|
|
|
OK, I've decided to represent myself in court.
I will be filing suit against the retailer for slander and false arrest.
Questions:
1) Should I file just before Christmas, so to improve chances of a default
judgement?
2) If there is a trial, should I request a jury trial to increase my chances of
winning?
3) Should I file a limited case (under $25K) or unlimited?
4) If I lose, am I responsible for the other side's lawyer and court fees?
|
| |
| |
On 14 Dec 2003 16:16:26 GMT, waitumminsir@aol.com (Waitumminsir)
wrote:
OK, I've decided to represent myself in court.
Probably a mistake.
I will be filing suit against the retailer for slander and false arrest.
1) Should I file just before Christmas, so to improve chances of a default
judgement?
You should learn how to spell judgment before you file.
What makes you think that the timing of your filing -- and what really
matters is when you serve the complaint -- will have anything to do
with the likelihood of the defendant to respond?
2) If there is a trial, should I request a jury trial to increase my chances of
winning?
Probably, but it's a strategic decision and depends on things only you
know. Conventional wisdom is that juries have more sympathy for the
little guy than the corporate guy.
3) Should I file a limited case (under $25K) or unlimited?
If your damages are more than $25K, you should file unlimited, don't
you think?
4) If I lose, am I responsible for the other side's lawyer and court fees?
The default is that each side is responsible for its own attorney fees
(but there are exceptions), and the loser is responsible for certain
costs of the winner (not just court fees).
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Probably a mistake.
Well, I really don't have a choice. No lawyer wants it on contingency basis.
They all want a large retainer + hourly, which would wipe me out financially.
And since this is not a slam dunk case (I believe it is, but most lawyers don't
agree), I don't wanna risk losing then owing thousands in lawyers fees.
I will be filing suit against the retailer for slander and false arrest.
1) Should I file just before Christmas, so to improve chances of a default
judgement?
You should learn how to spell judgment before you file.
Ha. Good one.
What makes you think that the timing of your filing -- and what really
matters is when you serve the complaint -- will have anything to do
with the likelihood of the defendant to respond?
I don't know, hoping they'll be too busy with the holidays and slips their
mind.
of
Probably, but it's a strategic decision and depends on things only you
know. Conventional wisdom is that juries have more sympathy for the
little guy than the corporate guy.
Hope so.
If your damages are more than $25K, you should file unlimited, don't
you think?
I don't really know how to gauge my damages since it was psychological. I've
read similar cases where some were awarded as much as $100,000. But I'm
thinking if I ask for over $25K, I'd look too greedy, plus I've heard they're
more likely to settle if amount is under $25K.
4) If I lose, am I responsible for the other side's lawyer and court fees?
The default is that each side is responsible for its own attorney fees
(but there are exceptions), and the loser is responsible for certain
costs of the winner (not just court fees).
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
hope you don't mind me answering it here>
OK, I've decided to represent myself in court.
Not usually a fruitful idea.
Then what can a poor schmuck like me do, when no lawyer would take the case
without a retainer? I was wronged, I want justice. I just can't put this behind
me, it still bothers me to this day.
I will be filing suit against the retailer
for slander and false arrest.
If so, then it probably would be a good idea before suing to verify
your jurisdiction's version of the laws applicable in all fifty U.S.
states vesting in a retailer a right to detain an actual or apparent
customer in many circumstances and related (qualified) immunity from
suit for so doing and of (qualified) privilege from defamation
lawsuits concerning statements made >arising out of such detentions.
Well, I did some research and retailers (in CA) do have the right to detain
suspected shoplifters for a "reasonable" amount of time. A case was cited where
a person was held for 20 minutes until the police arrived. Courts ruled in
favor of the store because the majority of the length of detention was waiting
for the cops to arrive. But, in my case, I was held for double that time and
police were never summoned. A law firm citing this law states that it's very
important for the retailer to call the cops IMMEDIATELY or let the shopper go
because it can violate this statute. Since the police were never called and
the investigation wasn't in "reasonable" amount of time, I feel that I have a
strong case.
Second statute covered privilege and immunity from lawsuits IF the police take
over the investigation. Since the store never called them, this does not apply
to my case.
1) Should I file just before Christmas, so to
improve chances of a default judgement?
This is a non sequitur in only seeming "question" form: Whether you do
(or don't) "file just before Christmas" will not have any bearing on
whether defendant will (or won't) default or on your entitlement in
any other respect to a default judgment.
Well, I'm hoping they'll be too busy with the holidays to bother.
