Oh, Say Can You Say Pro Se...


Selene

Recommended Posts

Stunned Judge Asks “Who Wrote That Up For You?” (Audio)

Picture this: Two pro se litigants — let’s call them Able and May — were sued for foreclosure by JPMorgan Chase Bank. Able and May attempted to depose a bank vice president who had verified a mortgage assignment before it was actually created, but the bank didn’t like that idea. Chase amended their complaint to attach a completely different assignment, using another vice president’s verification to bury the first one. Able and May tried to depose the MERS officer who’d signed the new assignment (he also turned out to be a Chase employee), but Chase fought that as well. Over the next year, Chase’s lawyers did everything they could to frustrate Able and May, including refusing to show up for scheduled depositions, cancelling hearings where live testimony would be given, and abusing emergency procedures to obtain ex parte protective orders without notice to Able and May.

For the first year of the case, Able and May watched helplessly as judges signed everything Chase put in front of them. Then one day, with a compelling argument on the need to gather evidence, they persuaded a judge to set things right. Every pro se litigant dreams of disqualifying the other side’s lawyer, but in this case, Able and May found the tactic a powerful way of justifying the discovery they needed. After getting an order to subpoena the MERS officer who’d also worked for Chase, Able and May went to war to get the other witnesses. The judge couldn’t believe her ears.

(Names have been redacted to protect privacy. For a real gas, listen to the argument at hyper speed. Hilarious!)

Of course, the typical response to a compelling argument is nonsense. The bank’s lawyer tried to moot the discovery request by arguing that since his client had no dispute with the facts, there was no need for testimony about them. But then Able reminded the judge that Chase had actually disputed itself. The judge lifted the protective orders and allowed Able and May to subpoena all the witnesses for an evidentiary hearing.

Results

The judge…

  1. issued an out-of-state commission to subpoena a former bank employee (WIN);
  2. lifted protective orders for the bank’s attorney and vice president (WIN);
  3. ordered an evidentiary hearing on defendants’ motion to disqualify counsel (WIN);
  4. granted leave to subpoena the bank’s attorney and vice president for testimony at the evidentiary hearing (WIN).

Not bad for a pro se day in court. Share your pro se lessons or wins in the comments below.

The audio is solid and clear,

http://burlingtonavenue.com/blog/2014/07/30/stunned-judge-asks-who-wrote-that-up-for-you/

I have been involved in a number of pro se cases. One of which went to the US Supreme Court.

You have to have jurisdiction, the "right" litigant with standing, knowledge of procedure, a wordsmith for the "paper" and courage.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the folks who don't know, pro se (in propria persona) is to represent yourself in court without assistance of an attorney.

Generally a bad idea at age 24, especially in front of a jury. Doubly bad idea to argue constitutional law on appeal pro se.

That said, I'd probably do it again if circumstances required another high stakes legal drama. It's a Roark thing.

First Feature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the folks who don't know, pro se (in propria persona) is to represent yourself in court without assistance of an attorney.

Generally a bad idea at age 24, especially in front of a jury. Doubly bad idea to argue constitutional law on appeal pro se.

That said, I'd probably do it again if circumstances required another high stakes legal drama. It's a Roark thing.

First Feature

Wolf, as a general rule you are completely correct.

The numerous times we have been involved in pro se work has been extremely successful. Upwards of 75% winning percentage.

Any competent pro se still needs a "team" because it is extremely difficult to be under direct examination and be able to object, etc.

A team at your table really makes the difference and that has to be the first issue for the court to decide, whether it is going to be a bench or jury trial.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now