Justice John Laskin,Justice Sarah Pepall,Justice David Brown

Warning ,this case became public interest for Canadian citizens ,the result will effect every single one of you,well good luck with that ,I did my best and don’t blame me for your future loss.

Copy of My Complaint to Canadian Bullshit council.

Today,there was appeal hearing at the osgoode hall,130 Queen st west court room 2.
I appealed the decision of Drug Addict Judge Lederer.
Appeal judges were ignorant and did not listen properly that my lawyer put the error on the original case which has been made by cochaine addict Judge Lederer.
Appeal judges are involved with fraud and bribery,bribe investigations are yours to make ,it can not be proofed by me.Cash money is not easy to fallow and can not be a witness ,unless otherwise you make the investigations that you have the power to make a proper investigations.
Just like Judge Lederer ,he was using cochaine and you guys covered him up 6 months later, you pulled him to Ottawa for 6 months then you put him back to the work again.
Now same thing happened to the divisional court,insurance paid those 3 judges very well,decision has been already made long before me and my lawyer showed up to the hearing.
Well I was sure that fraud would have happened at the divisional court too even before my appeal and now today hearing showed me that I was right.
Fraud and bribery is going on all over the Canadian court sytem.
I was calling you Canadian bullshit council and probably you will make me right about naming you that way after this complaint ,because you will cover them all again with out proper investigation.Even if you don’t do anything about these judges ,this shame will be yours and the shame will  stay forever in the history of the judicial system in Canada.
After I made my complaint against the judge Lederer or let’s call him drug addict Lederer ,you said that i should go to appeal if the decision is biased,I did that and appealed ,only diffrence I see now ,3 more judges have got richer.
Don’t tell me that I should go to Supreme Court if I am not satisfied with the decision of the appeal court,there is no money left for me to go higher and only option left is for me to declare bancrupcy after all.
Thanks for doing nothing and please keep sucking citizens blood this way,keep ignoring human rights.judge Sarah Pepall and Joanne Blacklock was blinking each other just before they went to recess to make a decision.That doesn’t matter what my lawyer tried to show ,they were happy and can see judges teeth,happiness  of getting richer.How much did it cost to buy 3 judges ,1 million dollars?,probably around there.Where will they clear that money,in an  island banks? I am just curious about the Supreme Court,how much would they pay those judges,many judges would cost a lot.I am %100 sure that even if I take this case to the Supreme Court,they would pay them too.
Note:This one will be published on my blog too.

This has been send to mp too because ,this case became a public interest.that means effecting every single citizens 

My case became public interest after I lost the appeal,you may be not aware of this or how serious issue this is,just ask any lawyer in the house that they can explain you what I mean.
My case will be showing and using by every single insurance companies against the insurers,I did my best and that is it for me now.No one will get any money from the insurance nor they can proof their personal injury with MRI reports.
MRI reports became useless and there is no other way to proof personall injury if you ever have any.They will throw my case front of the citizens and they will say you have no case doesn’t matter even if you have brain injury and shows on the MRI,or body injuries show on X-ray and MRI.
That one was my case and good luck everyone else with that in the future.At least no one can blame me because of this ,I did my best to fight against insurance companies and they bribed appeal judges too after the Lederer,My lawyer was ignored at the hearing.I don’t know maybe you guys deserve this or citizens deserve this.Well I don’t know what to say,this will be a public interest and will effect every single person in Canada. Thx for not fixing and ruining the justice system vey well.And good luck every one with that.
Again I didn’t only lose this Appel ,every single citizen does lol.Well you guys are in the house and don’t even know probably what is going on out there,well honestly you guys are useless for the future of this country and citizens.
I made my warning after my first trial and send every one of you e-mail regarding this issue,because I knew where this would go,but after 2 years nothing has been changed what I see.Again repeading myself this became public interest and will affect every single one of you or your relatives or any citizen in this country.
Dear MP
Are you going to clear this mess as a MP?

Justice John Laskin

Justice Sarah Pepall

Justice David Brown

Harpers left overs,judges have been assigned by companies,they don’t judge or give fair justice all they care is collecting money and receiving bribe.

