I see Arias is going to represent herself at her sentencing trial which is a full fledged trial. Do judges look down on this bulls***? Is she going to embarrass herself and pretty much assure herself of the death penalty by doing this?

I'd think judges would not like a person who knows not what she is doing be her own attorney.

Yeah, judges aren't a big fan of people representing themselves. There's two main reasons: They tend to do a s***ty job for themselves, and litigation functions better when it has attorneys involved instead of people who don't know what they're doing.

 

This quickly leads into discussing the cost of legal services/access to justice, but that's a separate conversation.

Yeah, judges aren't a big fan of people representing themselves. There's two main reasons: They tend to do a s***ty job for themselves, and litigation functions better when it has attorneys involved instead of people who don't know what they're doing.

 

This quickly leads into discussing the cost of legal services/access to justice, but that's a separate conversation.

 

In my experience, it depends on the judge. Some judges will give a lot more leeway to an unrepresented party - especially procedurally - because they want to go out of their way to make the proceeding seem fair and balanced.

 

If, however, the unrepresented party is an a-hole, they will get smacked down by the judge quickly.

 

Farmteam is definitely right, however, that judges do not like people representing themselves...

In my experience, it depends on the judge. Some judges will give a lot more leeway to an unrepresented party - especially procedurally - because they want to go out of their way to make the proceeding seem fair and balanced.

 

If, however, the unrepresented party is an a-hole, they will get smacked down by the judge quickly.

 

Farmteam is definitely right, however, that judges do not like people representing themselves...

 

Last two posts were great. Are judges allowed to make snide comments? Like early in the Arias trial when she doesn't know what the f*** she is doing, can the judge say anything? Like, "Ms. Arias I will give you a final chance to accept legal representation?" Or "Ms. Arias I am offended at you wasting the court's time because of a lack of knowledge about how to proceed?" Or does the judge have to shut up and hold her hand?

Fun legal question:

 

1) 14 year old male has sex with 21 year old female. This is statutory rape on the part of the female, but at the time it occurred the crime goes unreported.

 

2) Female becomes pregnant as a result of sexual encounter.

 

3) Female waits until one day after the statute of limitations expires on the rape to notify the male that he is the father and to file for both back and ongoing child support.

 

4) Court rules that because the crime was not reported within the statute of limitations, male is indeed responsible for child support.

 

Does this dude have any recourse in civil court, along the lines of arguing that he has incurred financial damage as a result of crime and suing for damages, or is there a statute of limitations on civil actions as well?

Fun legal question:

 

1) 14 year old male has sex with 21 year old female. This is statutory rape on the part of the female, but at the time it occurred the crime goes unreported.

 

2) Female becomes pregnant as a result of sexual encounter.

 

3) Female waits until one day after the statute of limitations expires on the rape to notify the male that he is the father and to file for both back and ongoing child support.

 

4) Court rules that because the crime was not reported within the statute of limitations, male is indeed responsible for child support.

 

Does this dude have any recourse in civil court, along the lines of arguing that he has incurred financial damage as a result of crime and suing for damages, or is there a statute of limitations on civil actions as well?

The immediate question that comes to my mind is does one have to pay back child support when the mother purposefully did not alert him of the child's birth?

 

I'd also love to read the opinion of the court as to being responsible for a child conceived as a result of a statutory rape. One would think the analysis would be different between determining whether someone can be convicted of a crime and whether someone is responsible financially for a child as a result of said crime.

 

Seems like unjust enrichment or something...

I'm not sure on this, but in the civil area some statute of limitations are tolled if the plaintiff/claimant is under 18. I wonder if there is any way to toll the Sol here.

 

I'm sure there are some civil torts she committed. Fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. I'd imagine there are other out there when you purposefully cheat someone like that.

 

On the support argument, you almost wonder if that lie can be used against her.

Edited September 3, 201411 yr by Jenksismybitch

I'm not sure on this, but in the civil area some statute of limitations are tolled if the plaintiff/claimant is under 18. I wonder if there is any way to toll the Sol here.

 

I'm sure there are some civil torts she committed. Fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. I'd imagine there are other out there when you purposefully cheat someone like that.

 

On the support argument, you almost wonder if that lie can be used against her.

I think it would, like shack mentioned it would be sorta similar to unjust enrichment. Though it's more similar to the general rules about how you can't benefit from your own malevolence.

