The ONLY reason you need NOT to have a lawyer (even court appointed)

[midnight rambler]

At least in Texas.

Here's the deal in Texas - ALL that is necessary for some ahole judge to send you off INDEFINITELY* to the state hospital nuthouse are only TWO elements:

1) you must be in jail at the time
2) you must have an attorney (including a court appointed attorney)

How do I know this? 'Cause I know someone very well who is trying to help out a woman (who happens to be a BAR card carrying lawyer herself and also happens to be a very competent trial lawyer) who is being railroaded by a very corrupt judicial system and DA's office in Texas, so this is first hand info I'm getting.

*as in FOREVER - therefore NEVER, EVER have an attorney re-present you! (at least in Texas)

[Down1]

2) (including a court appointed attorney)
I would think once they deem you to be a nut they can force the court appointed attorney on you.

[midnight rambler]

I would think once they deem you to be a nut they can force the court appointed attorney on you.

That's not how it works - if one is competent then one is adamant about NOT accepting an attorney. Gotta get it in the court record.

[Cebu_4_2]

Following this closely.

[Hatha Sunahara]

There is an even better reason not to ever hire an attorney anywhere in the entire country, maybe even in the entire English speaking world. Lawyers who belong to the BAR (British Accreditation Registry) are officers of the court. If you hire one to 're-present' you in a court, that is prima facie evidence that you are incompetent, meaning unable to speak for yourself. The BAR attorney is an officer of the court, just like the prosecutor and the judge. His job is not to represent you, but to represent the court which is biased against you because it deems you to be incompetent, and feels empowered to do whatever it wants to you in terms of stripping your assets and imprisoning you. Your chances of winning in court if you have a lawyer are the same as surviving cancer with allopathic medicine treatments (less than 5%). You have a much better chance of winning, or at least being left alone if you learn a little about the law and 'present' yourself.

Hatha

[palani]

Lawyers are licensed to lie and argue. This is known by the phrase "babbling". It is nonsense. Hearings are of two types: argument and evidence. Rarely will evidence come into play. A majority of hearings are all about argument.

Now if you hire someone or accept the appointment of one to lie and argue about you or your circumstances that is dishonorable. Dishonor is always going to be punished. They don't tell you that but that is the case.

If you want to stay away from argument you merely have to agree. You agree conditionally and you do so at all times. For example, judge tells you to remove your hat. He does this to see whether you will fall into argument (dishonor) or will agree with him (and so prove that he has the authority over you). So what you do is ... ask clearly "Would anyone in this court object if I remove my hat?" and then don't wait for an answer ... just remove it. You did so on YOUR terms rather than his.

Now if you took the obstinate action of not removing your hat quite possibly the judge would view that as dishonor and assign you a contempt. That means jail time. Maybe a day or maybe 6 months. Quite a penalty for not knowing how to agree and over a matter so trivial.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

The word "Attorney" comes from the latin root "Attorn" which means "To Twist"

[Uncle Salty]

Lawyers are licensed to lie and argue. This is known by the phrase "babbling". It is nonsense. Hearings are of two types: argument and evidence. Rarely will evidence come into play. A majority of hearings are all about argument.

Now if you hire someone or accept the appointment of one to lie and argue about you or your circumstances that is dishonorable. Dishonor is always going to be punished. They don't tell you that but that is the case.

If you want to stay away from argument you merely have to agree. You agree conditionally and you do so at all times. For example, judge tells you to remove your hat. He does this to see whether you will fall into argument (dishonor) or will agree with him (and so prove that he has the authority over you). So what you do is ... ask clearly "Would anyone in this court object if I remove my hat?" and then don't wait for an answer ... just remove it. You did so on YOUR terms rather than his.

Now if you took the obstinate action of not removing your hat quite possibly the judge would view that as dishonor and assign you a contempt. That means jail time. Maybe a day or maybe 6 months. Quite a penalty for not knowing how to agree and over a matter so trivial.

