Winning While Self-Represented

[resourceful]

This forum is filled with people who were forced to represent themselves and got crushed in court. The stories are the same: "the judge took everything the other lawyer said without any evidence and didn't listen to a word I said", "the judge was biased against me". On top of difficulty with the judges is the problem of when lawyers go bad. No doubt these failings are true of the judges in some cases, and certainly unethical lawyers don't help but is there also something else going on? I happened across this article on the web that says the key is not telling the judge what YOU think is right (he doesn't care), but telling the judge what OTHER JUDGES have said is the law (theoretically he has to care about that). Supposedly the trick is not giving a single opinion of your own that isn't put in the words of another judge. Does anyone have an opinion or any experience on whether this can dramatically turnaround a series of courtroom losses and change them into wins? Or by that time have the judges gotten so prejudiced by what other judges have said in earlier endorsements that there's no change of setting the record straight?

In any case, more from the web article I mentioned is posted below.

Jurisdictionary email Wrote:

You cannot win without controlling the judge!

You cannot control judges unless you research and cite controlling "legal authority" for every point you seek to make on the court's record!

The judge is not the authority!

You must make it crystal clear on the court's record that the judge will be reversed on appeal if he rules against you.
Otherwise, a judge is free to ignore everything you say and rule any way he pleases in spite of what the law and facts may prove to the contrary ... because he knows he will not be reversed on appeal.
The appeal process will not give you another bite at the proverbial apple. Either you make your points with the trial judge by citing "legal authority" that controls him, or you run the risk of losing your case and being stuck with the decision forever!
Don't believe me?
Go tell a judge what your personal opinions are about the law and how you think he should rule in your case, and see how far it gets you!

You will lose if you don't cite "legal authority"!

The only opinions that count in court are the written opinions of appellate court justices who stand in judgment of trial level judges and have power to reverse them if they disagree with appellate decisions in any way!
Your opinions (no matter how clever or persuasive) count for nothing in court.

You must clearly show the judge on the record by citing official legal authorities from appellate decisions, exactly what will happen if the judges rules against you!
Clever argument is not enough.
Knowing the law is not enough.
Controlling judges is what wins lawsuits!

You control judges by making clear on the record what higher level appellate courts have ruled in the past, what opinions those higher courts have passed down, and why the higher courts will reverse the trial judge's orders if he rules contrary to what the appellate courts require.
Controlling judges is what wins lawsuits!

You control judges by making clear on the record what higher level appellate courts have ruled in the past, what opinions those higher courts have passed down, and why the higher courts will reverse the trial judge's orders if he rules contrary to what the appellate courts require.

You must provide citations to official legal authority in motions, memoranda, objections, and verbal arguments at hearings and at trial.

You must tell the judge why you should win - by citing official legal authorities the judge is required to obey:
* court rules,
* constitutional provisions,
* statutes,
* codes, and
* most importantly the opinions of higher courts that clarify what those rules, constitutional provisions, statutes, and codes really mean!

What you think they mean doesn't count! Trust me!
How you choose to read and interpret those things doesn't count.
The only thing that counts is how the appellate courts read and interpret them, and what they say those things mean in regard to the facts of your case.

[miragesailor]

Good information. Thank you.

[Kenny]

The only time I ever was "crushed" in court was when I had a lawyer represent me. Now, as a self-represented litigant, I have done quite well so far in court.

You article is somewhat correct. Knowledge is power in court. Read, read more, then read again. In court, quoting is also power. One observation though, I don't think that you can ever really control a judge. I think you can impress them, as can you seriously unimpress them too (the latter being easier to do!).

As for judges who are biased, to be honest, during the past eight or ten court appearances, I have found that the judges have been very sympathetic toward me as I have been well prepared, well dressed and very polite. I did find two judges who treated me like garbage and a criminal. Furthermore, I have had some positive experiences in the past two years with the court staff and FLIC, but have been treated terribly a few times by the FLIC staff.

If one more court staff asks me "Do you really have full time custody of your children." I am going to scream. I am sure it is not the case, but it sure seemed on a few ocassions that I was being provided ill-advice on purpose!

Cheers.

[resourceful]

Thanks @miragesailor for letting me know you found the article useful. The following is not legal advice it's just a description of how I search the online legal database and what other legal sources I use.

How I search for the "controlling legal authorities" mentioned in the article is firstly to try to put my argument in as precise terms as possible. For example: "I'm retiring and I need to reduce spousal support because I'll be living on my pension and no longer earning a wage".

I would then go to CanLII and search for the keywords "retirement", "spousal support". You want only the articles that contain BOTH search terms so you would add the word AND between them. Your search term would then be: retirement AND spousal support.

For other helpful words you can use in the search click on TIPS.

The search might return a lot of articles, some irrelevant. After reading a few of the relevant articles you'd figure out that even if your income decreases the judge could charge spousal support based on an imaginary income he thinks you SHOULD be making (called imputing income). You then see the real legal issue involves keywords other than the ones you've used. In my case when I was looking up this issue I decided that I should have been using the search term: retirement AND spousal support AND "impute income".

Once I find the most relevant articles I use snippets from the paragraphs of the judges decision (endorsement), making sure to include a reference to the case so the judge hearing my case can look up the paragraph for themselves if they believe I made it up (I'm sure some people have). I used those snippets to back up my points.

I would write (fictional example): "I can retire at 65 and reduce spousal support to match my pension". I would back this up by stating the judges words from the article I searched for:

In WorkingStiff v. WontCookorClean, 2011 NSSC 405 (CanLII) Judge OneArmedBaldDonkeykins stated at paragraph 25 "despite our desire to work a man into the grave, at 65 we have to reduce a man's financial slavery to his former wife and allow him to live from his pension rather than forcing him to work". (fictional reference).

The most effective way I found to start however was not just looking at CanLII, but looking at the textbook that tells you the law and what cases to cite to backup your opinion. This book is called "Ontario Family Law Practice, 2012 Edition". An earlier edition is very useful too if that's all you can get access to. The "quick index" at the beginning will tell you where to look in the book for each subject (i.e. spousal support). When you go to that section the book will tell you what the law is on that topic, and what cases the judges use as examples in deciding how the law is to be applied. This is a REALLY important book. It's what all the lawyers use. It won't make you a lawyer (courtroom procedures and court forms are still a challenge) but it will at least give you a weapon.

[LakeErie]

This is really good information.

[frustratedwithex]

Originally Posted by resourceful

In WorkingStiff v. WontCookorClean, 2011 NSSC 405 (CanLII) Judge OneArmedBaldDonkeykins stated at paragraph 25 "despite our desire to work a man into the grave, at 65 we have to reduce a man's financial slavery to his former wife and allow him to live from his pension rather than forcing him to work". (fictional reference).

Your experience seems to have clouded your point of view, not a good look for you!

[resourceful]

Re: "Your experience seems to have clouded your point of view". No not at all ... that's just a fictional example related to a case I read about. It has little to do with me. If I'm making a legitimate point is there anything wrong with poking a little fun along the way at people who take themselves too seriously?