Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw
There's no need to get personal.
I've been an attorney in private practice for over 20 years.
Why? Because this is what is FAIR and IMPARTIAL.
.
|
Said the pot. An alleged attorney would have no problem placing side by side the analyses of an attorney with the content of Nichols' briefs.
An alleged attorney would have presented evidence to support the volume of your contentions summed up on in one conclusory circular argument, "the courts are fair and impartial toward in pro pers because they are fair and impartial." Since you allege to be an attorney, who at one time was a pro tem judge, i.e. a substitute judge hired by the judges appointed by the governor, cite the case names and case numbers of the in pro per cases, which you heard and for which you granted the relief requested by the in pro per Plaintiff. You have heaped one lie on top of another.
Pro se litigants prevail in 3.5 of their cases. Landsman, Steven, "
The Challenge of Pro Se Litigants," (2009), pp. 242. 76% had judgement entered against them. Id. 56% of their pleadings were dismissed. Id. That is to say 98.2% are denied the relief requested, because they are in pro per. Remember that you alleged that in pro pers write as well and fashion the proper arguments like an attorney.
Remember, alleged attorney, a federal Plaintiff need only state a brief simple statement of the facts entitling that person to relief. FRCP 8. A state court plaintiff need only state simple ultimate facts. CCP ยง425.10. Yet, as the Landsman article dispositively indicates, courts dismiss more than half of the in pro plaintiff's cases on demurrer (the FRCP 12(b)(6) equivalent) for failure to state a claim. The conclusion is that in pro per cases are summarily neutralized. Those astounding statistics undermine your contentions that a) in pro pers do as well as attorneys, and b) that courts carefully review the cases of in pro pers.
Noticeably, alleged attorney, you have not cited a single authority or evidence regarding the conduct of the judiciary or can even recall what you write in this forum. You have gone so far as to invite me to help with retrieval of your voluminous materials because you do not know how to do a google search for your own material. No lawyer is incompetent at research. I await you next set of lies.