdictions, in order to ensure a fair trial, and are known to take great steps in assisting them. Lucky he lived in a jurisdiction with fair courts. Nothing more.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  Yes, you get assistance and leniency regarding court procedures as a pro se litigant, in some jurisdictions. Not a chance upon which I'd want to rely. But if you're dealing with an even mildly complex legal issue, I wouldn't chance it. For example, do you know all of the hearsay exceptions off-hand? If not you could fail to make an objection barring you from even raising it on appeal.
  - nmrm2 12y ago
    > do you know all of the hearsay exceptions off-hand? I'm completely on your side here, but as someone who bowed out of legal ambitions by late high school (and took them quite seriously prior to that), my answer is yes -- they are still burned into my brain. That said, even having memorized these rules, I very much doubt I'd be quick enough to recall and react in a court room setting. More like I'd have to object and anything that feels like hearsay and then take a minute or two to dredge up the right thing to say (or look it up). I suspect that's the sort of thing that's an annoying waste of time to trained professionals :-) And hearsay just kind of scratches the surface, from what I understand...
    - 12y ago

anonbanker 12y ago

Take it from one active pro se to another, lawyers (and their clients) will always perpetuate the myth that lawyers are needed to navigate the seas of law and commerce, in order to justify the money earned by/spent on them. Canada recently did a rather robust housecleaning on pro se litigant tactics. Meads v. Meads , amongst all the humor, provides examples of how to obtain remedy as a pro se, even if you fall into one of the vexatious litigant traps they mention.

s_q_b 12y ago
First of all, any pro se litigant is going to see the following off the bat in civil litigation: motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion to change venue, motion to suppress... Even if you defeat them, it will take over your life, if the case is of any complexity at all. Now, that's not say pro se representation can't be done. But it is neither a wise choice, nor a good way to structure the system for the majority of the population.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  Motions to dismiss/strike are fantastic examples of legal tactics lawyers immediately throw out when they underestimate the other side's knowledge. Thankfully, the bar to strike or dismiss is extraordinarily high for the judges, so these amount to little more than a delay, and if used in excess could be grounds for an abuse of process claim. I've personally been awarded substantial court costs due to frivolous filings by state actors. The payoff at the end, where you receive an actionable judgement, is always worth the marathon. Even if you lose, the lessons learned are extraordinarily valuable in future encounters.