 

Advertisements

Judicial discretion

The power of the judge to make decisions on some matters without being bound by precedent or strict rules established by statutes. On appeal a higher court will usually accept and confirm decisions of trial judges when exercising permitted discretion, unless capricious, showing a pattern of bias, or exercising discretion beyond his/her authority.

Abuse of Judicial Discretion by Jon Roland

The essence of nomocracy, the rule of law, is limitation of the discretion of officials, and providing a process by which errors or abuse of discretion can be corrected.

Some discretion is unavoidable, because law cannot anticipate every eventuality or how to decide which law may apply to a given situation.

What guidance the law cannot provide is supposed to be provided by standard principles of justice and due process, reason, and the facts of each case.

Ideally, officials should be mutually consistent and interchangeable, making similar decisions in similar cases, so that no one can gain an undue advantage by choosing the official or exercising undue influence on the official or on the process he operates.

We trust officials to exercise such discretion as they have with wisdom, justice, and competence, to avoid government that is arbitrary, insolent, discriminatory, prejudiced, intrusive and corrupt.

Within the public sector, discretion can be exercised by legislative, executive, or judicial officials. Within the private sector, discretion may be exercised by private officials, such as agents, trustees or corporate officers, who are in principle subject to the supervision of the courts.

The focus here is on judicial discretion, and the abuse of it. It will not discuss every area of judicial discretion.

The first major check on the discretion of judges was the jury.

A judge, holding office over the course of multiple cases, and selected by appointment or election, is susceptible to undue influence. A jury, chosen by sortition, or lot, for a single case, just before the case, is less likely to be corrupted, and having multiple jurors render verdicts collectively provides a check by each on the others. What they might lack in knowledge of the law is offset by their connection to the nonlegal environment in which most people subject to the law must operate.

In courts that try to save time and money by not using juries, such as family courts in some states, complaints about abuse of judicial discretion have led to calls for juries to decide questions of custody, visitation, child support, and the distribution of marital property.

Judges who impose lenient sentences, to avoid prison overcrowding and the early release of violent offenders, often provoke demands for mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing guidelines that reduce their discretion to do things like impose reduced sentences on defendants thought to be remorseful or unlikely to commit another offense.

Most complaints of abuse of judicial discretion, and calls to limit it with more laws, concern questions of policy or equity. But there is another broad category, which concerns constitutional questions of due process and civil rights. This is too large a field to discuss adequately in a short article, so only a few of the more important kinds of judicial discretion that are often being abused will be presented.

Stare decisis

Stare decisis is the doctrine according to which a judge in a current case treats decisions in past similar cases as authoritative precedents, and refuses to make the decision in a way that departs from such precedents, regarding all of them as correctly decided. There is a place for giving weight to precedents, especially in civil cases and matters of equity, and to clarify ambiguities in the black letter law, but it is an abuse of judicial discretion to treat precedents as though they are law, equal or superior to black letter law, especially when that black letter law is a written constitution.

Only the edict, the finding and the order, are law in a judicial decision, and only for the parties involved. The opinion concerning how the decision was reached may be persuasive on its merits, and indicative of how the same court might decide a similar case, but it is dictum, or commentary, not law, and it is an abuse of judicial discretion to fail to exhaust textual analysis and legislative history before considering precedent, and making sure that the chain of precedents has not wandered away from the bounds of the black letter law.

Deference to legislature and administration

While it is appropriate to defer to the legislative and executive branches on questions peculiar to those branches and their constitutional duties, all too often judges abuse their discretion by so deferring in cases where officials of those branches have clearly exceeded their authority.

This is sometimes signaled in a decision that declares the matter a “political question”. Sometimes it is, at least in part, but judges have a duty to act where constitutional bounds are clearly exceeded, and their failure to do so indicates a lack of true judicial independence of the other other branches and the pressures those branches can bring to bear. The result is the Administrative State, the result of failure to enforce the nondelegation doctrine. Part of the solution may be to select judges by sortition.

Habeas corpus and quo warranto

Any person has the right to petition for release of a prisoner if the official holding him does not prove sufficient authority to do so. A writ of habeas corpus is a subspecies of a writ of quo warranto, the right to have an official cease or refrain from some action unless he proves sufficient authority for it.