I love this type of information Palani. But at times it is like pulling teeth to get it. Has someone written something that is worth reading and is usable for representing oneself? Or do those in the know just want everyone else to learn on their own and throw out one bit of good info for every four bits of snide? And I don't say that to be a dick, but that is what it seems to me.

[palani]

I love this type of information Palani. But at times it is like pulling teeth to get it. Has someone written something that is worth reading and is usable for representing oneself? Or do those in the know just want everyone else to learn on their own and throw out one bit of good info for every four bits of snide? And I don't say that to be a dick, but that is what it seems to me.
I don't know of a single source of information on this topic. You just have to read what is available (google books makes this cheap and easy), filter out the stuff that makes no sense and retain the information that suits your own personality. In my view the first step and the biggest hurdle to overcome is the view that the government and its employees are there to protect you. Once you start viewing their actions with suspicion then the rest comes much easier.

Don't want court actions? Then learn to agree. They can't adjudicate when there is nothing on the table for them to argue about. This works in both civil and criminal cases. Learn to ask for forgiveness whether you did anything or not. To forgive is divine. Don't say you are sorry. They already know that (in the sense that you are a sorry sack of humanity ... nothing personal).

[Katmandu]

Palani, have you ever heard of Jurisdictionary?

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

Do you have any opinions as to whether this is worthy material or not for learning about how the courts work and how to represent yourself in court? I have thought about getting this material, but don't want to waste my money if it is crap.

[Uncle Salty]

I don't know of a single source of information on this topic. You just have to read what is available (google books makes this cheap and easy), filter out the stuff that makes no sense and retain the information that suits your own personality. In my view the first step and the biggest hurdle to overcome is the view that the government and its employees are there to protect you. Once you start viewing their actions with suspicion then the rest comes much easier.

Don't want court actions? Then learn to agree. They can't adjudicate when there is nothing on the table for them to argue about. This works in both civil and criminal cases. Learn to ask for forgiveness whether you did anything or not. To forgive is divine. Don't say you are sorry. They already know that (in the sense that you are a sorry sack of humanity ... nothing personal).

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[palani]

Palani, have you ever heard of Jurisdictionary?

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

Good material as far as procedure but really if you find yourself going to court it is because you can't learn to agree. If you are there because you have a beef against someone else and you initiated the action then an alternative might be to forgive him/her instead. If you can't do this then knowing the procedure the courts use is pretty important. If this is your situation then the money spent on Jurisdictionary is well spent.

[Katmandu]

Good material as far as procedure but really if you find yourself going to court it is because you can't learn to agree. If you are there because you have a beef against someone else and you initiated the action then an alternative might be to forgive him/her instead. If you can't do this then knowing the procedure the courts use is pretty important. If this is your situation then the money spent on Jurisdictionary is well spent.

This is exactly my situation. I have never taken anyone to court and don't really care to. And thumbs up on forgiveness. Learning court procedure would be a matter of knowing how to defend myself if such a need would arise.

[palani]

Learning court procedure would be a matter of knowing how to defend myself if such a need would arise.

Education is always worth what you pay for it. Anyone who thinks differently should try stupid on for function and fit.

[Hatha Sunahara]

A legal scholar named Fred Rodell wrote a book in 1939 called Woe Unto You Lawyers that will give you the necessary information you need to make an informed judgment about the 'legal profession.' You can read/download that book here:

http://ebookbrowse.com/woe-unto-you-lawyers-rodell-pdf-d246072400

Also, an excellent place to get a concentrated dose of info about the law and history is here:

http://freedom-school.com/law/index.htm

Another excellent place to get a practical handle on the law is here:

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

Then read what you can find by Howard Freeman.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/index.htm

And then there is The Lawful Path:

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/index.shtml

Finally for some additional perspective I would recommend you read Eustace Mullins' book The Rape of Justice.


Hatha