2) If there is a trial, should I request a jury
trial to increase my chances of winning?
Whether you will be entitled to a trial by jury will depend on in what
court you commence/prosecute your lawsuit (e.g., jury trials aren't
available in most "small claims" courts).
I won't be suing in small claims, since it's limited to $5000.
Your "chances of winning" will be increased to the extent that your
ability convincingly to prove law-wrongful and also damaging conduct
by the defendant(s), not by whether there >is/isn't a jury.
I've heard that judges tend to be hostile to Pro Pers, since they were former
lawyers and get offended that someone who didn't attend law school is
practicing law. I'm pretty certain the jury will at least be more sympathetic.
Who knows, maybe they've had similar experiences and wanna seek revenge by
ruling in my favor.
In addition, pro se litigants rarely prevail in jury trials.
But the odds gotta be better than judge trials.
However,
whether you will be able to meet the factual and legal requirements in
light of your state's law to avoid a summary dismissal and,
conversely, convincingly to establish a claim warranting the grant of
relief to you by a court concededly is not not determinable just from
what you here say; and so it is at least possible (if not probable)
that yours may eventually be the rare lawsuit the result of which
contravenes these otherwise pretty >well-documented realities.
3) Should I file a limited case (under
$25K) or unlimited?
With basically just one qualification, most sophisticated business
defendants and their lawyers and (even more) so experienced and judges
are completely unaffected by seemingly emptilly in terrorem demands
for relief (e.g., $20-million" or "$[unlimited]"). The qualification
is that, in most cases, a demand for "$[unlimited" (or the like) is
often (for good reason) interpreted as a sign of insecurity and
defensiveness by a plaintiff, then exploited as such. In any case
(that is: in almost every real-life "case"), there are any number of
pre-trial procedures which a defendant may (and most do and, if they
don't the court does) invoke to require plaintiff to quantify the
damage amount actually sued for and the amount (if any) awarded will
depend above all on what the SPECIFIC FACTS actually PROVEN in the
case warrant (except that, in some [comparatively unusual] cases,
depending on the answer to the "Where?" question and on all the other
operative facts [information you don't provide in your posting/query],
there may be a statute providing for some form enhanced damage if the
plaintiff adequately so alleges then proves).
4) If I lose, am I responsible for the other
side's lawyer and court fees?
The general rule throughout the U.S. is that, absent an agreement
between the parties or a statute explicitly providing otherwise, each
party to a civil lawsuit bears his/her or its own expenses for
attorneys fees. However, there are any number of case/fact-specific
such statutes/rules, including (also depending on the answer to the by
you not provided answer to the "Where?" question) numerous state
analogs to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (authorizing a U.S.
federal district court to impose sanctions including attorneys fees on
a party who engages in meretriciously >"frivolous" litigation conduct).
Well, I don't believe my lawsuit if frivolous. I was a victim of public
humiliation, slander and discrimination. I just want my day in court to prove
to them that it's not OK to mistreat a shopper on the false presumption that he
was shoplifting. They could have at least treated me with respect, taken me to
a private area (instead of shouting accusations in the middle of the store) and
let me leave as soon as I proved my innocence.
What other statutory costs/fees will be awarded to the predominantly
prevailing party also is a state/court-specific issue thus also
dependent on the answer to "Where?" although it is fair to say, as a
general proposition, that a variety of (state/court-specific)
costs/fees are mandatorily awarded to the prevailing party unless the
court for good cause shown directs otherwise (and that, depending
whether there have been depositions and substantial motion practice in
the case, etc., such costs can be considerable [or, as the case may
be, just nominal].).
That your query indicates that you have not even bothered to verify
what your state's laws actually provide in these respects is probably
a harbinger about the likelihood of your >success in other respects.
Well, I haven't been playing lawyer for long. =)
But I did manage to find/fill out all the necessary forms to get it started.
Thanks to a well written book by a former
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 00:08:53 GMT, Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote:
I've heard that judges tend to be hostile to Pro Pers, since they were former
lawyers and get offended that someone who didn't attend law school is
practicing law. I'm pretty certain the jury will at least be more sympathetic.
Who knows, maybe they've had similar experiences and wanna seek revenge by
ruling in my favor.
Judges are hostile to pro pers because unrepresented litigants make so many
mistakes that the judge's life is made into a living hell. The judge is
often forced to do extra work to avoid a complete trampling of the rights.
