Opposing counsel is lying

[Taxing Matters]

Quoting from 404 US 519:

"Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers".

Read FN. 1:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00427/pdf/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00427-0.pdf

Federal court will give pro se parties a little more leeway in a few areas, particuarly in reviewing the pleadings (complaint and answer) that the pro se plaintiff files. The judge will look at the complaint to see if the facts set out in the complaint would, if true, support any cause of action even if the pro se plaintiff doesn't quite get the name of the claim exactly right, for example. That is what the case you cited gets at. That's because the essential part of a complaint is setting out the relevant facts; identifying the proper claim is helpful, too, of course and courts will hold attorneys to a stricter standard there than a pro se party.

However the pro se party still must follow the FRCP and FRE like a lawyer would, and the court cannot give them latitude in most of that. Thus, as an example, the pro se party has to know what evidence is admissible, how to lay the foundation for getting it admitted, and must be prepared to answer any objection the opposing party has to that evidence. The judge cannot give the pro se party much help on that.

 

[RJR]

Federal court will give pro se parties a little more leeway in a few areas, particuarly in reviewing the pleadings (complaint and answer) that the pro se plaintiff files. The judge will look at the complaint to see if the facts set out in the complaint would, if true, support any cause of action even if the pro se plaintiff doesn't quite get the name of the claim exactly right, for example. That is what the case you cited gets at. That's because the essential part of a complaint is setting out the relevant facts; identifying the proper claim is helpful, too, of course and courts will hold attorneys to a stricter standard there than a pro se party.

However the pro se party still must follow the FRCP and FRE like a lawyer would, and the court cannot give them latitude in most of that. Thus, as an example, the pro se party has to know what evidence is admissible, how to lay the foundation for getting it admitted, and must be prepared to answer any objection the opposing party has to that evidence. The judge cannot give the pro se party much help on that.

Thanks, that all I was saying to begin with, It's not a pass to plead "Help me Mr. Court".

The case gravamen was not, the issue of course, just a direct point on my statement.

 

[quincy]

Thanks, that all I was saying to begin with, It's not a pass to plead "Help me Mr. Court".

The case gravamen was not, the issue of course, just a direct point on my statement.

Your previous point was not made all that well and the case you cited did not support what you said - but thank you for explaining what you meant.

The case you cited did nicely show how many ways a pro se plaintiff can screw up a case (or several), though.

 

[quincy]

Not if he were wrong

I am so rarely wrong that perhaps as a new member RJR has not yet seen posts where I have been corrected.

I know where a few of these posts are ... but I am not about to point them out. Haha.

 

[mrsjohnson]

I could file a Rule 12(f) motion to strike portions of the opposition brief that were not true. I believe that is the only thing I can do at this point (that makes any kind of sense) since the Judge ruled already and without challenging the judge directly and because it seems that judges disapprove of "last word" surreplies. Plus if I file a motion, that puts pressure on them to respond to it which costs Defendant money.

And yes, a lawyer is (most likely) more skilled than a pro se litigant at the law. For example it's possible for someone to go to law school and end up not being all that great at it. It's also possible that someone that never went to law school could study the FRCP and FRE and study for the bar and as a result, perhaps have as good of a grasp of the law as any student of the law. There is an older guy on another forum that talks about this. I forget how many cases the guy has taken to court and won as a pro se. He also talks about how some judges seem to love him if only because of their equal love of the law. They see that passion in him and it makes them smile.

Some judges will go out of their way to help a pro se litigant, like Posner, and some might try to make it harder for a pro se litigant. Not sure about my judge but she has written in some rulings by pro ses that she commends their efforts.

Former attorney in my case filed my case in one of three divisions and instead of making it convenient to me, made it convenient for him. It would be nice to go and spend time in my judge's courtroom without having to drive a few hours round trip but I will have to make that trip anyway.

So that's where I'm at this morning and again, after little sleep. It appears that mediation will most likely happen in December but I can use that time to work on my interrogatories and motion for partial summary judgement.

 

[quincy]

Good luck.

 

[mrsjohnson]

This motion made me giggle: https://www.slideshare.net/cocoselu...y-judgment-and-incorporated-memorandum-of-law

Seems like it could quite possibly go on forever lol!

 

[Ohiogal]

I understand a Pro Se litigant is not to be held to the same stringent standards of pleadings, etc., but that is not a free pass. Diligence is a must.

Quit posting as that is NOT true in many places. Pro Se litigants do NOT get a pass and are held to the same standards.

 

[mrsjohnson]

Quit posting as that is NOT true in many places. Pro Se litigants do NOT get a pass and are held to the same standards.

I think he was talking about pleading standards. See Haines v. Kerner, the Court held that judges should liberally construe pro se pleadings.

 

[quincy]

That is what he said he meant, at any rate. And it is not universally true.

 

[mrsjohnson]

That is what he said he meant, at any rate. And it is not universally true.

But the real question is... should it be?

 

[mrsjohnson]

I want to file a motion that we should do "The Locomotion." It's Friday after all.

 

[Just Blue]

I want to file a motion that we should do "The Locomotion." It's Friday after all.

Why not the Twist? or the Hustle? But HEY! It's that time of the year for the Monster Mash...!!

 

[quincy]

I want to file a motion that we should do "The Locomotion." It's Friday after all.

Why not let's stick with the law, huh?

And to answer your question: No. I don't think so. There are better alternatives.