Only the first is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution, but the latter is implied by the due process and nondelegation clauses and amendments. The principle involved is the presumption that an official lacks authority for an action unless he can prove he has it, so that a petition for either writ does not imply a right to both oyer (fair hearing) and terminer (decision on the merits) for the petitioner, but only terminer.

The right of oyer belongs to the respondent for such a petition. If the response is inadequate, or the court does not have time for oyer, then its duty is to grant the writ. The problem is that judges, especially federal judges when the respondent is a federal official, are too often failing to act on habeas petitions, on various pretexts, thereby reversing the presumption in favor of the official and his actions.

Petitions for writs of quo warranto are systematically ignored or dismissed, sometimes on the grounds of lack of legislative authority, but no legislative authority is needed. There is no appeal from such inaction.

Law provides petitioners only the option of trying again with another judge, thereby encouraging forum shopping. Complaints of judicial misconduct for such denial or inaction are also being systematically ignored. This should not really be called an abuse of judicial discretion because by law a judge has no discretion on terminer, but it has emerged as a practice that undermines all the other protections of the Constitution.

Disbarment

Although the original stated purpose of licensing and delicensing lawyers was to protect the public from dishonest or incompetent ones, licensing and the influence judges have over disbarment is too often abused to suppress lawyers who might challenge their abuses.

Lawyer protection

The other side of controlling lawyers with threats of contempt or disbarment is systematic protection of them from being sued, by abusing judicial discretion to punish persons who might have the temerity to do so, and their lawyers if they can get any to represent them. Violators of this “unwritten law” find all their motions thereafter being ignored or denied, regardless of merit.

Absolute immunity

It is appropriate for judges to have a limited immunity from being sued for their judicial decisions if they are merely the result of error or incompetence. The remedy for that is appeal to a higher court. The problem is that judges abuse their judicial discretion to protect themselves and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism.

Pro se litigants

Instead of accommodating to the lack of legal knowledge of lay persons who either cannot afford a lawyer, or who don’t trust lawyers who are subject to the control of the courts, judges and court personnel systematically discriminate against litigants who appear pro se or in propria persona, often dismissing their petitions or motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. That is abuse of judicial discretion.

Mens rea defense

In criminal cases, by original constitutional standards, the elements of proof of a criminal charge are mens rea, actus reus, concurrence, causation, and harm. The first, mens rea, is “criminal intent”, and judges are allowing criminal prosecutions to proceed without proof of it, especially when the statutes prohibit acts that are malum prohibitum instead of malum in se. In this judges are aided by abuse of discretion by legislators, but it is still abuse of discretion.

In all, Judicial Discretion left in the capable hands of judges is unwise, for judges are human beings, who have been given power resembling God.

As the saying goes: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is an observation that a person�s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Judicial Accountability

It is for the People that accountability must be enforced Jail4judges

Whether judges are appointed or elected it is their performance on the bench and their accountability for improper activities that is crucial.

While there is great debate as to how judges are put on the bench, the public’s dissatisfaction with the so-called independence of the judiciary and with the inadequacy of the judicial disciplinary machinery is disregarded by the Bench and Bar.

We say that our system of government is a democracy. Yet we have a judiciary with absolute power over our courts, unparalleled in history. This power is founded on judicial independence, judicial immunity and control over the Bar.

Our system of government is based on separation of powers and does not allow such concentration of power in the judicial branch.

The judiciary in Canada asserts immense power over the lives of individuals and the conduct of businesses. They have rendered themselves totally unaccountable to the public or to any other branch of government.

The judges and lawyers maintain their stronghold on the legal system on the myth that they are the guardians of the peoples’ rights & freedoms and that the lawyers champion these rights in a court of law that is just and fair.

However, the legal profession has become big business, where justice is not the objective but, to keep the clock running for billable hours for maximum profit.

Although judges and lawyers hypothetically take an oath to uphold the laws, in many cases that oath might as well have been taken on the cook book, to brew up litigation to use the legal system for an assembly line conversion of the victim’s assets into fees, or to confiscate it outright.

Many judges acting in conjunction with attorneys, abuse the judicial independence given to them in trust and confidence of the people.

