A video from Washington's judicial branch challenges some mistaken ideas about how courts work by using real person-on-the-street interviews and responses from judges, justices, a court clerk and a state legislator. The video was produced by the Public Trust & Confidence Committee of the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) in partnership with Washington's public affairs station, TVW, with financial support provided by the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission and Minority and Justice Commission.
The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies. Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct by email or as follows:
Pro Se is a newsletter published bi-monthly by Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York for incarcerated individuals in New York State prisons. Pro Se provides information and analysis on recent developments in the law. Pro Se advises people in prison of changes in the law, provides practice pieces to assist them in complying with statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains technical aspects of various laws affecting prisoners. Pro Se is sent free of charge to individuals incarcerated in New York State who request to be placed on our mailing list.
Money changes people, but it also is changed itself. All cash is change. In Debt: The First 5,000 Years, David Graeber, drawing on British classicist Richard Seaford’s Money and the Early Greek Mind, suggests a link between the history of coinage and that of philosophy. The Greek city of Miletus was, around 600 BC, perhaps the first city where coins instead of credit were used in daily life. Around the same time, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were arguing that there was a universal substance that could turn into everything else—water, or air, or a special substance called the apeiron. They theorized that this material could, under different conditions, be transmuted into anything. The analogy is clearer if you think of gold as the universal substance The metal in a coin has its own physical characteristics, as do seashells or fire or the enormous stone disks of the isle of Yap. Owing to particular social circumstances, that metal has an additional property of being exchangeable for anything, provided you have enough of it and someone else has and will give up what you want. But here one runs into a contradiction that's vexed thinkers since the Axial Age. Are there fixed, natural reasons for gold to be worth something, or is it an arbitrary social convention? It’s been very important to a number of people to insist that there’s a particular value embodied in gold. This is a question about how much you can trust money.

(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.
Pro se means that you are representing yourself in court, without a lawyer. Another term is self-represented litigant. If you represent yourself in a family matter, the court will ask you to attend a Pro Se Education Program. The program helps you understand court procedures and the forms you need to file with the court. Classes are free and open to the public.
If you entail any more information or have inquiries about our site's disclaimer, please contact us by email at [email protected] All the information on this website (www.zeidwiglaw.com) is published in good faith and for general information purpose only. Law Offices of Gary M. Zeidwig, P.A. does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of the information on our website www.zeidwiglaw.com. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (www.zeidwiglaw.com), is strictly at your own risk. Law Offices of Gary M. Zeidwig, P.A. will not be liable for any losses and / or damages in connection with the use of our website www.zeidwiglaw.com. Please be aware that the information provided by our website www.zeidwiglaw.com is for informational meanings only. It is never the intention of Law Offices of Gary M. Zeidwig, P.A. to deliver any specific legal advice for any case that involves you or may involve you in the future. The information provided by our website www.zeidwiglaw.com regarding any legal matters is generalized and is never meant to be purposely for any person or party. From our website www.zeidwiglaw.com you can visit other websites by following hyperlinks to external sites. While we strive to provide only quality links to advantageous and ethical websites, we have no jurisdiction over the content and nature of these sites. These links to other websites do not imply an endorsement on our part for all the content found on these sites. Site owners and content may be altered without notice and these changes may take place before we have the opportunity to remove a link which has been changed in such manner that it points to an inadequate content. Please be also mindful that when you leave our website, other sites may have different privacy policies and terms which are beyond our jurisdiction. Please be sure to examine the Privacy Policies of these sites as well as their "Terms of Service" before engaging in any business or providing any information to these websites. Consent: By using our website, you hereby consent to our disclaimer and agree to its terms. This site disclaimer was last updated on: Thursday, August 25th, 2017. Should we update, amend or make any modifications to this document, those modifications will be prominently posted here.
Courts across the country are increasing the resources available to the surge of pro se litigants attempting to navigate the judicial system. Courts are not only addressing the legal and procedural obstacles facing pro se litigants, but they are also focusing on “sociological [and] psychological aspects of how unrepresented litigants feel about the overall litigation experience.” Id. at 3. Likewise, attorneys, and civil trial lawyers in particular, must be cautious of the challenges and special considerations involving pro se litigants.
Our replies to Avvo questions should not be considered specific legal advice to any individual, and no attorney-client relationship is formed with you. Our aim is to provide general principles that may be useful to the Avvo community as a whole. You should seek individual legal advice pertaining to your specific factual situation, and the laws applicable to your jurisdiction. Moore & Moore Attorneys at Law -- [email protected]

One limitation of Study 1 is that we did not use a validated measure of state self-compassion, but constructed a composite measure of compassionate feelings using theoretically consistent items available from the administered affect checklist. It is possible that our composite self-compassion measure in Study 1 indexes other constructs besides self-compassion. To address this limitation, we conducted Study 2 to test whether self-affirmation increases self-compassion using a validated behavioral measure of self-compassionate feelings in response to a storytelling task (Leary et al., 2007). Moreover, a limitation of our Study 1 findings, like previous studies (Crocker et al., 2008), is that an alternative compassion explanation can be offered – specifically, it is unclear whether the increase in compassionate feelings in Study 1 are directed toward the self (consistent with our self-compassion account) or toward others (or toward both the self and others). Study 2 directly tests this self vs. other-focused compassion account of self-affirmation by manipulating whether participants provide ratings of their compassionate feelings toward their own storytelling video (self) or to the video of a peer (other). Study 2 also provided an opportunity to extend our self-compassion account by testing the role of trait self-compassion in moderating self-affirmation effects (we did not include a trait self-compassion individual difference measure in Study 1, a study limitation). Specifically, participants in Study 2 completed a measure of trait self-compassion (Neff, 2003b; Raes et al., 2011) to test whether self-affirmation effects on self-compassion are moderated by trait self-compassion, such that self-affirmation increases self-compassionate feelings most in participants who have pre-existing low levels of trait self-compassion.
The plaintiff has to present quite a lot of evidence in order to meet its burden of proof.  This evidence is often difficult or expensive for the plaintiff to produce.  If your debt is old, or if it has been bought and sold multiple times, evidence of your debt may not exist at all.  It is almost always much easier and cheaper for the plaintiff to negotiate a settlement with you than to come up with all the evidence needed to meet the burden of proof.  That is why the plaintiff will nearly always want you to agree to a settlement.