I haven't seen civil pro se litigants at work, but I have seen criminal
defendants come in and basically admit to four fifths of the state's case
against them often leaving the easy part of the case to the state.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 00:08:53 GMT Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> whittled these words:
1) Should I file just before Christmas, so to
improve chances of a default judgement?
This is a non sequitur in only seeming "question" form: Whether you do
(or don't) "file just before Christmas" will not have any bearing on
whether defendant will (or won't) default or on your entitlement in
Well, I'm hoping they'll be too busy with the holidays to bother.
If this is an example of the kind of thought process you will be using in
filing and arguing your case you may as well just give up now. Maybe if
you were suing for $250 - but for $25,000 (and up) they aren't going to
default. It will take an hour, maybe two, to prepare sufficient response
so as to avoid default.
Diane Blackman
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:56:02 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On 15 Dec 2003 00:08:53 GMT, Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote:
Judges are hostile to pro pers because unrepresented litigants make so many
mistakes that the judge's life is made into a living hell. The judge is
often forced to do extra work to avoid a complete trampling of the rights.
I think it's fairer to say that judges don't like having to deal with
pro pers, but that doesn't always mean they are more hostile. In
fact, many times, judges are more lenient with pro pers.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Judges are hostile to pro pers because unrepresented litigants make so many
mistakes that the judge's life is made into a living hell. The judge is
often forced to do extra work to avoid a complete trampling of the rights.
I haven't seen civil pro se litigants at work, but I have seen criminal
defendants come in and basically admit to four fifths of the state's case
against them often leaving the easy part of the case to the state.
Isaac
Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to prepare my case as thoroughly as
possible. I'd hate to embarrass myself too much and lose the case on a
technicality.
|
| |
| |
If this is an example of the kind of thought process you will be using in
filing and arguing your case you may as well just give up now. Maybe if
you were suing for $250 - but for $25,000 (and up) they aren't going to
default. It will take an hour, maybe two, to prepare sufficient response
so as to avoid default.
Diane Blackman
I was joking. =)
I really haven't decided on the amount I'll be seeking. Small claims is out of
the question, because I want a jury trial. I'll most likely file as limited,
because it might persuade them to settle, considering it may cost more to
defend themselves.
|
| |
| |
waitumminsir@aol.com (Waitumminsir) wrote in
news:20031214182955.19924.00000170@mb-m01.aol.com:
And since this is not a slam dunk case (I believe it is, but most
lawyers don't agree), I don't wanna risk losing then owing thousands
in lawyers fees.
How risking mistakes that cause you to both lose the case AND have
sanctions awarded against you?
I don't know, hoping they'll be too busy with the holidays and slips
their mind.
Do you really think the company, after being served with a complaint asking
for $25k or more in damages, is going to let it "slip their mind"?
I don't really know how to gauge my damages since it was
psychological. I've read similar cases where some were awarded as much
as $100,000. But I'm thinking if I ask for over $25K, I'd look too
greedy, plus I've heard they're more likely to settle if amount is
under $25K.
If your damages are psychological, your state may require expert testimony
that the defendant's actions caused the psychological damage, and the
extent of the damage caused by the defendant's actions, both of which may
be required to receive any compensatory psychological damages.
If you demonstrate ineptitude, I doubt the defendant is going to settle for
anything more than giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
Even if you don't want to hire an attorney to take the case through trial,
I think you should at least hire one to handle your paperwork, especially
with your expert witness (if necessary). There may be very specific
deadlines regarding paperwork and discovery with expert witnesses.
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 02:03:35 GMT, Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote:
If this is an example of the kind of thought process you will be using in
filing and arguing your case you may as well just give up now. Maybe if
you were suing for $250 - but for $25,000 (and up) they aren't going to
default. It will take an hour, maybe two, to prepare sufficient response
so as to avoid default.
Diane Blackman
I was joking. =)
I really haven't decided on the amount I'll be seeking. Small claims is out of
the question, because I want a jury trial. I'll most likely file as limited,
because it might persuade them to settle, considering it may cost more to
defend themselves.
Your logic here completely baffles me. Why are they going to be more inclined
to settle if the anticipated damages are smaller?
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Your logic here completely baffles me. Why are they going to be more
inclined
to settle if the anticipated damages are smaller?
Isaac
Well, isn't this how it always work? Plaintiff sues for an exaggerated amount,
thus encouraging/scaring defendant to settle @ a much lower amount, which just
happens to be what the plaintiff was secretly seeking in the first place.
I was involved in an auto accident suit which pretty much went this way. My
lawyer sued for the maximum and we ended up settling for about .
|
| |
| |
How risking mistakes that cause you to both lose the case AND have
sanctions awarded against you?
