+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    29,227
    Slightly off topic:

    The US District Court for Eastern Michigan is scheduled to open a pro se legal assistance clinic in a few days (on January 17) to fill a need for those seeking to represent themselves in federal civil lawsuits. It will help those with legitimate claims who cannot afford to hire their own attorney.

    US District Chief Judge Denise Page Hood said of the clinic that, "Pro se litigants often lack the legal training to effectively pursue legitimate claims."

    An adjunct law professor will supervise the law students at the clinic, with the students providing free limited legal research and advice to the pro se litigants.

    There is a similar program operating already in Brooklyn, New York.


    Last edited by quincy; 01-14-2018 at 03:25 PM.
  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingRon View Post
    Once again, you seem to think the rules do not apply to you. Failure to submit things properly will likely result in them being summarily ignored (not, as TM has already told you, that you have any chance at an en banc review anyhow).
    If there is a problem with an appellate brief, the clerk will send a notice to refile. Otherwise, it's good to go, and good to read. If there is a problem with the pro-se's language, any judge will write that s/he could not understand the brief ("it was unintelligible gibberish") or write something to the effect of, "the plaintiff seems to be saying ..."

    Unfortunately, from my experience, if there is a problem with a pro-se's legal argument--that it seems correct or difficult to rebut--the staff attorney, as did the lower court judge, will either ignore the argument, seemingly misunderstand the point of plain English, or misstate it by twisting the facts of the case. Hence, I look forward to when pro-se litigants, within most of our lifetimes, will be able to rely on well-programmed artificially intelligent machines (aka legal robots) that will write briefs for them, adjudicate the cases--perhaps even act as members of a jury--and will not suffer from overwork, incompetence, or dishonesty.

    I expect the type of good folks who brought us Google Scholar are working on making this a future reality.


    Last edited by Paul84; 01-14-2018 at 04:28 PM.
  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    71,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul84 View Post
    If there is a problem with an appellate brief, the clerk will send a notice to refile. Otherwise, it's good to go, and good to read.
    I imagine that clerks of the court are just chomping at the bit to read every single piece of paper that is filed


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Taxing Matters View Post
    I read your brief. And while it is obvious that you felt strongly about your case and that you evidently put time on the brief, it was, well, a mess.
    Taxing, I've filed my 15-page brief to petition for an appellate rehearing. If you have the time and inclination, I would be interested to know whether you also consider this petition to be a mess.


    Last edited by Paul84; 01-24-2018 at 12:19 PM.
  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    38,137
    I cannot get over the arrogance of those pro-se lawyer wannabes who cannot accept any answer except that the courts/judges/opposing counsel are biased and/or wrong in their conclusions. That despite law school and years of experience as counsel, jurist or both, their own reading of the law MUST be correct and those of the lawyers/judges wrong.

    Friend, your reality check has bounced.


    Two things I am tired of typing: 1.) A wrongful termination does not mean that you were fired for something you didn't do; it means that you were fired for a reason prohibited by law. 2.) The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding contract or CBA expressly says otherwise. If it does, the terms of the contract apply.
  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul84 View Post
    Taxing, I've filed my 15-page brief to petition for an appellate rehearing. If you have the time and inclination, I would be interested to know whether you also consider this petition to be a mess.
    I thought you said the clerk and the judge would read it and let you know if there was a problem? Yep, there is it.

    If there is a problem with an appellate brief, the clerk will send a notice to refile. Otherwise, it's good to go, and good to read. If there is a problem with the pro-se's language, any judge will write that s/he could not understand the brief ("it was unintelligible gibberish") or write something to the effect of, "the plaintiff seems to be saying ..."


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    29,227
    The clerk only will notify a party if what they submit does not conform to court requirements. The clerk does not read the brief or offer opinions on its contents. So "good to go" does not mean "good to read."

    And no one on this forum can offer an opinion on the contents of a brief. That exceeds the scope of this forum.

    In other words, Paul has to fumble through this last effort on his own.

    edit to add: I believe Paul has my posts on "ignore" so if he returns, someone should let him know that helping him with his brief would be unethical for attorneys who post to this site and would be the UPL for ALL members, attorney or not.


    Last edited by quincy; 01-24-2018 at 03:39 PM.
  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by quincy View Post
    The clerk only will notify a party if what they submit does not conform to court requirements. The clerk does not read the brief or offer opinions on its contents.
    I know that but clearly Paul doesn't.


    P.S.

    Paul, no one on this forum can offer an opinion on the contents of a brief. That exceeds the scope of this forum.


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    29,227
    Quote Originally Posted by PayrollHRGuy View Post

    ... Paul, no one on this forum can offer an opinion on the contents of a brief. That exceeds the scope of this forum.
    Thank you, PayrollHRGuy.


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul84 View Post
    Taxing, I've filed my 15-page brief to petition for an appellate rehearing. If you have the time and inclination, I would be interested to know whether you also consider this petition to be a mess.
    I am sorry but I am unable to do that. I cannot assist you in the petition as I am not your lawyer. I offered my thoughts on the previous brief only because the court had already rendered its decision on the matter and I sought to help you understand why the brief was not compelling to the court. But this new petition is still pending and I can't help you try to perfect it. You'd need to hire an attorney for that.

    I will say that the court clerks will not read the petition and send it back if they think it is not good. They simply check to see if the filing meets the court requirements as to format, etc. They donít make any judgments on the content of the brief. That is what the judges will do.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    974
    A very, very wise man, upon reading your latest post, stated "helping him with his brief would be unethical for attorneys who post to this site and would be the UPL for ALL members, attorney or not. "

    And only the foolish of this forum would not heed the advice of the aforementioned VVWM.


  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Taxing Matters View Post
    I am sorry but I am unable to do that. I cannot assist you in the petition as I am not your lawyer. I offered my thoughts on the previous brief only because the court had already rendered its decision on the matter and I sought to help you understand why the brief was not compelling to the court. But this new petition is still pending and I can't help you try to perfect it. You'd need to hire an attorney for that.

    I will say that the court clerks will not read the petition and send it back if they think it is not good. They simply check to see if the filing meets the court requirements as to format, etc. They donít make any judgments on the content of the brief. That is what the judges will do.
    Thanks for the reply. I wasn't asking you or anyone else for help in writing the content of briefs or petitions. Moreover, the clerks are always helpful with procedural questions, and I already filed the petition, with no intention of retraction.

    I merely thought it might be of interest in the petition brief's showing the shortcomings of what you had thought was a fair summary order.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Oral argument on motion for reconsideration
    By suerey in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 03:36 PM
  2. Texas - Oral Argument on Motion?
    By dmarkdavis_2 in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 10:32 PM
  3. Cancelling an oral contract made over the phone
    By stuntweasel in forum Consumer Contracts, Guarantees and Warranties
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-14-2004, 12:06 AM
  4. Oral Argument
    By innocence in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2002, 11:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© Since 1995 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.