Настроенные на линии названия игры в порту казино обеспечивают улучшенное мышление по сравнению с ощутимыми кузенами девушки. Сказочные произведения искусства, как правило, более полные, плюс доход лучше. Read more
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webp00Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2024-10-01 06:08:002025-09-19 06:08:00Лучший Vavada зеркало способ взять на себя игры в интернет -игровые автоматы в азартных играх бесплатно
Billease gives a order therefore, shell out afterwards getting agreement at zero% interest4 in pick if you do not couple. Nevertheless it has a number of various other chilly features since Boundary Boost and initiate Computerized-charge.
As well as a flexible installation design, Billease boasts the accessible finance calculator which helps you set the borrowing limit. Read more
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webp00Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2024-09-30 07:16:102025-09-19 07:16:11Billease Funds Move forward – uploan ph Exactly what the Areas of Billease Money Progress?
Бесплатно зарядовать игровые автоматы казино тип у людей, которые имеют безрисковое ощущение ставок. Следующие игры помогают участникам протестировать различные другие методы, не беспокоясь о снижении фактических денег. Они также предлагают способность ознакомиться с различными другими устройствами игровых автоматов и инициировать свои особые функции.
Скрининг пробный циркуляр похож на образец хороший мягкий вкус мороженого, ранее выбирая тот, который можно получить. Read more
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webp00Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2024-09-28 05:35:552025-09-19 05:35:56Бесплатная драгон мани казино зеркало зарядка казино в режиме онлайн-слота
Zadowoleni są z kluczowych słów, czyli wysokich odsetek od dochodu. Pożyczkobiorcy zazwyczaj wystawiają czek na spłatę pożyczki i nową opłatę, a także udzielają bankowi zgody na złożenie wniosku i rozpoczęcie wypłaty walidacji w kolejnym dniu wypłaty.
Tysiące pożyczkobiorców tkwi w ciągłym kryzysie związanym z chwilówkami, ponieważ kredyty często ulegają przedłużeniu lub są wielokrotnie przedłużane. Read more
Большое количество онлайн -казино не требует требований к приеме, кроме нового кода покрытия или новой карты Mit Minite Get. Тем не менее, A будет иметь области, которые могут быть ограничены существенными колесами или даже пользователями, которые вам не могут быть предложены.
Человек, как правило, чувствует, что локальные слоты, дверной проем, более свободны и начинают увеличение оплаты. Read more
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webp00Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2024-09-21 05:49:392025-09-19 05:49:40Чего ожидать в интернет-казино Рамен бет зеркало casino рабочее онлайн-доступ
I know I’ve discussed whether you should seek a jury trial before, but I want to give it a new look for this set of videos. In my view, debt defendants should always ask for jury trials if they have the right to them, and most of them do have that right. These days that’s more important than ever.
Your Right under the Constitution
By constitutional law, you have a right to jury trial under the 7th amendment for most “legal” claims. “Legal” in this sense is a term of art referring to the historical development of the English courts. Suffice it to say that most claims “sounding in” breach of contract are “legal” claims. Account stated, on the other hand, is not, so if the credit card company is suing you ONLY for account stated, you probably don’t have a right to jury trial, but for almost all other credit card or loan based claims you do. And if the plaintiff is suing you for breach of contract and account stated, you will have a right to jury trial that will, in all likelihood, control the whole case.
So most of the people watching this video or reading this article will have a right to jury trial. Should you take it?
Yes. You should.
Judges and Lawyers Take Jury Trials More Seriously
The primary reason is that judges and the other side will take jury trials more seriously. This means that the judge will be much more careful about what kinds of evidence to allow the jury to see, and since that is the heart of much of our defense, this is a very good thing. It isn’t that a judge should allow hearsay to affect his or her decision, it’s that the judge will pay much closer attention to your argument that something IS hearsay if he or she is worried about a jury hearing it. It’s just a more serious kind of case.
And the second reason is that a jury trial is a more serious kind of case. A judge-held trial could last half an hour or even less, but a jury trial will be measured in hours or possibly days if there are any complications. That’s because the jury has to be selected for starters, and that takes time. Then, every evidentiary objection will be taken more seriously and the judge will care more about getting it right in order to make sure the trial doesn’t have to be redone. And finally, there will be jury instructions, which also take time to set up. The difference in cost of attorney time could easily be five thousand dollars, and debt collectors don’t like to put that kind of money into cases like this. It’s just the way they do business, not that they fear them or anything.