The myth is dispelled when we are confronted by judges who disregard the rules; allow the distortion of facts sometimes to the point of perjury; exclude evidence; rely on laws which have no relevance to the legal and factual issues; issue decisions which fabricate facts and are contrary to the record; deliberately omit critical facts from the record; fail to follow the controlling law and precedent; or issue decisions without any stated facts or law; and approve unreasonable and unconscionable fees for attorneys.

It is not unusual that property and money are taken from the victims without the required due process and the victims are left with nothing or a token of what they had or were entitled to.

In Criminal matters’, most of the Judges sitting on the bench were once Government lawyers working for the Attorney General’s office, thus the kindship with the Crown prosecutors is evident to any reasonable person.

In Canada, child molesters, pedophiles, fraudsters, etc… are not given high sentences for their crime committed on children, and on people, it’s if the bench and Bar find such conduct acceptable in society.

Without the passing of jail4judges in the United States, there is no Justice4you. This is to say that the fields are ripe for harvest, but the labourers are few…
Paul H.Cody
photo_Paul_Cody

ACCOUNTABILITY
Judicial Accountability
Judicial Discretion
Judicial Conflict of Interest

RESOURCES
Department of Justice Canada
Ministry of The Attorney General BC
Useful Links

LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME
Judicial Accountability
Judicial Discretion
Judicial Conflict of Interest

JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CANADA SOFT ON WHITE COLLAR CRI

GLOBAL INTEGRITY, a Washington DC organization, generates, synthesizes, and disseminates credible, comprehensive and timely information on governance and corruption trends around the world.
In February 2008, GLOBAL INTEGRITY issued their report on Canada, which can be read on this site.

Global Integrity Canada Report 2008

The report gives Canada’s judicary a 30% mark. A generous mark, considering that there is no accountability at all on the part of any judges in Canada.
It claims that, “Judicial accountability is weak, with no disclosure of personal assets or gifts, no restrictions on receiving gifts, and a complaints [sic] process in which judges judge other judges. Overall, government accountability watchdog agencies (including the police) either lack powers to enforce laws or have a weak enforcement record”.

Following is a letter to the Canadian Judicial Council which claims that a federally appointed judge of the BC Supreme Court used his judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of his friend Attorney Keith Oliver.

In this instance, the friend of the judge appears to have master minded a fraud, by first:

seeking a trustee, Kenneth Rowan to assign a malicious spouse into bankruptcy, knowing the spouse was not legally separated and knowing that the spouse seeking bankruptcy was not in the least insolvent since no bona fide creditors existed.
This is to say that, the trustee and the alleged bankrupt appears to have fabricated debts in the sworn STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, to give the appearance that the alleged bankrupt was insolvent when in fact, the only debt that existed was the mortgage and a credit line, which both were held jointly by the spouses.
The price for the lawyer Attorney Keith Oliver appears to have been the property of the spouses that was held jointly, since without contacting the non-bankrupt spouse Harold Gaffney, the trustee Kenneth A. Rowan applied to be registered as owner of the alleged bankrupt undivided one-half interest in the condominium property jointly owned by the Gaffney’s, which automatically severed the joint tenancy.
It appears that since Mr. Gaffney continued paying the mortgage, lawyer of the alleged bankrupt R. Keith Oliver than sought the assistanceof Re/Max Realtor Noella Neale, and others, including and not limited to, employees of the legal department at CIBC and federally appointed judges, to perpetuate the real estate and mortgage fraud.
The Following Particulars to the Canadian Judicial Council, gives all the details of how one lawyer with a malicious spouse were able to persuade others to joined them in a real estate and mortgage fraud:

YOU SCRATCH MY BACK, I’LL SCRATCH YOURS

Judge Using His Judicial Office to Pass a Benefit to his Lawyer Friend

Mr. Anthony Jasich LL.B also wrote to the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) in support of the information delivered by Ms. Zanetti regarding the conduct of Justice Lance Bernard while on the bench.

Jasich to CJC about Bernard’s Conduct

Response from CJC to Ms Zanetti

Jasich Responding to CJC in Respect to its Response to Ms. Zanetti’s Information

Response to Jasich from CJC Feb. 04, 09

For more information please contact this website.

Readers of thsi website ought to consider contacting GLOBAL INTEGRITY to provide information on the lack of protection for WHISTLE BLOWERS.

