To represent yourself successfully, especially if your adversary has a lawyer, you must be prepared to invest substantial amounts of time in your case—and particularly in the many pretrial procedures and maneuvers that can mean the difference between winning and losing. To non-lawyers, the legal system seems to center on the outcomes of trials. After all, that’s the dramatic part—and the focus of so many movies and TV shows. If you believe these portrayals, you might think you just have to file a few papers, tell your story to a judge, and claim victory. (This was the belief of Vinny, who represents two defendants charged with murder in the wonderful courtroom comedy film, My Cousin Vinny. Vinny shows up for an arraignment and tries to explain to the judge that the police made a mistake. Vinny is shocked when the judge advises him that he’s not going to set aside all of his state’s procedures just because Vinny finds himself “in the unique position of representing clients who say they didn’t do it.”)
My question is: Can I serve my soon to be ex-wife a Discovery request even though I’m pro se and representing myself? I was served with a request from her attorney after our hearing for temporary alimony and child support and I want to counter act with a request as well. Her attorney is taking full advantage of my pro se circumstances and incompetent knowledge of divorce law as she should. I don’t want this to be an easy win for her when I have evidence that can work in my favor. I just need to find the best way to get it in front of the judge without being bullied in the court room. I don’t know my rights as a pro se litigant and I need as much advice as possible. I picked up her financial affidavit from the clerks office and she’s leaving out a lot of income that needs to be uncovered in my case. The issue is being overwhelmed by all of her attorney deadlines and demands which sidetracks my course of action to respond in my defense appropriately.
Beginning January 1, 2010, Bank of America will no longer participate in the FDIC's Transaction Guarantee Program. Bank of America's decision impacts Merrill Lynch clients enrolled in the Merrill Lynch Bank Deposit Program (MLBDP) Fully FDIC Insured Sweep option. Thus, after December 31, 2009, funds held in the MLBDP Fully FDIC Insured Sweep will no longer be guaranteed in full under the TAG Program, but will be insured up to $250,000 per depositor per Merrill Lynch Affiliated Bank under the FDIC's general deposit rules. As a reminder, since two Merrill Lynch affiliated banks participate in the MLBDP, clients can benefit from FDIC insurance up to $500,000 for individual accounts/$1,000,000 for joint accounts.
“After hearing the deposition testimony this week of the legal expert I hired, it is now apparent to me that, whatever I may have believed in the past, my work had nothing to do with the creation of ‘Stranger Things,'” he said in the statement. “Documents from 2010 and 2013 prove that the Duffers independently created their show. As a result, I have withdrawn my claim and I will be making no further comment on this matter.”
Oftentimes, self-represented litigants become reactive when there’s a lawyer on the other side. Instead of getting ahead of things or running their own case, they let the lawyer take the lead. They spend so much time responding to discovery requests, summary judgment motions, motions to dismiss, and other filings that they don’t formulate a strategy of their own. They don’t do their own discovery or object to certain requests because they’re swamped and often intimidated. So, they’re always behind and in a constant reactive state. If a wise opponent sees how reactive you are, they can walk you right into an error. So, take control of your case. Never let a lawyer think that he’s in charge of it.
The BIGGEST mistake pro se litigants make is thinking they know more than they do, as a way of overcompensating for lack of confidence. False bravado can lead you into mistakes #2, #3, and #4 on this list and a whole lot more. You don’t bring a court reporter because you don’t feel you need one. You don’t do research because you don’t have time, and you think you know enough. You react to or challenge every lawyer trick because you believe, without any evidence, that it’s the best thing to do. You talk about admiralty law, not because you know anything about it or where it fits into your case, but because you heard someone talk about it. You file the wrong motions in the wrong situations. It’s important to know what you don’t know and act accordingly. Instead of talking about sovereign citizenship, talk about and use civil procedure. Rather than reacting to lawyer antics, judicial bias or a sense of unfairness, focus on your case. Learn it backwards and forwards, and then bring your court reporter. That’s how you win. See Sovereign Citizens Make Pro Se Litigants Look Silly for more about the “problem” with sovereign citizens.
One of the biggest mistakes pro se litigants make is not doing research. Lawyers count on pro se litigants’ ignorance of the law to win cases. The less a pro se litigant knows, the shorter the litigation process will be. A lawyer can buy a $7000 debt for $700 and pay a $100 fee to sue. Thirty or so days later, he wins a default judgment or a one-hearing judgment. He then has the right to collect the full $7000, the $100 court fee, and case-related costs. He’ll have to collect the money himself, but lawyers wouldn’t buy debt if the practice never paid off. Facing a pro se litigant in court pays off for lawyers almost all the time. Whether you’re a plaintiff or a defendant, you don’t want to get knocked out early because of lack of knowledge. Learn the laws relevant to your case. The more you know, the longer you’ll stay and the less chance a lawyer will have a windfall at your expense.
For instance, assume that you want to ask for a jury trial and that your local rule requires a jury trial request to be made 30 days after the initial pleadings are filed. If you miss that deadline, you will not have a jury trial unless you go through a laborious process to request an extension of time to file your demand and the judge is willing to make an exception (but don’t count on it!).