Juries are More Likely to Believe you
You probably don’t have much money if you’re being sued by a debt collector, and if you’re representing yourself you are certainly not a trial judge. Judges, debt collectors, and the lawyers who represent debt collectors all have money, and most of them were born into privilege. They’re not usually the people you want making decisions that affect your life because, to be frank, most of them don’t care about you at all. You know who might care about your situation, though? The jury. Nothing’s guaranteed, of course, but I’ve found that a jury is more likely to see things your way. Especially when combined with the chances of getting better evidentiary rulings from the court in jury cases, I think this can make all the difference.
Jury Trials are NOT Scary
It might sound like a jury trial is a bigger deal for a shy or intimidated person, and it is true that they are somewhat more complicated, and you’re playing to people in the jury rather than just the judge. But although that’s true, you will probably find, in real life, that it doesn’t matter. Juries are just as easy to talk to as judges, and if you’re caught up in your case it’s probably even easier to talk to the jury. They’re much more like you than the judge is. I used to think you had to be more “entertaining” for juries than judges, but I don’t think that anymore. If you can stick to your script, that should be good enough: juries will listen as well as judges in my opinion.
There are factors you’ll need to consider as you prepare for the case, but in making your decision on whether or not to demand a jury that’s probably all you need to know. The judge will be more serious, the defendant will like the case less, and the jury will be easier to talk to than the judge and may be fairer. In general. So we suggest you ask for a jury trial. Find out your court’s rules on asking for one before you file your answer if that is possible.
This article updated 3/25/25
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/jury.jpg404776Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2023-03-23 15:56:212025-03-25 19:16:10Your Right to a Jury – Should you Demand One
DO I Respond, HOW do I Respond, and WHAT do I Respond when Sued for Debt?
We talk elsewhere about what constitutes valid service of a lawsuit, and you should check out that video and article if you have any questions about whether you’ve been served. That makes a large difference in what you should do, and if you have been improperly served, you likely will not want to “answer” the suit at all and may instead want to “move to quash” the suit.
We also discuss elsewhere whether you should respond to a debt collection lawsuit you find out about if you have not been served the complaint. To boil that down to its most essential point, if you have not been served at all – you hear about the suit from a neighbor or look your name up in court files, or a lawyer sends you a letter saying you’re being sued – we usually suggest that you take no action if you don’t have a lawyer. If you do have a lawyer, and the lawyer thinks it’s best to get on with it, that might be a good idea, but as a pro se defendant you won’t be able to shut the case down the way a lawyer might.
Let them serve you if they can, but you have no obligation to help with that process. You don’t have to go down to the sheriff’s office or call the firm suing you or its process server. See if they can get you, and if they can’t the case will be dismissed against you. It actually happens a lot, although not a statistically huge percentage of cases.
If you go this route, you will want to keep an eye on the court files to see if, whether or not they HAVE served you, they claim to have served you, and that brings up a special issue that we discuss elsewhere, too.
If you are Served the Suit
If you get served, your next question will be HOW to respond. If you fail to respond at all, the other side will get a default judgment and start trying to get your stuff, so this is probably not a good idea for you. You’ll need to Answer or file what’s called a motion (in some jurisdictions, like California, you could file what’s called a “demurrer,” which is just another kind of motion). To answer this question, you should first consider what kind of court you’re in. Are you in a small claims court, sometimes called a “magistrate” court? Or are you in a “real” court?
Assuming you’re in a real court, you’ll need to do two things right off the bat. First, find your state’s Rules of Civil Procedure and look up the part about service of process and motions to dismiss. Some motions to dismiss have to be filed before you answer the petition. Find out if you have one of those – the petition is vague, names the wrong person, or violates certain procedural requirements some states have for debt collectors. If you have one of these, you might be (and almost certainly are) waiving your right to bring the motion if you answer first.
If they claim you were served, but you have some reason to dispute that, you probably need to bring what’s called a “motion to quash” service before you answer (as mentioned above), since answering will be regarded as your consent to the court’s jurisdiction.