———————————–

Paul H.Cody
photo_Paul_Cody

ACCOUNTABILITY
Judicial Accountability
Judicial Discretion
Judicial Conflict of Interest

RESOURCES
Department of Justice Canada
Ministry of The Attorney General BC
Useful Links

LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME
Judicial Accountability
Judicial Discretion
Judicial Conflict of Interest

Justice is a conscience, not a personal conscience but conscience of the whole of the humanity.
Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of Justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Self represent litigants

PRO SE
Every American A Lawyer by Ralph Warner, Publisher Copyright � Nolo Press

Almost 400 years ago, the great American democratic experiment began. Almost from the first day–and despite the contrary views of a succession of English monarchs–it assumed that an educated citizenry had no need of lawyers to write its laws or solve its disputes. Lawyers were actually banned outright or faced tight restrictions in many colonies for much of the 18th century. Especially in Puritan New England, Quaker communities in Pennsylvania and Dutch settlements in New York, colonists firmly believed that disputes were best solved within the community, often by church-sponsored mediation.

The “Body of Liberties” adopted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 expressed the typical attitudes of the time:

“Every man that findeth himself unfit to plead his own cause in any court shall have libertie to employ any man …, provided he give him no fee or reward for his pain.”

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, after English kings reasserted direct political authority over the colonies, England’s common law system–complete with courts, juries and lawyers–crossed the ocean.

Even so, most citizens did not rely on lawyers for legal information. Historian Eldon Revere James found that between 1687 and 1788, not a single legal treatise intended for lawyers was published in America. During that period, all the legal treatises were for laymen.

One of the most popular self-help law books of the time, Every Man His Own Lawyer, published in London, was already in its ninth edition in 1784. Another, Every Man His Own Attorney, by Thomas Wooler (1845), which apparently was widely and effectively used for many years, contains a lament that could have been penned yesterday:

“Much has been recently done, to simplify … practice in the courts; something has been gained in point of expedition; but little, if anything, in the reduction of the expense …

Useless proceedings are still required, apparently for no other purpose than to extract money from pockets of the unfortunate suitors. Forms, the pretenses for which have been long exploded, are pertinaciously adhered to … and while this is the case, legal proceedings will remain characterised by an uncertainty of result, a loss of time, and a ruinous expense, which should induce every one to learn as effectually as possible to guard against a seduction into its labyrinths, or, if entangled in them, to make the most easy and expeditious escape.”

The strong tradition that each American should be able to master the laws probably peaked in the years between Andrew Jackson’s inauguration in 1825 and Abraham Lincoln’s death in 1865. Most states enforced few if any restrictions on non-lawyers appearing in court on behalf of others–as Lincoln himself did before he talked a judge into granting him attorney status.

Given America’s long tradition of discouraging lawyers, it’s surprising that in the 20th century the legal profession so successfully sold Americans on its favorite public relations slogan, “A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

And it’s even more surprising that without great opposition, the American Bar Association convinced states to pass “unauthorized practice of law” statutes in the 1920s and 1930s, which effectively gave lawyers a monopoly over the sale of legal information.

It is less surprising–at least to everyone who isn’t an attorney–that in the last two decades many Americans, Canadians–battered women, small businesspeople, tenants, landlords, inventors and disenfranchised fathers, to mention just a few–have begun to assert their historical and constitutional right to participate in the legal decisions that affect their lives.

Unfortunately, the Bar–despite the fact that its leaders concede that at least 100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers–continues to resist this powerful democratic trend. The fact that lawyers won’t voluntarily relinquish their legal monopoly goes far to explain why the profession is ridiculed by so many Americans and Canadians.

Following is an article taken from the Internet in regards to the Bias Pro se experience in the Courts across America including Canada:

� Eliminate Bias Against People Who Represent Themselves

� Bias Against Pro Per Litigants: What It Is.How to Stop It.

By Stephen Elias

Most Americans (and Canadians) who attempt to represent themselves encounter tremendous resistance from the court system. This bias is so strong and pernicious that it can be fairly compared to the prejudice routinely experienced by non-white Americans throughout our society.

During my 17 years with Nolo, I have spoken with loads of competent people, including many who excelled in demanding occupations — physicians, architects, teachers, dentists, inventors, physicists — who felt they were treated like not very bright children by clerks and judges.

