We Invite you to share with us the Tricks
you have encountered. Most Common:
The purpose of these tricks is to deny you your self-evident, inalienable, right to express or present the words of the law so that they can be enforced. The words of the law are denied the pro se litigant, denied to the litigant with counsel the court is biased against and, are denied to the jury. The following is an accurate analogy of what the writer has experienced and observed experienced by others, including attorneys representing those whom, the Judge was biased against. EXAMPLE: JUDGE; (addressing the Jury) Throughout this trial you are not to look at the law. You will get the law from me throughout the proceeding and in the jury charge on which you will make your ruling. PRO SE LITIGANT: Objection your honor, the jury should be able to investigate the law for themselves. JUDGE: This is the way it is done. The Judge interprets the law and presents the law to the jury. The Jury may only Judge the Facts but not the Law. (assuming, apparently, the jury is too ignorant to understand the law). Proceed with your opening argument. PRO SE LITIGANT speaking to the Jury: This squirrel… (court recorder notes: remainder unintelligible due to opposing counsel) ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Objection your Honor. He cannot call it a Squirrel. It is, by legal definition, a Furry Rodent. JUDGE: Sustained. PRO SE LITIGANT: uh, uh, This Furry Rodent…(court recorder notes: remainder unintelligible due to opposing counsel) ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Objection your Honor. He cannot call it a Furry Rodent, it is by legal definition a Squirrel. JUDGE: Sustained. Proceed with your argument. PRO SE LITIGANT: Your Honor, may we approach the bench. JUDGE: (motions for counsel to approach) Pro Se litigant shows Judge the definition in the statute of a Squirrel as a Furry Rodent. Judge tells him “I made my ruling now live with it.” The case is lost and then appealed where a similar trick is repeatedly observed in the language of Opinions issued on every level of the judiciary. The following is an accurate analogy of what the writer experienced when he was granted judgment in a State District Court on petition brought by his hired counsel. However; the judgment was appealed and the writer did not have money to pay the attorney to handle the appeal and so handled it pro se. The provision of the Constitution or statute under which the pro se litigant brought his petition to the court reads: "Any Squirrel, or Any Furry Rodent, Is entitled to …. " OPINION OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS “The Appellee (pro se) says that he is a Furry Rodent and therefore entitled to….. The Appellant, (a government entity), in their first point of error, point out the statute applies to squirrels and the Appellee is not a squirrel. The legislators refer to a squirrel as entitled to …. the Appellant did not bring his claim as a squirrel but as a Furry Rodent. Although it may appear nonsensical the legislators apparently felt a claim brought by a Furry Rodent is less defensible than a squirrel. However; We must follow the plain language of the statute. The judgment of the District Court is reversed." The Brief of the Appellee (pro se) made very clear he was entitled under the statute which read "1)Any squirrel, OR (emphasis added) 2) Any Furry Rodent, is entitled to..." However; The First Court of Appeals totally ignored the OR as if this "plain language" did not exist in the statute. Other times we read opinions where the Courts choose to "interpret" an "or" as an "and". The same judges will then later choose to interpret a "and" as an "or". Changing the definition of words is a very common trick with claim their "duty to interpret the law" gives them license to rewrite the dictionary. The opinion in the case analogized here was almost verbatim what the government entity submitted in their brief and completely ignored the cogent argument of the pro se’s brief pointing out that he was entitled to… as either a squirrel or a rodent.
|
Send mail to info@informed.org with questions / Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved by Informed Citizens
DISCLOSURE: every word in this website is our OPINION and not intended as
advice. |