Pro se litigants have been steadily increasing over the past decade. The right of an individual to represent his/her own cause has long been legally permissible, dating back to the birth of our nation and signed into law by our first president, George Washington. (Laws do exist, however, barring certain types of individual representation in order to protect the parties involved.)

Proof that the plaintiff has the right to sue you.  In the case of a debt buyer, the debt buyer must prove that it owns your debt by showing the court the contract of sale.  This contract is called an “assignment.”  The assignment must mention your debt specifically.  If your debt has been bought and sold multiple times, the debt buyer must present a chain of assignments that goes all the way back to your original creditor.
The inconsistent character embodies a contradiction that isn’t just a jumble but a tension that can resolve into something else. The confidence-man is trust and mistrust at once, a number of different people in one, an impossible ability to transform—and also the exact symbol of an emerging market society, the no-man and everyman you need to both trust and mistrust in order to exist under capitalism. But, in another intrusion, Melville asks:
Later, when time comes to my response, like a bipolar, I keep jumping from Magician to Conqueror and then crave badly to be act like an aggressor. I end up changing my response over and over and over again, until I get the Aggressor out of my system. Then I do my best to mix Magician—common sense—approach to reach a Conqueror-level response document.

Canon 3B(3). A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection.
Courts across the country are increasing the resources available to the surge of pro se litigants attempting to navigate the judicial system. Courts are not only addressing the legal and procedural obstacles facing pro se litigants, but they are also focusing on “sociological [and] psychological aspects of how unrepresented litigants feel about the overall litigation experience.” Id. at 3. Likewise, attorneys, and civil trial lawyers in particular, must be cautious of the challenges and special considerations involving pro se litigants.
The confidence-man occupies the point of slippage between trust and distrust. If you distrust me, he says, you must distrust all men, and what a wretched way to live that would be. If you trust all men, he says, and I am a man, you must trust me. As he argues, he relies on an image of humanity in the abstract that is to be trusted, and from that he derives his own trustworthiness. This is the same move we have to make to have trust under capitalism. In a pre-modern community, trust is always specific, given to particular individuals based on a complex network of social ties. Under capitalism, trust is generalized, given to people and things on the basis of their being instances of abstract conditions. A dollar bill, a brand of product, an anonymous stranger are all trustworthy because of their resemblance to other things, not their specific qualities.

Or at least R.I.P. for non-lawyer pro se litigants. Just when you thought the Supreme Court season had finally come to a close, the Court released a new rule book this morning. It’s 80 pages long and mostly a rehash, but the addition of Rule 28.8 garnered some attention for finally closing a door on the practice of non-lawyers arguing before the Court.
FERN A. FISHER is the Special Assistant for Social Justice Initiatives to the Dean at the Maurice A. Deanne School of Law at Hofstra University, and retired Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts and Director of the New York State Access to Justice Program. She is a founding member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association and a member and past board member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York County Lawyers Association.
Also, I don’t know what this obligation is to give access to justice that is apparently on the shoulders of individual lawyers. I only know of the 6th Amendment right to an attorney for defendants in a criminal trial, in which case any lawyer could be appointed to represent a defendant; I know of no other obligation to make legal services available to everyone on demand. But you can’t seriously tell me that you don’t pit pro se litigants against lawyers and publish the articles you do. I know some lawyers who are pretty burnt out dealing with pro se nonsense, and I know some who are more generous to those who play lawyer for themselves, but when your opposing counsel is a pro se litigant who can’t distinguish you from your client, or doesn’t understand why you’re representing your client vigorously and then goes on the defense, you wish you could just tell them what is obvious to you: it’s not about them. For example, I might be hesitant to encourage Tanya here to represent herself since she doesn’t seem to understand the difference between pro bono and contingency and statutes and case law, and that she hasn’t actually found any case law yet before deciding to pursue her lawsuit on her own and presenting what may be a matter of first impression, but that’s not my business…

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.


There are some notable records of pro se litigants winning more than $2,000 as plaintiffs: Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper who won more than $10 million from Ford for patent infringement; Dr. Julio Perez (District of Southern New York 10-cv-08278) won approximately $5 million in a federal jury trial from Progenics Pharmaceuticals for wrongful termination as a result of whistleblowing; Reginald and Roxanna Bailey (District of Missouri 08-cv-1456), a married couple, who together won $140,000 from Allstate Insurance in a federal jury trial; George M. Cofield, a pro se janitor, won $30,000 from the City of Atlanta in 1980; and Jonathan Odom, a pro se prisoner, who while still a prisoner, won $19,999 from the State of New York in a jury trial.[42][43][44] Timothy-Allen Albertson, who appeared in pro. per., was awarded $3,500 in 1981 in a judgment by the San Francisco Municipal Court entered against the Universal Life Church for defamation by one of its ministers.[45]
×