If none of those concerns apply to you, you will need to answer the suit. In some states, they have what’s called a “verified petition,” which means that someone swore to the truth of the allegations. If you have that sort of petition, you will need to swear to your answer, and this means getting a notary public to witness the document. But this is rare. In most instances, the petition is an ordinary one signed by the lawyer for the debt collector. If that’s what you’ve got, you will simply want to deny almost all of the paragraphs, one by one, in the petition. Don’t go to absurd lengths and deny your name or address, if those are correct, but you should generally deny all of the other substantive allegations. The legal effect of your denial is to say, “prove it.”
In some states you can file what’s called a “general denial,” which does in one sentence what I just suggested.
If you think you have a counterclaim against the person suing you, you will want to add that to your answer.
We discuss “affirmative defenses” elsewhere, but in general they are facts that, even if what the debt collector says in its petition is true, would mean you don’t owe them money. Most typical of these sorts of defenses are some sort of agreement to settle or address the claim, or the passage of too much time before they brought the suit, called the statute of limitations.
The essence of an affirmative defense is that you bear the burden of proof in showing that these factors exist, and you also must plead them in your answer.
Finally, let’s talk about demanding a jury. Our position is, generally, that debt defendants should ask for a jury. We discuss this in greater length in our article and video on juries, but if you think you want a jury (as we recommend), you need to find out how your court and state require that you demand one. In federal court and some states, it’s enough to say it as part of your answer. In some states, you have to make a separate request by separate pleading. Find out what you are required to do and do that.
If by chance you’re just finding out about this after already starting to defend your case, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily too late. If you have a right to jury trial, the right is absolute when you raise it in the proper way and time, but even if you don’t do it when you should, the court should normally grant your request anyway absent some sort of misbehavior or the passage of too much time, and they are required to be “liberal” in their interpretation of what’s too late. That is, they are supposed to lean towards granting your request for a jury, so even if you’re late, you should go for it if you want one.
This article updated 3/25/25
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/road-sign-63983__340.jpg340453Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2023-03-06 21:56:292025-03-25 20:30:27Do I Respond, How do I Respond, What do I Respond
Receiving Summons: What is “Valid” Service of Process
This question comes up a lot, and I have addressed it before. But for this set of videos I want to give a shorter, sweeter answer. Bear in mind that service of process is the way a court asserts jurisdiction over you – “process” is not the lawsuit, it’s the summons, the sheet of paper from the court, and “service” is the way it’s given to you. If it isn’t done correctly, the court lacks power to control your fate. As you’ll see, the rule isn’t some sort of absolute constitutional requirement – it is constitutionally required, but it can vary under circumstances of practicality. We’ll discuss some of those here.
If you’re in small claims court, there may be special rules regarding service of process. There often are. For example, service by certified mail, or even just first class mail, may be sufficient. If you receive a summons by mail, you should look up the court’s rules on service. Sometimes, even if service by mail is good, there may need to be some proof that you actually received it. Check your rules and see if what you got was good enough. Obviously you don’t want to call them, identify yourself, and ask if receiving service by mail was good enough, since that would be admitting you got it.
If you’re being sued in something other than small claims court, it’s probably going to take more than just the mail. They’re probably going to have to hand you the suit or offer to do so.
Here again, the rule is not absolute. If they offer you the summons, and you refuse it or run away, you will have been served. It isn’t necessary for you to take it for service to have happened, just for it to be offered.
But what if they tack it on your door? Or put it between the screen door and your front door? That’s normally not going to be enough, since there’s no certainty you will be the one getting it, but if that happens, you’ll want to research the question before deciding it wasn’t good enough. Incidentally, if we’re talking about a foreclosure or rent eviction, tacking the suit to the door might be enough to get jurisdiction over the property even if not over you, personally. That would mean that they could evict you if you don’t answer, but not hold you liable if there’s anything else owed.
What about if they give the summons to a neighbor? Probably not enough (check your state’s rules) and possibly a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, too.
How about giving it to you child at the door? This, too, is going to be determined by state rule. Most states have rules that allow service upon residents at a place who are a certain age or above. So ordinarily that would not give a visitor a right to accept service on you, or a child under a certain age.
