Covered in the Garfield Continuum Workshops: You Can Look this Stuff Up in Wikopedia

Substantive legal standards
Burden of proof
Competency of evidence
Application of the statute of limitations
Application of “hard” procedural bars, such as the time for filing a notice of appeal
Rules of evidence and procedure

(Plus, some positive stuff from same Power Point doc);

Complementary Principles:
It is the policy of the courts in California to resolve a dispute on the merits of the case rather than allowing a dismissal on technicality
The trial judge has a “duty to see that a miscarriage of justice does not occur through inadvertence.”
Treatment equal to that of a represented party requires the court to “make sure that verbal instructions given in court and written notices are clear and understandable by a layperson.”
The “same treatment” principle does not prevent trial judges from providing assistance to self-represented litigants to enable them to comply with the rules of evidence and procedure

Allowable Assistance:

Liberal construction of documents filed
Hand written letters that could have been construed as an answer to the complaint
Liberal opportunity to amend
Assisting the parties to settle the case
Granting a continuance sua sponte on behalf of the self represented litigant (SEE SUA SPONTE DEFINITION/EXAMPLES BELOW)
Explaining how to subpoena witnesses
Explaining how to question jurors and exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause
Explaining the legal elements required to obtain relief
Explaining how to introduce evidence
Explaining how to object to the introduction of evidence
Explaining the right to cross examine witnesses presented by the opposing party
Calling witnesses and asking questions of them
Sua sponte admonishing the jury on behalf of a self-represented litigant to disregard prejudicial testimony
Preparing jury instructions for a self- represented litigant or requiring opposing counsel to do so

The Other Side of the Coin:

The trial judge will also be affirmed when s/he refuses to make specific accommodations, such as
Refusal to guide a litigant through the intricacies of the dead man’s statute
Refusal to tell the litigant whether she has the right to depose a witness
Failure to prevent opposing counsel from committing prejudicial misconduct
Dismissing a case for failure to prosecute
Allowing inadmissible evidence at the request of the self-represented defendant
Denying motion to vacate judgment when self-represented litigant realizes after an adverse judgment that he was in over his head.  (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments, Number G037377 (4th Dist. Ct. App., Div. 3, March 26, 2007))

Affirmative Duty to Advise Self- Represented Litigant :

Federal and Alaska cases on Motion for Summary Judgment
Recent US Supreme Court Case Castro v. United States
Ross v. Figueroa, , No. B182738 (Cal.App.2d Dist, Div.7, May 19, 2006) Domestic violence case – duty to explain right to present oral testimony

(TIDBITS)
A judge will not be reversed on appeal for accommodating the needs of a self- represented litigant to preserve his or her right to be heard
A judge may or may not be reversed for refusing a specific accommodation
The judge’s attitude and values are critical and come to the fore
Calls for the best from our trial judges
Judges have an opportunity for genuine job satisfaction

REGARDING: Sua sponte
I LOOKED THIS ONE UP…SINCE “SUA SPONTE” ISN’T IN MY DAILY VOCAB
“SUA SPONTE” Latin for “of one’s own accord,” is a legal term that means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge, taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. LOOKS LIKE PRO PER MAY INCLUDE A JUDGE HELPING US WITH ALL KINDS OF THINGS IF THEY ARE INTO THE THEORY OF GUARDING OUR RIGHTS…

1. Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, even if all parties disagree.

2. counsel’s dumb mistake could have been corrected by the court, sua sponte, in its decision on the merits.  Or, the court could have directed to him to rebrief it using the correct standard.  Or, the court could have accepted the standard proffered by the appellant since the respondent neglected to challenge it.

Gamet v. Blanchard (2001)

“Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing the referee.  .  .  .  A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits.”

“Equal treatment” requires ensuring that an unrepresented litigant understands through plain English what a lawyer would understand through legalese.

Tags: foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, lawyers, Lender Liability, lost note, Mortgage, predatory lending, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, RICO, securitization, TILA, TILA audit
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |