We Invite you to share with us the Tricks
you have encountered.
check back frequently as we add more and organize them so we can stop their use
Most Common:
-
Use Rules of
the Court to throw out a case without even looking at it.
-
Apply stare
decisis as Law above, and in disregard of, the Constitutions and Statutes to
throw out a case without even looking at it.
-
Deny the law to
the Jury so they do not even know what the law is or rewrite the law in the
jury charge.
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.