If you haven’t been served adequately, you may wish to oppose the court’s jurisdiction over you. I actually usually suggest you hire a lawyer to do that for you, since it’s just a more powerful statement and can be done without being tremendously expensive. You would file what’s called a “motion to quash service,” to have it deemed ineffective by the court.
What if they can’t find you or reach you at home? There are other ways you can be served, but usually the plaintiff has to ask for permission to do that. They could serve you “by publication,” which means posting notice in some legal publication. Since no one ever reads those publications, you won’t see that, but if you’re aware they’re trying to reach you, you should follow the case docket and see if they ask for permission to serve you that way. If so and the court gives them permission to do so, you’re probably going to want to go ahead and waive service and ask them to mail you the summons and complaint. But it’s quite rare for debt collectors to take all the trouble to serve by publication for a very good reason: if they can’t find you to serve you, they’re not likely to be able to find your assets to collect on them. Everybody in the debt collection business likes to get paid, and if they don’t think they will be, they usually won’t put in the effort.
As you can see, I generally think the debt collectors should have to put in the effort to serve you. If they can’t, there isn’t much reason for you to make that easier for them. They might drop the suit on you completely. That’s a winner.
[updated 3/26/25]
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/serve-process.jpg317371Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2023-03-06 18:59:422025-03-26 15:15:06Receiving Summons: What is “Valid” Service of Process
I’ve discussed some of the background realities of talking with the judge and the attorney for the other side when you’re representing yourself as a defendant in a suit for debt in “Real Words about Talking to Judges and Lawyers.” I mentioned that neither judges nor the lawyers will start off respecting you if you’re pro se. That means you’re going to need to do certain things.
When speaking as a pro se defendant in a debt case, your first rule, always, is to speak normally. That means, use plain English – don’t try to impress anybody with you or what you know. Impress them with the facts. Speak in a normal tone of voice and with respect but not fear. Don’t kiss up to them, but treat them the way you’d treat somebody you like or can work with. Keep your cool. You’re in a situation where disagreements always come up – they’re not personal, or at least you should never make your words personal.
With those things in mind, there are some specifics to remember with judges and the lawyer for the other side.
Talking with the Judge
You’re going to have to be better than the lawyer for the other side. There are reasons this is possible, but it’s primarily because of the business model of the debt collectors. They take a factory approach, and their lawyer won’t work on your case much at all. It just isn’t profitable for them to do that. Nor is it profitable for them to hire the smartest lawyers in the business. Their whole approach is to bug you into paying without suing you and then to file huge numbers of suits knowing most people won’t defend themselves at all and will allow a default judgment. This isn’t to say their lawyers aren’t any good and can’t win, but it gives you a good chance if you’re willing to work.
Defending yourself takes you way out of the “ordinary” kinds of cases the deal with, and it’s a start, but you also still have to put in enough work to be better than the other side, and that’s what we discuss here.
Because of the general lack of respect for pro se defendants, when you say something, you will be more likely to need to cite controlling authority than a lawyer would. They can make references to “black letter law” (which is just legalese for “generally obvious”), but you will do better, if the issue is important at all, by citing a case that supports it. That means research is going to be important to you. (We have a product that can help with this.)
One thing non-lawyers seem to have trouble with is keeping things “relevant.” If you’re arguing about whether the debt collector has proof they own the debt, some things will shine a light on the issue, but the fact that the company has been sued by the federal government for collection abuses will not be, for example. Because of the way the court sees you, it will have very little tolerance for any straying off topic – the judge will think you’re wasting time and often tune out. Therefore, make sure everything you say relates to exactly the issue you’re discussing.
A related issue is keeping things brief. Again, the court will quickly sense that you’re wasting time if you veer away from the most important things at all. The judge doesn’t need to know why you thought something or planned something, it needs to know what the law requires. Pro se defendants seem to have a tremendous difficulty with this – you want to tell your story, but let me tell you that the court could not give one damn about your story. Legal talk is very different in this respect than regular human talk. Do NOT waste the court’s time.
Don’t whine. This is probably self-explanatory, but it’s part of the other things I’ve mentioned. Because the court does not care about your feelings, it will regard anything you say or insinuate about your feelings as a waste of time.
