Wednesday, April 25, 2018

How to Avoid Pro Se Problems

Why Pro Se Litigants Have a Hard Time?
Whether it's the high cost of lawyers' fees or growing distrust of lawyers, there is a mounting trend these days for more people to fight without a lawyer.

The American Bar Association (ABA) reports
  • 60% of the public can't afford a lawyer.
  • 20% simply don't want to spend the money.
  • 50% just don't trust lawyers!
Yet ½ of all court proceedings involve at least one pro se party.
Too many pro se people lose ... needlessly!
Ever wonder why you were never taught anything about court procedure or the rules of evidence in your tax-supported schools?
Who benefits from your legal ignorance?
You guessed it. Lawyers!
People using our "How to Win in Court" course are winning!
Click Here to Learn More!
_________________________________________________________________

Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related Reading:
Going Pro Se. Is it Right for YOU??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.


What is? Creating Your Own Law Book
Excerpts from this document
Reason for Law Book  ~Using Your Law Book



 Learn More>> Click Here

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Basic Checklist of items needed to Defend Yourself

The following are topics YOU must do
to Defend Yourself.

(REMEMBER, time is Not on your side. You must Organize yourself; and get information on Be a Winner with Jurisdictionary!the Court Record with or without a lawyer.)

Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer


  • Draft proper pleadings with all fact elements
  • Obtain all necessary evidence before trial
  • Make effective oral motions
  • Draft effective written motions
  • Use online legal research
  • Draft compelling memoranda
  • Insure a written record of all proceedings
  • Object promptly to all errors of opponent
  • Object promptly to all errors of judge
  • Renew objections to all un-cured errors of judge
  • Keep your opponent's evidence out
  • Get your evidence in
  • Stop opponent from proposing false orders
  • Offer to draft all orders
  • Stop opponent's lawyer from testifying
  • ... and more ... !

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector

_________________________________________________________________

Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.


What is? Creating Your Own Law Book
Excerpts from this document
Reason for Law Book  ~Using Your Law Book



 Learn More>> Click Here

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Letter to Jurors by Shawn McMillian

Sad that one has to write such a letter.
 

But does confirm that the Agency will go to any means to overturn a decision.
Of course, the agency doesn't worry since the monies to do so are from "We the People" This fact alone should make the populous angry.. but the propaganda of the agency tugs at our hearts to save just one child.



3 MILLION DOLLAR VERDICT AGAINST CPS FOR VIOLATING LOVING MOTHERS RIGHTS. SOCIAL WORKERS FOUND GUILTY OF LYING AND FABRICATING EVIDENCE OUT OF THIN AIR. 

Below is a copy of the open letter we will give to the jury this a.m (11/04/2016).Original Link (Join Group):https://www.facebook.com/groups/1498629917076102/1791751314430626/?notif_t=group_activity&notif_id=1478263660733413

 We anticipate that the Defendants will appeal your verdict. In the next few days you may be approached by agents of the government – private investigators. They will want to interview you and take your sworn statement about what happened during your deliberations. They wish to overturn your verdict and discard the results of your hard work. You are free to speak with anyone from either side about your verdict – but you are not obligated to do so. Before speaking to anyone or signing anything, we ask that you consider the magnitude of what it is they are asking you to do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Juror:
The task you had thrust upon you was important for more reasons than you might imagine. We are taught that our government is comprised of a system of checks and balances; that its three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, act as a counter balance created to avoid the predictable accumulation of power in a centralized government. But the drafters of the Constitution also recognized that this system has flaws. Over time, the natural tendency of any government is to oppress its people. To address their fear and distrust of power, they created a fourth check in the system of checks and balances. This fourth check is rarely spoken of. Its you. The jury. The conscience of the community.

At the founding of this country, the people had only recently thrown off the despotic yoke of an oppressive and corrupt government. They had a healthy distrust of government structures. But, they had a tremendous faith in the people who had fought and died to gain their liberty. Fr this reason the right to a jury trial was enshrined in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, said that “Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” And he was right. Your service and sacrifice is critical to the maintenance of a free society, and an honest government.

We ask that you notify us of any contact by the defense (or their agents) and that we be allowed either to be present for any interview you grant to the defense, or to discuss with you any telephonic or written communications you receive from the defense.
We thank you for your service.




Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector

Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.


 Learn More>> Click Here

How to Use Depositions

Your Deposition Power ...

When, Why, What, and How ...

Slay your opponent with depositions!
Happy DepositionBut!
Like other tools in your "Lawyer's Little Red Toolbox", depositions are best used:
  1. At the right time,
  2. For the right reason,
  3. In the right way!

  • A deposition is not a friendly coffee-klatch! 
  • It's not a "social event".
  • Beware of sneaky lawyers, who try to turn the serious fact-finding business of deposition into a friendly "conversation".
    Do not allow it.
When you see it begin, stop it immediately!

Lawyers will try to lead deposition witnesses into a false sense of safety by seeming "friendly", asking questions about Aunt Suzy's recipe for butterscotch cookies or where Uncle Bill spent his vacation last year.
This is not to get at facts but to trick the witness into "chatting", to get you and the witness off-guard so improper questions can be "popped" in while you day-dream about how many quarters you put in the parking meter outside.

"I understand you're quite a golfer, Mr. Witness."
Learn from Jurisdictionary step-by-stepRed flag!
Don't be duped.
Your opponent's lawyer doesn't care a thing about the witness' golfing.
He's on a fishing expedition.
He's after something else.
Click Here to Learn More!


Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector

Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.


 Learn More>> Click Here

Friday, March 9, 2018

How to Do Case Paperwork Suggestions

Want to drive your opponents nuts?
Tie them down with word-power!
Stuff your opponents in a word-box and win your case

  • Most pro se people don't understand ... so they lose, needlessly.
Many lawyers don't understand ... so they also lose, needlessly ... and take their client's money anyway!
Sentences with ONE VERB.
Sentences with ONE SUBJECT.
One subject. One verb. And only the absolutely necessary adjectives and adverbs.
If it's important to say your opponent's nose was gigantic, say so. Otherwise, leave it out!


Each sentence is a complete thought.
Mrs. Edgerton taught me that in Second Grade, and it's helped me win countless court battles.
Write case-winning paperwork.
Our "How to Win in Court" course shows how.
Click Here to Learn More!


What is the goal of legal writing?
  • Impress the judge?

  • Confuse the opponent?

  • Or, win the case?
In law, the goal is to win!


Every word, spoken in the courtroom or written on paper filed with the clerk and served on the other side, must aim toward a specific goal.Learn from Jurisdictionary step-by-step
 
Any words not aimed at the goal must go!

Most of what I've seen from pro se people (and quite a bit from the dozens of lawyers I had to deal with since 1987 when I first started as a licensed attorney) read more like a long-winded story.


Legal writing is NOT "story-telling"!
Every word has a purpose.
 
Any word that does nothing to achieve the goal (which is winning, by the way) must go.


Say what needs saying and stop!
Aim every word at your goal.
 
You don't need a "novelist's eye" or a "bartender's ear", like Jimmy Buffett.
You're assembling the parts of a powerful engine.
Write case-winning paperwork.
 
Our "How to Win in Court" course shows how.
Click Here to Learn More



Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector


Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.


 Learn More>> Click Here





Monday, February 12, 2018

"Illegal" Immigration in the Eyes of Teddy Rosevelt

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. 
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.~ Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Origins:   Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for vice president in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.

Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful), he remained active in the public political sphere. In the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., “Italian-American”) and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America.
On 1 February 1916, for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the “loyalty” of American immigrants:



Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at a luncheon given yesterday by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land that for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. “And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality,” he added, “so I can say this without suspicion.” The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization.
 

“We cannot make the Americanization movement a success,” Colonel Roosevelt said, “unless we approach it from the economic standpoint. It is true that governmentally Germany is an autocracy. But there has been a great deal more industrial freedom there than many of our old industrial communities. The German Government says we expect you to work out good results, to get together with the laborer, and yourselves decide what you are going to pay to the doctors who are to pass upon the health of the employes, and the amount of damages any employe merits. The Government insists upon a great amount of self-government by the people themselves.
“I feel that by insistence upon proper housing conditions we shall indirectly approach this. I want to see the immigrant know that he has got to spend a certain amount of his money in decent housing; that he will not be allowed to live on $2.50 per month board basis.
 

“Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.
“We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.
 

“If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically.”1

A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in
St. Louis:



Moral treason to the United States was charged by Mr. Roosevelt, in an address delivered before the City Club, against German-Americans who seek to make their governmental representatives act in the interests of Germany rather than this country. He characterized the German-American Alliance as “an anti-American alliance,” but added that he believed that its members “not only do not represent but scandalously misrepresent” the great majority of real Americans of German origin. Using the motto “America for Americans” for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that “the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace.”
 

“I appeal to all our citizens,” the colonel said, “no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischiefmakers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin.”
Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism — to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen “whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came.”
He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American “is out of place” in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France or Russia be guilty of misconduct.
 

“The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself,” the colonel continued, “by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries amd jealousies and hatreds.”2

In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations:




Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that “We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country.”3

Likewise, on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools:




English as the sole language for schools, newspapers and other usage in this country was urged by Theodore Roosevelt in an address here tonight under the direction of the National Security League. […]
In voicing his approval of the recent proclamation by Gov. Harding, ordering that English be the only medium of instruction in public or private schools in Iowa, Col. Roosevelt said:
 

“This is a nation — not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty — to the Stars and Stripes.”4

The comments quoted at this head of the page are more in the same vein; excerpts not from (as claimed in the accompanying text) a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (while he was still President), but from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World
War I:



NEW YORK, Jan. 6. — What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an “All-American concert” here under the auspices of the American Defense society, of which he was honorary president. “I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed,” it read. “There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over.
 

“There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.
 

“If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.
 

“We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”5

A copy of this letter, obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, can be viewed here.

Last updated:   23 September 2015

Sources:

    3.   Boston Daily Globe.   “‘Moral Treason’ to Attack Allies.”
    5 July 1917   (p. 10).
    5.   The Chicago Daily Tribune.   “Abolish Hyphen Roosevelt’s Last Words to Public.”

    7 January 1919   (p. 4).
    1.   The New York Times.   “A Roosevelt Idea Made in Germany.”

    2 February 1916   (p. 5).
    2.   The Washington Post.   “T.R. Assails Wilson.”

    1 June 1916   (p. 1).
    4.   The Washington Post.   “Use Only English, Roosevelt Urges.”

    28 May 1918   (p. 2).
Organization of Above: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp


Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector


Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Ed.

 Learn More>> Click Here


Monday, January 29, 2018

Understanding Lawsuit Anatomy

Below is one of the many emails received from Jurisdictionary .  
As simple as remembering CAT?

( email from Author of"How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course )
Jurisdictionary


 


Lawsuit Anatomy

Learn lawsuit anatomy by spelling: CAT.
The 3 basic steps of every lawsuit are:.

  • Complaint
  • Answer
  • Trial
Start here, and you'll soon be operating like a pro in court, controlling judges and defeating crooked lawyers.

Of course, there's much more to winning, but it's all easy if you start with basic anatomy: CAT.

  • C = Complaint ... Where every case begins. Plaintiff complains by filing a Complaint. He alleges (1) what duty the defendant breached, (2) how the defendant breached the duty, and (3) how the plaintiff suffered damages (or is threatened with damages) as a direct result.

  • A = Answer ... Where defendant responds to plaintiff's Complaint by filing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. In his Answer he admits or denies (or claims he lacks enough knowledge to admit or deny) each separate allegation of the plaintiff's Complaint. In his Affirmative Defenses he alleges facts that (if he can prove them) will relieve him of his obligation to plaintiff.

  • T = Trial ... Where the judge (or jury) decides the final verdict by examining admissible evidence, using plain old common sense to decide which facts presented are true, weighing each side's evidence to see which side has the greater weight of evidence, and then applying the law to determine who wins.
>>Plaintiffs file Complaints.
>>Defendants file Answers (and essential "Affirmative Defenses", as you will learn in my course.
>>Judges and juries examine the facts and law at trial to decide who wins.


During the process Motions and Discovery Tools are used by both sides to convince the court who should win.
This is where the fight is - not at trial.
Every winnable case can be won before trial, if you use my case-winning tactics ... all explained in my affordable, official, 24-hour Jurisdictionary "How to Win in Court" self-help course.
For example, there are 3 Motions the defendant can use to avoid filing an answer:

  1. Motion to Dismiss
  2. Motion to Strike
  3. Motion for More Definite Statement
All explained in the course.

At any time after the Complaint is filed, either side may use 5 discovery tools to get facts that may lead to admissible evidence:

  1. Admissions
  2. Production
  3. Interrogatories
  4. Depositions
  5. Subpoenas and other court orders
Also explained fully in my affordable self-help course.

That's the Anatomy of Every Lawsuit!

It really IS this simple!




Learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector


Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.

 Learn More>> Click Here