To their credit Nolo Press has saved many litigants millions of
dollars in wasted legal fees and forced many incompetent lawyers into
more appropriate livelihoods [basket weaving?] but Nolo needs to
emphasize one fact a little more:

Judges hate lawyers. To be sure they hate sleazy pro se litigants too
but it isn't with the passion they hate shyster lawyers.

This case isn't typical but it may help illustrate the point.

Once I was seeing how long it would take to force a Florida scam into
bankruptcy. I guessed 6 months and was 2 months behind schedule when,
fortunately, the scammers came to the rescue and sued me for
defamation.

I had acquired all the financial information I needed to prove it was
an organized fraud scheme and at the first hearing which was in
chambers, 2nd floor (this fact becomes important later in the story),
I gave the judge copies of the checks, records, etc.

I probably should have been paying better attention because the judge
and the lawyer had been exchanging glances when the lawyers says very
meekly and, in my opinion at the time, inexplicably, "your honor, I
don't want to take up too much of your time."

Bret Cahill wrote:

How about a citation so we can read the case?

It was never published.

What happened next?

I filed a request for production of documents, the names of the former
employees, a sure fire way to finish off a scam.

The shyster law firm sent another even more incompent guy over to try
to fight it. This one was so dumb he didn't even know about the
country court reporter I had retained. I told the judge that all of
the "former employees" would agree it was a scam.

The judge got even more irritated and roared at the lawyer, "GIVE HIM
THE NAMES."

On a hunch that afternoon I drove by the scammer's office and sure
enough, they were loading their office equipment into a minivan.

Production of names of former employees worked like a charm.

Later the law firm filed a withdrawal. They had "irreconcilable
differences" with their client.

Maybe someone could help out here. What was the justice, poetic or
otherwise, to the case?

Is it _really_ a bad thing if a shyster law firm is ripped off by a
scammer client?

We are both using the term "lawyer" very loosely here.

You must be including the time they spent sitting in traffic on the
Gandy Bridge.

Also the terms "defendant" and "plaintiff" were reversed several times
in the complaint.

I didn't need a "technicality" to win but that should have been enough
as the allegations were against the plaintiff, not me.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:

Bummer.

J. D. Powers gave you an award?

A dangerous position to take. It's possible some wouldn't have
agreed.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:24:44 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

You've not established the firm was a shyster law firm. That
your motions won out over any objections doesn't mean opposing counsel
were/are shysters.

Judges hate anyone who wastes the court time with incompetence.
Lawyer or pro se ... doesn't matter.
What gets the judges going is when someone either (a) makes
a stupid argument that has nothing to do with controlling law,
or (b) has no idea what proper procedure and admissible
evidence might be.
It's not about whether someone is a lawyer or pro se.
It's about whether or not they are ignorant of the very
simple process of litigation.
Most lawyers are, it may surprise you to know, ignorant.
Almost all pro se people are.
That's why Public Legal Education is the answer.
... Jurisdictionary

There is one major difference. The judge must look at the same loser
lawyers' faces over and over.

A pro se litigant might not have all the procedures down pat, but at
least the judge isn't sick and tired of looking at his stupid face.

Let's admit to the most basic truth in litigation: the judge is bored
stiff. Showing up in court with a lawyer the judge has hated for
years is a dubious proposition at best, even assuming some monied
interest was paying your legal bills.

That's the whole point behind many firms. Sending a different clown
each hearing keeps the judge from getting too pissed off.

The too-clever-by-half twerps here who have infinite confidence in a
"technicality" or word game would do exactly that if they ever went to
court.

That's why they never go to court.

The _St. Petersburg Times_ should have something on Robbins Gaynor
Bronstein, et., al.

They were involved with Park Bank, I believe. Last I heard U. S. Dist
Judge Nimmons was going after each and every partner.

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill

Obviously I was never all that interested one 2 bit scam. I had
nothing personal against the scammer. I was never scammed by him and
never really knew anyone who was.

The real goal of my research was to extrapolate off the findings, to
get some idea of the effect of free speech on economic issues on
various components of society.

One projection from the case is that if _any_ entity, i. e., a
scammer, or a law firm, or a tenured Harvard professor, or a civil
liberties group, or a major party presidential candidate, or even a
national political party tries to fight freedom of speech on economic
issues, or even moves with less than alacrity in supporting it, it
will lose and cease to exist.

I don't want to hear one single slacker in the territory of the United
States complaining about being politically powerless on American soil.

YOU GET YOUR LAZY CANDY ASS DOWN TO U. S. DIST. COURT NOW.

. . .