The Judiciary Act of 1789, one of those laws, states that "in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally." It follows that federal judges must respect the pro se litigants' right to represent themselves. Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have means to remedy the problems with federal judges who disrespect and ignore the rights of pro se litigants.
Use of the Documents for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. Such action is prohibited by law. Everybody who breaks the License Agreement risks the civil and criminal penalties and fort litigation, in which ESET will demand adequate compensation and reparation for its legal rights violation. ESET is not responsible for the content or accuracy of Documents that have been modified subsequent to ESET’s written consent.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (also referred to as “MLPF&S” or “Merrill”) makes available certain investment products sponsored, managed, distributed, or provided by companies that are affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (“BofA Corp.”). MLPF&S is a registered broker-dealer, registered investment adviser, Member SIPC and a wholly owned subsidiary of BofA Corp.
According to the 1996 report on pro se by University of Maryland Law School, 57% of pro se said they could not afford a lawyer, 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer, 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney. Also, ABA Legal Needs Study shows that 45% of pro se believe that "Lawyers are more concerned with their own self promotion than their client's best interest."
We strongly recommend that you prepare a trial notebook. A trial notebook is a series of outlines covering matters such as what you must prove (or, if you are a defendant, disprove); the evidence you will use to prove (or disprove) those matters; the topics you intend to cover on direct and cross-examination; a list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of your witnesses; and the exhibits you plan to introduce into evidence. The notebook serves as your courtroom manager. You can refer to it to make sure that you do not overlook evidence you planned to offer or an argument you intended to make.
The center’s approach, known as “limited-scope legal assistance,” can fill an important void. Most federal courts devote substantial resources to pro se litigants, such as handbooks and staff time answering process questions, and pro se staff attorneys help judges process cases. But court staff may not give legal advice to litigants, and although private lawyers offer some volunteer assistance, they cannot meet demand.
The Supreme Court has held that where a statute permits attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. This ruling was based on the court's determination that such statutes contemplate an attorney-client relationship between the party and the attorney prosecuting or defending the case, and that Congress intends to encourage litigants to seek the advice of a competent and detached third party. As the court noted, the various circuits had previously agreed in various rulings "that a pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney's fees".
A new United Nations report tells us that human activity is basically slaughtering the wildlife out there, killing off the species upon which our own existence is reliant. We should stop doing that, and I assume that you're with me, because we'd like a world for our grandchildren to live in so we probably should stop doing that. The thing is, to do so we should stop doing pretty much every thing it is that this report and environmentalists tell us to do.
ESET, ESET software, ESET logo, ESET.com, NOD, NOD32, AMON, PERSPEKT, VIRUS RADAR, VÍRUSOVÝ RADAR, VIROVÝ RADAR, ThreatSense, ThreatSense.Net®, AntiThreat and/or other products or services of ESET mentioned here, are trademarks and registered trademarks of ESET. Other product and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or trade names of ESET or their respective owners.
Additionally, from time to time, ESET and the owner operators of Welivesecurity.com and its agents will source content through content aggregators and news entities such as Reuters ,the Associated Press and others. When possible, ESET and the Editors of Welivesecurity.com will call out these aggregation entities in the specific materials and content elements that are published to the platform. ESET maintains a strict policy with regards to plagiarism and copyright integrity and maintains strict standards with a strong preference for original content.
Before I answer the essence of your question, the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure states and requires that “The request for admissions shall be preceded by the following statement printed in capital letters in a font size at least as large as that in which the request is printed: “FAILURE TO SERVE A WRITTEN ANSWER OR OBJECTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ORCP 45 B WILL RESULT IN ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS.” I will presume that you complied with that requirement when you submitted your requests for admissions as the rule states that it “shall” be done in this manner. Sometimes things can sound nit picky but if a party fails to do something that it is required to do and fails to do so, it gives the opposing side ammunition to attack the relief you are requesting that you feel you are entitled to. You are correct, since the opposing side failed to answer your request(s), you now need to file a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency”. You should advise the court in your motion that the opposing party has failed to answer your requests and ask the court to order that each of the matters are admitted. A motion to determine sufficiency is generally geared toward answers that were submitted but possibly not sufficient and parties then move the court to order the party to provide a “sufficient” answer, but since the opposing party failed to provide any answers in your case, you should advise the court of this fact in your motion and that you would like the court to issue an order deeming the matters as admitted. I presume when you say that the opposing party “failed to answer” you mean that the party didn’t answer at all. There is a difference between “failing to answer” and submitting an insufficient answer. Be clear to the court which one it is, if the party failed to answer, so state it, but if the party provided answers that were insufficient, you need to address it in that manner and ask the court to order the opposing party to provide sufficient answers. Be sure to include a copy of the requests for admissions that you served as an exhibit to your motion for the court’s ready reference. Also, under Oregon’s Rule 46A(4) you may apply for an award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.