What sanctions? At this point, I really don't have a choice. I can't afford an
attorney and this is not something I want to forgive and forget. Sometimes you
gotta fight for your rights and this is one of those times.
Do you really think the company, after being served with a complaint asking
for $25k or more in damages, is going to let it "slip their mind"?
Of course not. But I can dream. =)
I don't really know how to gauge my damages since it was
psychological. I've read similar cases where some were awarded as much
as $100,000. But I'm thinking if I ask for over $25K, I'd look too
greedy, plus I've heard they're more likely to settle if amount is
under $25K.
If your damages are psychological, your state may require expert testimony
that the defendant's actions caused the psychological damage, and the
extent of the damage caused by the defendant's actions, both of which may
be required to receive any compensatory psychological damages.
All good points.
If you demonstrate ineptitude, I doubt the defendant is going to settle for
anything more than giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
Hopefully, they'll settle before the trial. Like in my automobile case.
Even if you don't want to hire an attorney to take the case through trial,
I think you should at least hire one to handle your paperwork, especially
with your expert witness (if necessary). There may be very specific
deadlines regarding paperwork and discovery with expert witnesses.
Good advice. But like I said, I can't afford to. My dad recently hired a lawyer
to write a letter and it cost him $500! One friggin letter!
Believe me, I would like nothing more than a lawyer taking care of this. But I
just can't afford one.
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 03:35:09 GMT Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> whittled these words:
How risking mistakes that cause you to both lose the case AND have
sanctions awarded against you?
What sanctions? At this point, I really don't have a choice. I can't afford an
attorney and this is not something I want to forgive and forget. Sometimes you
gotta fight for your rights and this is one of those times.
I don't really know how to gauge my damages since it was
psychological. I've read similar cases where some were awarded as much
as $100,000. But I'm thinking if I ask for over $25K, I'd look too
greedy, plus I've heard they're more likely to settle if amount is
under $25K.
If your damages are psychological, your state may require expert testimony
that the defendant's actions caused the psychological damage, and the
extent of the damage caused by the defendant's actions, both of which may
be required to receive any compensatory psychological damages.
If you demonstrate ineptitude, I doubt the defendant is going to settle for
anything more than giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
It actually doesn't matter if the state requires expert testimony. The
defense is not going to pay remotely $25,000 until and unless they get
their own expert involved. Its a small price to pay for evaluating the
case especially since chances are the results will be sufficient to
support a motion for summary judgement. Plaintiff is not going to
successfully oppose without preenting his own expert testimony. And
defendant will be delighted if plaintiff tries to pinch pennies there.
Hopefully, they'll settle before the trial. Like in my automobile case.
Not likley. The cause and effect issues are poles apart. Do you know
exactly what you will have to prove and what evidence you must have to
prove it? If not, you really need to find out what the costs of proof
will be. And if money is an issue you'll want to do that BEFORE you start
incurring more costs.
And if you are claiming psychological damage you must have a psychologist
who is treating or at least who has diagnosed you. When I say "must" I
mean if you don't you better or your may as well just set fire to the
money you are spending on this action. Sit down with this person and go
over a different cost/benefit analysis. You have in mind what it will feel
like to win. You need to discuss what maintaining the suit will be like
in terms of intrusion on your personal life, emnotional disruption, and
ultimately the psychological costs of not succeeding. Because anyone who
has actually been through it can tell you that a lawsuit where there are
emotions involved are their own kind of hell. And your fantasy of easy
settlement is just that. Yes, there are types of suits that seem to
result in easy settlement, this ain't one of them. If you win,
congratulations, but I won't place any bets that the costs will be worth
the money.
Diane Blackman
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 03:20:15 GMT, Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote:
Your logic here completely baffles me. Why are they going to be more
inclined
to settle if the anticipated damages are smaller?
Isaac
Well, isn't this how it always work? Plaintiff sues for an exaggerated amount,
thus encouraging/scaring defendant to settle @ a much lower amount, which just
happens to be what the plaintiff was secretly seeking in the first place.
So why are you going for "limited" versus "unlimited". You've already decided
not to go to small claims court because you want a jury trial.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
If you win,
congratulations, but I won't place any bets that the costs will be worth
the money.
Diane Blackman
Are you a lawyer?
Can I ask what you would do if you were in my situation? (Facts of the case:
imprisoned 40 minutes; threatened with prosecution/prison; humiliated/slandered
in front of other shoppers; police never called.)
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 06:08:19 GMT Waitumminsir <waitumminsir@aol.com> whittled these words:
If you win,
congratulations, but I won't place any bets that the costs will be worth
the money.
Diane Blackman
Are you a lawyer?
Can I ask what you would do if you were in my situation? (Facts of the case:
imprisoned 40 minutes; threatened with prosecution/prison; humiliated/slandered
in front of other shoppers; police never called.)
I've BEEN in the situation have having it feel like my life came apart
because of official mistreatment. I had at least some evidence to support
me and several volunteer witnesses. Contrary to your situation I was not
told I had no case worth pursuing. But I know what goes on in lawsuits.
I decided the amount I could recover for the wrong was not worth adding
even more distress and emotional upset to my life. Did I want to "punish"
them for their wrong? Of course. Did I want my belief I was wronged
validated by a win? of course. But in the end I knew who and what I was
and they WERE wrong, and they couldn't make me be what I wasn't. What
they could do is put me through a wringer to get the victory. The success
I might achieve in a win would cost a lot in time, money and emotional
pain and gain me almost nothing I couldn't provide for myself (dignity,
self-worth, pride ...) I decided that what was in MY best interest was to
get on with my life.
To YOU it might be worth it. But I suggest you speak with somone able and
willing to give you a realistic picture of the non-monetary impact this
will have on your life. You need a good picture of exactly what they can
do in pursuit of defense. YOu don't want to invest to find out? Fine.
No skin off my nose. You will always pay for an education. Hopefully the
tuition is OK with you. It might be, as I said - I'm NOT you. YOU might
find the price worth it. Personally I like to get some idea of the
tuition before I commit to education. But if you don't want to , don't.
Whether you do or don't find that out probably won't affect the outcome of
the case.
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 06:08:19 GMT, waitumminsir@aol.com (Waitumminsir) in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Can I ask what you would do if you were in my situation? (Facts of the case:
imprisoned 40 minutes; threatened with prosecution/prison; humiliated/slandered
in front of other shoppers; police never called.)
I am assuming a charge of shoplifting or other failure to pay for an
item owned by the store. You (and/or other responders) can correct me
if I am wrong.
Having known people who worked retail store security, cases brought
under these situations usually do not succeed. The store has the right
to ask you to verify your purchases as long as you are in the store or
its environs (like a mall).
Having seen and followed through such a store detainment, most of the
"threats" are requests to prove you have actually purchased the item
they suspect you took via shoplifting. They (store security) have
normally acted on a belief something was taken or not properly purchased
usually based upon store security's own observations, the security
camera operator's observations (from a remote camera), or the
observations of a store employee.
Normally store security cannot halt a suspected shoplifter until he/she
leaves the store's premises (such as into the mall), as there is always
the possibility of the "last minute" reprieve in which a suspected
shoplifter may walk to the till and purchase the item.
The detention by a shopkeeper for suspected shoplifting is also lawful
under most state statutes if
a) there is a reasonable belief as to the theft;
b) the detention was in a reasonable manner without deadly force; and
c) the detention period is reasonable for purposes of making an
investigation.
Obviously, you appear to claim these conditions were not met, or I
gather you would not be considering legal action. Nonetheless, 40
minutes' detention is not false arrest IF the conditions of a) and b)
are met, IMO. This would be an allowable time under the "...reasonable
for purposes of making an investigation." Further, since police were
not called nor an arrest warrant issued, the incident remained internal
between the store security and yourself, so I fail to see (so far) how
you were publicly humiliated by the store making reasonable inquiries as
to you verifying your purchase and following up what you told them.
However, as to slander, you would need to be more specific (IMO) as to
what was said and to whom. If the comments were made within the store
security area, I doubt most courts (or juries) would see that as
"slander" as the statements were still between the two parties (that is,
the store security staff and yourself). So, one needs to be clear about
what was said and to whom.
As others have indicated, the issue of suing for either $250 or $25,000
isn't so much the matter as is whether or not you can prove your charges
of unlawful detention, the store's failure of a reasonable belief as to
theft, and whether detention was made in a reasonable (read:
non-forceful) manner. Claiming psychological damages is a shaky claim,
IMO, as you will have to prove by expert testimony (yours) that you were
damaged by the incident (which requires proving how you were prior to
the incident and how you have been irreparably harmed by the incident),
and likely the store will have its own arguments (and a body of law)
about its right to ask business invitees (which you are, BTW) to verify
store purchases.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Regards --
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
Bob Stock <xxx@x.com> on 14 Dec 2003 suggested:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:56:02 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
I think it's fairer to say that judges don't like having to deal with
pro pers, but that doesn't always mean they are more hostile. In
fact, many times, judges are more lenient with pro pers.
I tend to agree with Bob. In the civil cases that I have observed
with Pro per litigants, the judges do in fact seem to give the pro per
breaks when they make mistakes in procedure.
I think Isaac has a good point that in Criminal cases, the issue
is much more difficult for judges, though I don't see the same "rights"
issues being applicable in the civil cases.
--Douglas
|
| |
| |
1. If you ask substantial damages, you will be dealing with an insurance
company and not a retailer. The insurance company will probably be quick to
settle for a modest sum with a lawyer, but perhaps not so quick to settle
with a someone representing him- or herself out of belief that they can be
frustrated with reams of paper.
2. In a criminal case especially, self-representation has some advantages in
that you can abandon civility and break rules of court without being
punished, and without worrying about alienating the judge. (But be sure to
cultivate the clerks, and always smile and greet them warmly: they can
destroy your case by losing files or failing to warn you about your
mistakes.) And bear in mind that lots of defendants have gone to the death
house because they arrogantly insisted on representing themselves: Caryl
Chessman comes to mind -- he was convicted of kidnapping (and transporting
his victim a few yards) and sentenced to the gas chamber. There were
procedural errors by the prosecution that no lawyer would have missed, but
he did and it cost him his life.
3. You may improve your chances of a settlement by bringing the press into
this case.
4. Be sure to protect the evidence: you need disclosure, and you should
subpoena the CCTV tapes and any contemporaneous notes made by the store
staff. Also sue the individual employees in their own right. Their household
insurers may or may not defend them; it gives you additional leverage.
5. Visit the court often before your trial and get familiar with procedure,
the judge, the terminology. There are books in your library on suing pro se.
The more you know, the more confident you will be and the better your case
will go.
6. Good luck.
On 15/12/03 8:15, in article
Xns94522AF89E08Legal1Ladden2Law3@216.148.227.77, "Douglas S. Ladden"
<dslSansSpam@hiteklaw.com> wrote:
I tend to agree with Bob. In the civil cases that I have observed
with Pro per litigants, the judges do in fact seem to give the pro per
breaks when they make mistakes in procedure.
I think Isaac has a good point that in Criminal cases, the issue
is much more difficult for judges, though I don't see the same "rights"
issues being applicable in the civil cases.
|
| |
| |
On 14 Dec 2003 16:16:26 GMT, waitumminsir@aol.com (Waitumminsir)
wrote:
You should learn how to spell judgment before you file.
I agree with you 100 per cent about the proper spelling, although I am also
the kind of guy who insists (when modern dictionaries have gone all mushy
and wishy-washy on the subject) that the expression is "run the gantlet"
(NOT gauntlet).
But, having gone through a bitter usenet confrontation about "judgement" on
another group, I would point out that judgement is considered an "variant"
(rather than "wrong") spelling. I acknowledged this from the start in the
prior discussion, while maintaining that not all "variants" are created
equal. (And I backed up my argument with statistics on actual usage of each
spelling in newspapers.) I still would never include the variant spelling
"judgement" in any sort of formal writing, no matter how conciliatory the
dictionaries are. So, I say again that you are right, and that "judgement"
is wrong. But, be aware that the forces of darkness have their own scholars.
|
| |
| |
"Waitumminsir" <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote
Then what can a poor schmuck like me do, when no lawyer would take the
case
without a retainer? I was wronged, I want justice. I just can't put this
behind
me, it still bothers me to this day.
Then take it on as a hobby.
Hobbies can be expensive (as compared with 'no-expenses'). You may want to
buy your State's CD on Civil Procedure and their Revised Statutes. You will
need to spend some on Lexus-Nexus at the law library. You'll have
reproduction costs, service costs, and so on.
Their primary tactic with an opposing lawyer is to just answer everything he
does, forever. They fund unlimited time from a library sciences
professional, and you can't generally afford to keep up with them.
If you make it a hobby, you can match their time.
There is a lot of stuff on the net. Start out by googling the broadest
search using the simplest terms of your query ('shoplifting detention' or
something). You'll get filings from other people; refine your theory- learn
the context of the law, look at the modalities and concepts that lawfirms
use. Read the newsreports and see what questions lawyers ask about such
events. There will be essays and articles in professional journals- refine
your question.
Your complaint will depend on the question you ask the Court to consider, so
get as much help as you can on defining the legal controversy the complaint
submits. Simplify your controversy and make your submissions as short as
possible. Lawyers don't like to read, judges even less. The more you tell
them, the more they can answer.
You'll find nothing but contempt from legal professionals, but remember that
they practice law as a general profession- you're going to be *very
specific* in your interest, and you don't contemplate doing it again.
Watch your visual 'forma' very closely- but that's easy to do with a
computer. Watch your procedure very closely, particularly your requirements
for 'service'.
Most fights are over pretty quickly. In this arena, time is always long
enough to really consider your response. If it's a hobby for you, time is on
your side. If time is a cost to you, time is your enemy.
You must be ruthless. You can expect no accommodation from your opponent,
and you must state your own position very strongly. You have only words to
strike with, so they must be formed very incisively.
Step outside of their arena. Engage public opinion, report to the newsmedia,
involve groups that may see your enemy as theirs also. Approach the public
action groups- don't enlist their direct aid, they can't pay their own legal
bills, just give them your stuff and let them work with it on their own.
Approach their union, or 'professional standards', or their advertising
agency, or their advertisers- don't whine to them, ask pertinent questions.
You have to exercise your strengths and minimize theirs.
Think of it as 'Law Fu'.
Oh, and you may very well want to consider your event from a *Federal*
perspective, not your State's jurisdiction. You're not going to need to
prepare to work professionally in a scope of jurisdictions, so learning Fed
procedure is just as useful to you as learning State's procedure. Look at
'diversity of citizenship' kinds of jurisdictional questions- you're against
a corporation, their agents, individual liability for the actors- all kinds
good #@($, buddy.
or just pick a courthouse you can walk to- let them pick up travel expenses
for a car full of lawyers.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote
Judges are hostile to pro pers because unrepresented litigants make so
many
mistakes that the judge's life is made into a living hell. The judge is
often forced to do extra work to avoid a complete trampling of the rights.
Yeah; ain't it a shame when poor people fight back.
Arcane procedure- or even library science procedure- should not be used as
an excuse to deny the petition to the government for redress of grievance.
The 'rights' that are being trampled may mean a life changing event to the
Pro Per, and it's worth the inconvenience to the busy professional.
Additionally, if you give them the chance, professionals will often gloss
over their due diligence, and you can catch them at their own games. The
'game' then becomes an additional question to use against them, particularly
in the various procedural exchanges, much less appellate questions or
additional complaints.
I haven't seen civil pro se litigants at work, but I have seen criminal
defendants come in and basically admit to four fifths of the state's case
against them often leaving the easy part of the case to the state.
That's just a naked man before his bench of judgment.
Being stupid or lazy is probably what got him there in the first place.
Civil actions are much different for the Pro Per. They assume the mantle of
the prosecutor, not the complicated needs of a professional defense-
particularly as the defense would be made for someone obviously guilty of
the major elements of the crime.
Family law is where a lot of people end up appearing in pro per. The
complainant's lawyer is 'free', often provided by special interest
organizations, and the spouse has to respond by either expending the whole
family estate, or taking it up on their own.
Tough choices to make.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Bob Stock" <xxx@x.com> wrote
I think it's fairer to say that judges don't like having to deal with
pro pers, but that doesn't always mean they are more hostile. In
fact, many times, judges are more lenient with pro pers.
particularly if you cite the appropriate directions as to liberal
construction and so on.
The real secret is to be right. You've got to be either right, or
desperately wronged, to try to conduct yourself in Court. Righteous
Indignation is a hell of a whip, much less Naked Amongst your Enemies.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Waitumminsir" <waitumminsir@aol.com> wrote
I really haven't decided on the amount I'll be seeking. Small claims is
out of
the question, because I want a jury trial. I'll most likely file as
limited,
because it might persuade them to settle, considering it may cost more to
defend themselves.
You need to look at the civil procedures. Some courts want you to state your
claim of damages in numbers, others don't, others allow you amend or ask
'mixed' (actual damages in number, punitive/exemplary damages in abstract).
When you download filings from other cases- not the legal sources, the
'private' sources (people who post their filings on the web), look at what
they ask for.
Had an individual arrested you; detained you for forty minutes by force,
moved you from one area to another, attempted to search/interrogate/extort
by threat- without ever contacting the public authorities to take note of
the event, you'd probably have some good old crime. You were taken by a
corporation's agents, on it's authority, inside it's property.
just think about it as if you were some black lady, deduct $500,000, and
file for the difference <g>
Chas
|
| |
| |
I am assuming a charge of shoplifting or other failure to pay for an
item owned by the store. You (and/or other responders) can correct me
if I am wrong.