Know when to hold and when to fold. This is part of maintaining self-discipline and paying attention to the judge. When the judge says they’ve ruled, you are on extremely borrowed time. Ordinarily you should shut up and sit down. As I point out in “Real Talk,” you do that by saying, “Thank you, your honor.” But sometimes you don’t think you’ve had a chance to raise a crucial point. In that situation, you say something like, “I hear that, your honor, but I wanted to make sure you knew that they caught the defendant red-handed holding the knife with blood all over him…”
What I’m saying here is that if you want to say something after the judge has already ruled, it had better be damn good, and even then you’re on thin ice, but sometimes you have to say something to preserve the record. Judges can be hasty, and specially so with pro se debt defendants, so sometimes you may feel you have to point something out, but make sure it’s good – otherwise you’re just going to make the judge mad.
And speaking of anger, you must ALWAYS keep your feelings in check when you’re talking to the judge. If you raise your voice you could get thrown in jail for contempt of court, but of course it’s much more likely that the judge will just stop listening to you for the rest of the case. Baseball coaches seem to think it helps sometimes to get kicked out of a game, but this is never going to be a good strategy for you. Shut up, collect your thoughts, and be ready for the next thing.
Talking with the Lawyer
And now just a few words about the lawyers. First, keeping your cool is just as important with them as it is with judges. They can’t throw you in jail, but they can certainly tune you out in lots of ways. It won’t be good for you if they do.
Because you’ll be negotiating in various ways with the other lawyer, you need to remember one thing: threats are cheap. Because they don’t have a lot of respect for you, if you tell them “we should settle this thing now, or I’m going to file a motion for summary judgment next week…” they’re just going to ignore that. They don’t think you’ll do it. Any similar threats are pointless and more harmful than good. Instead, do the work first and let your actions speak for you.
In other words, don’t tell them you’re going to file a motion – file it and then talk. That would be more work, no doubt, if they ever would listen to threats and save you the trouble, but they never do. Threatening will lose ground for you. Doing without threatening (or warning, or negotiating to try not to have to file something) will gain ground for you.
Incidentally, a lot of lawyers try the same trick with the same results (nothing), but whereas I could probably draft a motion for summary judgment and send it to the other side saying that if they don’t settle I’m going to file the motion, you probably couldn’t even do that. There’s a chance they’d read it if a lawyer wrote it, but they probably won’t read anything you send until you file it. So go ahead and file what you’re going to file. Let your actions do your talking.
Don’t be afraid of the work. As long as the case continues, nothing you do will be wasted – everything you do will teach things you’re going to need to know.
On Being Nasty or Difficult
I hesitate to address this topic, but think I must. The lawyer for the other side does not take you seriously most of the time, and getting personal will normally not do any good. However, he or she is a person, and in a rare case, especially where there are complicated legal issues or where you’ve already done some winning, being personally difficult or unpleasant can work to your advantage. They already don’t want to work on your case, and if you can make them feel worse about that you might hasten their willingness to settle. This is rarelya good strategy, however. If you’re good at it (and you will know if you are), and the situation develops correctly, you might consider it. This is obviously only relating to the other side’s lawyer, never the judge.
[This article updated 3/26/25]
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/fax-1889056__340.jpg340340Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2023-03-02 17:27:482025-03-26 16:10:51Talking with the Judge and the other Lawyer
Real Words about Talking to Judges and the Other Side
If you are being sued for debt and representing yourself – that’s called “pro se” – you’re going to be talking to judges and also to the lawyer for the other side. That presents special challenges for pro se defendants, and particularly pro se debt defendants.
The first thing you must remember is that any FACTUAL thing you say to anybody can be taken as an “admission.” That means, any fact you say that could hurt you will be regarded as proven. That can be huge in debt cases where debt buyers often cannot prove things with legitimate evidence. If you say “I know I owe…” or “I know I did…” or “You told me…” or anything else that leads to a factual statement, that fact will be regarded as proven. Not BY you, incidentally, but AGAINST you. So don’t try to get cute and say, for example, “I know you can’t prove your case.” The rule only applies to what are called “admissions against interest” and it’s a one-way street: you can’t make admissions for the other side. Is that clear?