And more than once I have heard the Caucasians in this group, when handling their own cases, say they thought they finally understood what it must often be like to be an African-American in our society.

Lawyers and judges, of course, typically claim that legal self-helpers are sadly mistaken when they report miserable, condescending treatment. Their point of view would be worthy of consideration if they didn’t almost universally start their argument with that most insulting of all legal bromides: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

Bias against people who choose to speak for themselves in America’s and Canada’s public courtrooms exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Faretta v. California, where the court stated that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel. The reasoning behind that decision is grounded on the principle that the Constitution requires our justice system to be neutral towards the self-represented litigant. Or put another way, the courts should offer a level playing field for the represented and unrepresented alike.

Courthouses are Lawyer Houses to see how courts are stacked against people who choose not to hire lawyers. Let’s take a look at just some of the day-to-day realities faced by Americans and Canadians who choose to self-represent. Lawbonics rules — Legal jargon, which is almost universally spoken in American and Canadian courthouses, unnecessarily serves to befuddle everyone who hasn’t been to law school.

Directions Are Non-Existent — In most public institutions, from city hall and city college to the state capitol and the state university, visitors are routinely greeted by displays explaining how to get around. That these are missing in most courthouses speaks volumes about how unwelcome the public is.

Non-lawyers are labeled — People who show up in a courthouse without a lawyer are labeled (in Latin, of course) as “pro per” or “pro se” litigants. As is frequently true with tags assigned to a group by hostile outsiders –& quot;cult,” “handicapped” and “welfare recipient” come to mind — these descriptions serve to highlight a deep institutional bias.

Procedural requirements are Byzantine — Complicated rules of procedure and evidence-some of it traceable to the Middle Ages-present huge unnecessary barriers to the uninitiated. To see how things could quickly be improved, take a look at modern arbitration and mediation procedures, both of which are far more user-friendly.

Judges are hostile — Judges and courtroom personnel are so often rude and condescending to nonlawyers that one suspects they have no idea of the depth of their prejudice. To take just one example, in most courts, cases involving nonlawyers are automatically considered at the end of the day after all the busy lawyers have long since bustled off.

Court clerks hide the ball — Before anyone can succeed in court, a small mountain of paperwork must be completed and filed at the clerk’s office. That’s why it’s so prejudicial when clerks routinely withhold information that is available to lawyers from people who self-represent.

For example, should John Smith, Esq.’s office call to ask for clarification of a pre-trial procedure, the clerk will almost surely provide the needed information.

But if a self-represented person asks for the same type of information, the same clerk is likely to reply along these lines, “Sorry, I can’t give you legal advice. Why don’t you call a lawyer?”

Many clerks’ offices are so fierce in their defense of lawyerdom they try to avoid even speaking to the self-represented by posting signs warning “We don’t provide legal advice!”

If you don’t think this is insulting, imagine the furor if IRS ( and CCRA’s) clerks completely refused to answer questions about how to file a tax return unless they were asked by a CPA.

County law libraries exclude the uninitiated — In many states, law libraries supported by public funds or the court fees paid by nonlawyers are operated almost exclusively for the convenience of lawyers.

Not only is information crucial to the task of self-representation organized according to a system that is nowhere explained to the uninitiated, but in many areas nonlawyers are made to feel distinctly unwelcome (for example, only lawyers can check out books, use private rooms and enjoy access to phone, fax and computer).

Prejudice Against Self-Helpers Is Profitable Many lawyers defend the status quo in America’s courts and (Canadian Courts) along these lines.

“In a complicated litigious society, laws and legal procedures are necessarily complex, with the result that seemingly convoluted court procedures simply reflect this complexity, not a bias against nonlawyers.”

There may be a little truth in this view. But as long as lawyers insist on “voir diring” instead of “questioning” prospective jurors, “garnishing” property instead of “taking it under the terms of a court order,” or providing “pro bono” instead of “free” legal services, one can be forgiven for concluding that at bottom lawyers have little interest in working to simplify a system whose very opaqueness so obviously puts money in their pockets.

It should also come as no small surprise that — like other powerful but insular groups grown comfortable in their privileges — individual lawyers always find it difficult to see the depth of our judicial system’s bias against the self-represented.