Having known people who worked retail store security, cases brought
under these situations usually do not succeed. The store has the right
to ask you to verify your purchases as long as you are in the store or
its environs (like a mall).
I had no merchandise in my hand or pockets.
Having seen and followed through such a store detainment, most of the
"threats" are requests to prove you have actually purchased the item
they suspect you took via shoplifting. They (store security) have
normally acted on a belief something was taken or not properly purchased
usually based upon store security's own observations, the security
camera operator's observations (from a remote camera), or the
observations of a store employee.
An employee claimed that she *SAW* me take & conceal something. Which is a
total fabrication. I hadn't even touched the merchandise she claimed I stole.
Normally store security cannot halt a suspected shoplifter until he/she
leaves the store's premises (such as into the mall), as there is always
the possibility of the "last minute" reprieve in which a suspected
shoplifter may walk to the till and purchase the item.
I was in the middle of the store, approx. 100 ft from the exit and cashier.
The detention by a shopkeeper for suspected shoplifting is also lawful
under most state statutes if
a) there is a reasonable belief as to the theft;
b) the detention was in a reasonable manner without deadly force; and
c) the detention period is reasonable for purposes of making an
investigation.
Obviously, you appear to claim these conditions were not met, or I
gather you would not be considering legal action. Nonetheless, 40
minutes' detention is not false arrest IF the conditions of a) and b)
are met, IMO. This would be an allowable time under the "...reasonable
for purposes of making an investigation." Further, since police were
not called nor an arrest warrant issued, the incident remained internal
between the store security and yourself, so I fail to see (so far) how
you were publicly humiliated by the store making reasonable inquiries as
to you verifying your purchase and following up what you told them.
Publicly humiliated because I was imprisoned in the middle of the store.
Everyone in the store heard the accusations because they were shouting at me.
Shoppers were standing around watching and believing I was a thief.
However, as to slander, you would need to be more specific (IMO) as to
what was said and to whom. If the comments were made within the store
security area, I doubt most courts (or juries) would see that as
"slander" as the statements were still between the two parties (that is,
the store security staff and yourself). So, one needs to be clear about
what was said and to whom.
Several employees surrounded me and rudely and loudly demanded I give back the
merchandise.
I immediately emptied my pockets to prove that I had nothing hidden. Then I was
accused of hiding it! They threatened me with prison and prosecution if I
didn't tell them where it was hidden.
After 40 minutes of this public humiliation, I was told to empty my pockets
again, which I did and was finally allowed to leave. The manager then proceeded
to ban me from the store (for life) and then made a racist comment.
As others have indicated, the issue of suing for either $250 or $25,000
isn't so much the matter as is whether or not you can prove your charges
of unlawful detention, the store's failure of a reasonable belief as to
theft, and whether detention was made in a reasonable (read:
non-forceful) manner. Claiming psychological damages is a shaky claim,
IMO, as you will have to prove by expert testimony (yours) that you were
damaged by the incident (which requires proving how you were prior to
the incident and how you have been irreparably harmed by the incident),
and likely the store will have its own arguments (and a body of law)
about its right to ask business invitees (which you are, BTW) to verify
store purchases.
I guess the problem is that I have no police report, no known witnesses and no
physical injuries. The only evidence is the security tape, which they probably
erased.
As for psychological damages, I had trouble sleeping for several weeks and to
this day, the event is replayed in my mind over and over again. I get nervous
whenever I go shopping now. I never touch anything unless I plan to buy it.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Regards --
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:37:27 -0700, Chas <c.clementsPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote
many
Yeah; ain't it a shame when poor people fight back.
Arcane procedure- or even library science procedure- should not be used as
an excuse to deny the petition to the government for redress of grievance.
No one's talking about denying a pro per his day in court. What we're
talking about is the fairness or appropriateness of having the judge
fill in for the pro per's lawyer or having the judge grant the pro per
special dispensation that some other not poor, but not necessarily wealthy
person doesn't get.
The 'rights' that are being trampled may mean a life changing event to the
Pro Per, and it's worth the inconvenience to the busy professional.
Additionally, if you give them the chance, professionals will often gloss
over their due diligence, and you can catch them at their own games. The
'game' then becomes an additional question to use against them, particularly
in the various procedural exchanges, much less appellate questions or
additional complaints.
I think I see the agenda now.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
1. If you ask substantial damages, yo | | |