Talking to Judges
When you’re talking to judges, they may simply ask you, for example, whether you used or had a credit card or something along those lines. You may be disputing, primarily, whether the debt collector has a right to collect from you, which could be a completely different issue, but if you admit you got the credit card you will lose the case 99% of the time. You must resist the temptation to answer such a question with an admission. You can say, instead, “that’s one of the things the other side has to prove, and I’m not admitting it.”
You are not a witness under oath when you’re talking to the judge in open court unless you are, in fact, testifying, and you should not feel required to make admissions. If the judge presses you very hard, simply say you don’t think so.
Talking to the Other Lawyer
If the lawyer for the other side asks you point blank for some similar admission while you’re negotiating or haggling over discovery or at any other time than while you are under oath, you should simply say you “deny” it. That’s what you’re doing by your denial of the allegation in your answer.
Some Hard Facts about Judges and Lawyers
Now let’s go to some “unwritten” facts, you might say. And they’re frankly not going to be pleasant to hear, but you need to know them. Both judges and the other side – lawyers and their minions – regard you as socially inferior. You may feel it and feel intimidated, or you may not even feel it, but most of the time it is a simple fact. They do not respect you in a fundamental way.
With judges that can never be remedied. They can respect your intelligence and your willingness to compete, shall we say, and they like fighters, but they are in a position of power over you that is virtually absolute, and they’ve been in that position or some similar position for a long, long time. This gives you kind of a delicate task which we’ll come back to in a minute, but first we’ll talk about the lawyers and the other side generally.
Lawyers don’t respect you, either, and neither, most especially, do their owners the debt buyers. Again, you cannot fix that, but you must treat them, as much as you possibly can, as your equals. They’re not your parents and will never, under any circumstances, do anything in your interests that doesn’t help their interests, so do not ask them for guidance in any way. Ask me. Or ask a trusted friend. And then do your research. But when you’re talking to the lawyer you should be aware of the power dynamic and resist it. I’m not saying to be rude or overbearing; I’m saying to keep your cool and treat the lawyer the way you’d treat anyone else you’re in a professional relationship with. Because that’s what you are.
Believe me, though, they usually start with contempt for you, and that will never change unless you fight and win. You fight and win by standing up for your legitimate rights, keeping your cool, not making admissions, and forcing their hand where possible. Eventually, if you do these things, they’re likely to develop a sort of grudging admiration for you – fighters like fighters, in a way. They respect that about each other. But they’re never going to invite you to the boathouse, if you know what I mean. Know that fact.
Back to Judges
Now let’s get back to judges, because your relationship to them is much more complicated.
Your job, as an advocate, is to instruct the judge on what the law requires, as you understand it. If the other side is suing you for a debt they cannot prove they own, you have to tell the judge that that failure to prove ownership requires they lose the case. When you object at trial or in motions, for another example, you have to tell the judge why legal precedent in your state requires that your objection be sustained.
Lawyers do this all the time, although even lawyers handle judges they don’t know extremely well, with kid gloves. And your job is much much harder because the judges regard you as socially inferior. You still have to tell the judge what the law requires, and you can’t mince your words about that. But never, ever, interrupt a judge, raise your voice, or lose your cool. Don’t forget that judges can make mistakes (and so can you, of course), so work with that. It doesn’t mean they’re against you – it doesn’t usually mean much of anything. It’s usually impersonal, and even if it isn’t you have to act like it is.
Remember that judges are in a god-like position over you, and a lot of them seem to think they are god, too. If they tell you to shut up or it’s over, they’ve ruled on a question, they expect you to thank them! They do, and it’s standard. The judge says, “I’ve overruled your objection,” and you say, in response, “Thank you your honor.”
It could seem disgusting, but it’s tradition as much as anything else, and you are respecting their position when you say that more than their person.
So you have a challenging balancing act with judges. You have to tell them what the law requires and what makes you think so – and they actually may not know or remember. But you must keep in mind that their power is nearly absolute, so you should usually treat your arguments as “reminders” to them of what you expect they already know. And yet you are their intellectual equals, too, so you should stand up for the right of your position even if the judge is questioning it.