Remember this is the same self-contained world, where just a few years ago male judges who enjoyed publicly commenting on the looks of female lawyers were shocked to be labeled as “sexist.”

Recognize Bias to Eliminate It:

As with other forms of prejudice, the first real step to eliminating bias against non-lawyers is to recognize that it exists.

The best way for a lawyer to understand the unfair barriers placed in the path of the self-represented litigant is to become one.

This is an experience I went through in a civil proceeding several years ago when I appeared on my own behalf without revealing I have a law degree. Even before the judge examined my papers or knew what I was attempting to accomplish (and whether I was on track to do it), he told me he was sure I could not competently handle the case myself without a lawyer. When I politely stood my ground, the judge went on to warn me that I would be held strictly responsible for meticulously complying with every court rule (rules which, incidentally, I watched most other lawyers present that day cheerfully break).

How to Improve Access to America’s Courts and to Canadian Courts?

Some court administrators, judges and even lawyers through their trade groups (called bar associations) have in recent years begun to get a glimmer that American (Canadian) courts face a huge citizen access problem. Unfortunately, they tend to think it’s a problem money will fix. As a result, they often focus their efforts on proposals to provide people who can’t afford lawyers with free (again, they insist on calling it pro bono) legal help.

This response is almost hilariously wrong. Not only does it overlook the fact that poor and rich alike have a constitutional right to use the courts without an intermediary, but it also wrongly assumes that Americans and Canadians need more lawyers, when in fact they need more access to an unbiased legal system.

Of course, it’s no coincidence that lawyers tend to see self-representation as a poor peoples’ problem — after all, in their view everyone else who has a legal access problem should solve it by hiring one of them. Let’s put it this way, being a litigant in person is “not for the babes and not for the bears”. It is not for babes who are confused and need everything done for them. It is not for the bears or whingers who do nothing and see themselves impotent.

It is for people who prefer to do things themselves, like to keep control and stay in the drivers seat, don’t trust anyone with their private matters and want to win.

As a litigant in person you stay in the driver’s seat. You construct your pleadings, your statements of claim, your affidavits, your submissions, amass and arrange your evidence, run your case and seek to learn everything you need to know that is relevant to your case. Remember, directions, advise and/or opinions that anyone including lawyers gives you, you must always double check in the law books, as the Court will not in any way give a self-litigant any chance, should there be any mistakes.

The truth is that a self-litigant, who has not ever experienced prejudice in his or her entire lifetime, prior from going before the Court, will either be in a state of denial at first thinking that the judge appreciates his or her intelligent arguments, or else he or she will soon hopefully realize that the Judge, who was himself a lawyer, will treat him or her, as a total moran. And for those who encounter prejudice often times from various people, either because of their gender, their race, their accent, their place of birth, their religion and so on, will know after a few appearances before the Court, whether they are being prejudiced against.

Consequently, it should not be of no surprise that the Court does not always judge your case on its own merits but on your status.

Self-litigants take on a bigger burden, when they decide to ask the Court for redress. Not only must they try to correct a wrong, but they must be awake to the prejudice that the Courts have against citizens who represent themselves. For those reasons, amongst many others, it is the job of a pro se to remind the Court that as people first they deserve respect and as citizens of the court they should demand nothing less but respect.

For those who have taken an oath to God and an oath to truth, it would not hurt to remind the court that while lawyers may have taken an oath to the bar, self-litigants have also taken an oath, meaning that their credibility should also count for something. Of course this by no means mean that you will receive any respect, but at least, asserting yourself to a Judge, who ultimately decides the faith of your case, will make you face your fears and make you stronger for it. All you can do is to be true to yourself and know that your lawful right to represent yourself in a Court of law, ought not be dictated by some lawyers and/or some judges.

Finally, when we can honestly admit and say to ourselves that we as citizens, also at times may not always give the opportunity to others to prove themselves on their own merits, than perhaps the Courts, who are basically a reflection of its citizens, will begin to judge cases on its own merits and apply the law properly, as it should be applied. Let’s face it, it is no coincidence that the Courts have lost respect, as we ourselves have lost our way. Just look around, and observe the way �we� have allowed our government to chip away at our individual rights. Thus, for those courageous souls who believe, all we can do is do the work and fight for the principles of Justice.