My wife fell into an unrepaired hole around a manhole cover last night and fractured her ankle. Should we sue the city like a bunch of money crazy mf'ers?

My wife fell into an unrepaired hole around a manhole cover last night and fractured her ankle. Should we sue the city like a bunch of money crazy mf'ers?

 

It's not money crazy when your wife has to deal with the cast/boot for the short term and additional arthritic pain for the long term (depending on how severe). It's not wrong to want to be compensated for having to put up with the annoyance (and pain and suffering) of having to go through all that.

 

Having said that, you might not be able to sue anyway. I mean you can sue, but you might not be successful. It depends on if the City had notice of the hole before she fell.

It's not money crazy when your wife has to deal with the cast/boot for the short term and additional arthritic pain for the long term (depending on how severe). It's not wrong to want to be compensated for having to put up with the annoyance (and pain and suffering) of having to go through all that.

 

Having said that, you might not be able to sue anyway. I mean you can sue, but you might not be successful. It depends on if the City had notice of the hole before she fell.

No notice, just a huge hole on the side of the road.

No notice, just a huge hole on the side of the road.

 

They may have had notice. You never know. All it takes is for someone to call 311 to notify the city that the hole needs to be repaired. They keep records for every complaint/notification they receive.

 

They may have had notice. You never know. All it takes is for someone to call 311 to notify the city that the hole needs to be repaired. They keep records for every complaint/notification they receive.

Ok. So if I have a lawyer friend for free would it make sense to at least test the water?

Ok. So if I have a lawyer friend for free would it make sense to at least test the water?

 

If they're a litigation attorney I would.

My wife fell into an unrepaired hole around a manhole cover last night and fractured her ankle. Should we sue the city like a bunch of money crazy mf'ers?

That's awful, sorry to hear that.

If they're a litigation attorney I would.

Well how would you find out if the City had notice?

Well how would you find out if the City had notice?

 

FOIA request, you just have to word it properly.

Ok. So if I have a lawyer friend for free would it make sense to at least test the water?

 

Any attorney would take the case and a third if they win. City would settle out of court and give you something. If there was notice it is a decent five figure win.

 

 

Any attorney would take the case and a third if they win. City would settle out of court and give you something. If there was notice it is a decent five figure win.

 

If there's notice (or an argument for constructive notice) you better get an attorney involved. The City won't play if you don't have an attorney behind you. They'll offer you pennies, if anything.

Hope your wife heals quickly, Rock.

If there's notice (or an argument for constructive notice) you better get an attorney involved. The City won't play if you don't have an attorney behind you. They'll offer you pennies, if anything.

Truth. They likely just won't take a pro se claim that seriously.

 

Not sure what the Illinois law is on that stuff, but yeah if they had notice that's huge. You have to remember that cities have lots of immunities when it comes to tort actions like this one -- another reason it's smarter to get an attorney involved.

 

As for whether they'd settle if you have an attorney...depends on whether they had notice, but also depends on the tendencies of the city's insurer. Some will pay out over nothing, some will fight. Just depends.

 

Also depends whether when Rock means "night" as in late at night (ie, as dark as it will get) or something more like evening. That would go toward how open and obvious the condition (unrepaired hole) was.

 

It's not money crazy when your wife has to deal with the cast/boot for the short term and additional arthritic pain for the long term (depending on how severe). It's not wrong to want to be compensated for having to put up with the annoyance (and pain and suffering) of having to go through all that.

You must be a Plaintiffs' attorney.

So the rental debacle ended with my girlfriend writing the Illinois AG and the AG sided with her. The company cut her a check for the remaining $200 they owed her.

 

She only lost the $80 for the application fees which is should have happened in the first place.

Edited November 7, 201411 yr by pettie4sox

Glad you got something!

Glad you got something!

 

Yeah she got all of her money back sans the application fees which is the way it should have been to begin with.

My wife fell into an unrepaired hole around a manhole cover last night and fractured her ankle. Should we sue the city like a bunch of money crazy mf'ers?

 

Yeah, you've got to sue. It's like the poor guy who gets bit by a dog while jogging. He feels like a dick suing the person who owns the mutt, but you gotta do it.

Sue the city. And tell your GF Soxtalk feels for her.

I friend of mine and former coworker passed the bar after graduating with honors from SMU. Even better, he has a father in law that owns a large law form.

If you have consensual sex with someone and they do not disclose they have an STD, do you have grounds for civil negligence?

Edited March 7, 201511 yr by pettie4sox