With all that said, a lot of judges are intelligent, nice people. ALL of them are, at least some of the time to some people. Recognize that fact and understand that they play a role in this case, and that role is to make judgments, some of which you aren’t going to like. Don’t personalize their rulings, and don’t think that because they disagree with you on some point that they’re against you on all of them. Unless you’re a competitive athlete or a lawyer, this is probably way out of your experience, but referees in football are required to look at every play and make their best judgment regardless of who they like better. They try to do that, and so do judges, most of the time. Understand that fact – it’s just their job.
When you’re talking to the other side, but especially when you’re talking to a judge, remember to listen carefully. So often people just listen to what others are saying primarily as a way of marking time – you have something to say, and you’re just waiting for them to finish so you can say it. Don’t do this in the law. Listen to what they’re saying – it’s usually important.
And make sure the things you say are important, too. Stay on point and remember that anything you say that seems to go off-point will cost you respect and attention. No one wants to hear your feelings or difficulties. They want to hear what the law is and what it requires. If you’re representing yourself, you’re going to have strong feelings, but keep them in check and keep them quiet. Talk about the few things that matter to whatever you’re discussing.
Remember that above all, the case that means so much to you means very little to the other side or to the judge. It’s just a job to them, which they may take more or less seriously, but for you it is much more important. Act like the case is important to you and work steadily and hard, and stay humble. Hope the judge will take his or her responsibilities seriously enough to be fair and listen to you when it matters, and that the lawyer on the other side is as uninspired as most of them are. Keep those things in mind and you’ll have a great chance to win.
[Article updated 3/26/25]
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/gavel.jpg498685Ken Giberthttps://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/logo-208x300.webpKen Gibert2023-02-27 16:28:202025-03-26 16:39:51Real Words about Talking to Judges and the Other Side
Лучший Vavada зеркало способ взять на себя игры в интернет -игровые автоматы в азартных играх бесплатно
Статьи и обзоры
Настроенные на линии названия игры в порту казино обеспечивают улучшенное мышление по сравнению с ощутимыми кузенами девушки. Сказочные произведения искусства, как правило, более полные, плюс доход лучше. Read more
Billease Funds Move forward – uploan ph Exactly what the Areas of Billease Money Progress?
Content
Billease gives a order therefore, shell out afterwards getting agreement at zero% interest4 in pick if you do not couple. Nevertheless it has a number of various other chilly features since Boundary Boost and initiate Computerized-charge.
As well as a flexible installation design, Billease boasts the accessible finance calculator which helps you set the borrowing limit. Read more
Бесплатная драгон мани казино зеркало зарядка казино в режиме онлайн-слота
Содержание
Бесплатно зарядовать игровые автоматы казино тип у людей, которые имеют безрисковое ощущение ставок. Следующие игры помогают участникам протестировать различные другие методы, не беспокоясь о снижении фактических денег. Они также предлагают способность ознакомиться с различными другими устройствами игровых автоматов и инициировать свои особые функции.
Скрининг пробный циркуляр похож на образец хороший мягкий вкус мороженого, ранее выбирая тот, который можно получить. Read more
Jak uniknąć pożyczki feniko pozyczka hipotecznej online bez ogłoszeń
Posty
Zadowoleni są z kluczowych słów, czyli wysokich odsetek od dochodu. Pożyczkobiorcy zazwyczaj wystawiają czek na spłatę pożyczki i nową opłatę, a także udzielają bankowi zgody na złożenie wniosku i rozpoczęcie wypłaty walidacji w kolejnym dniu wypłaty.
Tysiące pożyczkobiorców tkwi w ciągłym kryzysie związanym z chwilówkami, ponieważ kredyty często ulegają przedłużeniu lub są wielokrotnie przedłużane. Read more
Чего ожидать в интернет-казино Рамен бет зеркало casino рабочее онлайн-доступ
Посты
Большое количество онлайн -казино не требует требований к приеме, кроме нового кода покрытия или новой карты Mit Minite Get. Тем не менее, A будет иметь области, которые могут быть ограничены существенными колесами или даже пользователями, которые вам не могут быть предложены.
Человек, как правило, чувствует, что локальные слоты, дверной проем, более свободны и начинают увеличение оплаты. Read more
Your Right to a Jury – Should you Demand One
Jury Trial
I know I’ve discussed whether you should seek a jury trial before, but I want to give it a new look for this set of videos. In my view, debt defendants should always ask for jury trials if they have the right to them, and most of them do have that right. These days that’s more important than ever.
Your Right under the Constitution
By constitutional law, you have a right to jury trial under the 7th amendment for most “legal” claims. “Legal” in this sense is a term of art referring to the historical development of the English courts. Suffice it to say that most claims “sounding in” breach of contract are “legal” claims. Account stated, on the other hand, is not, so if the credit card company is suing you ONLY for account stated, you probably don’t have a right to jury trial, but for almost all other credit card or loan based claims you do. And if the plaintiff is suing you for breach of contract and account stated, you will have a right to jury trial that will, in all likelihood, control the whole case.
So most of the people watching this video or reading this article will have a right to jury trial. Should you take it?
Yes. You should.
Judges and Lawyers Take Jury Trials More Seriously
The primary reason is that judges and the other side will take jury trials more seriously. This means that the judge will be much more careful about what kinds of evidence to allow the jury to see, and since that is the heart of much of our defense, this is a very good thing. It isn’t that a judge should allow hearsay to affect his or her decision, it’s that the judge will pay much closer attention to your argument that something IS hearsay if he or she is worried about a jury hearing it. It’s just a more serious kind of case.
And the second reason is that a jury trial is a more serious kind of case. A judge-held trial could last half an hour or even less, but a jury trial will be measured in hours or possibly days if there are any complications. That’s because the jury has to be selected for starters, and that takes time. Then, every evidentiary objection will be taken more seriously and the judge will care more about getting it right in order to make sure the trial doesn’t have to be redone. And finally, there will be jury instructions, which also take time to set up. The difference in cost of attorney time could easily be five thousand dollars, and debt collectors don’t like to put that kind of money into cases like this. It’s just the way they do business, not that they fear them or anything.
Juries are More Likely to Believe you
You probably don’t have much money if you’re being sued by a debt collector, and if you’re representing yourself you are certainly not a trial judge. Judges, debt collectors, and the lawyers who represent debt collectors all have money, and most of them were born into privilege. They’re not usually the people you want making decisions that affect your life because, to be frank, most of them don’t care about you at all. You know who might care about your situation, though? The jury. Nothing’s guaranteed, of course, but I’ve found that a jury is more likely to see things your way. Especially when combined with the chances of getting better evidentiary rulings from the court in jury cases, I think this can make all the difference.
Jury Trials are NOT Scary
It might sound like a jury trial is a bigger deal for a shy or intimidated person, and it is true that they are somewhat more complicated, and you’re playing to people in the jury rather than just the judge. But although that’s true, you will probably find, in real life, that it doesn’t matter. Juries are just as easy to talk to as judges, and if you’re caught up in your case it’s probably even easier to talk to the jury. They’re much more like you than the judge is. I used to think you had to be more “entertaining” for juries than judges, but I don’t think that anymore. If you can stick to your script, that should be good enough: juries will listen as well as judges in my opinion.
There are factors you’ll need to consider as you prepare for the case, but in making your decision on whether or not to demand a jury that’s probably all you need to know. The judge will be more serious, the defendant will like the case less, and the jury will be easier to talk to than the judge and may be fairer. In general. So we suggest you ask for a jury trial. Find out your court’s rules on asking for one before you file your answer if that is possible.
This article updated 3/25/25
Do I Respond, How do I Respond, What do I Respond
DO I Respond, HOW do I Respond, and WHAT do I Respond when Sued for Debt?
We talk elsewhere about what constitutes valid service of a lawsuit, and you should check out that video and article if you have any questions about whether you’ve been served. That makes a large difference in what you should do, and if you have been improperly served, you likely will not want to “answer” the suit at all and may instead want to “move to quash” the suit.
We also discuss elsewhere whether you should respond to a debt collection lawsuit you find out about if you have not been served the complaint. To boil that down to its most essential point, if you have not been served at all – you hear about the suit from a neighbor or look your name up in court files, or a lawyer sends you a letter saying you’re being sued – we usually suggest that you take no action if you don’t have a lawyer. If you do have a lawyer, and the lawyer thinks it’s best to get on with it, that might be a good idea, but as a pro se defendant you won’t be able to shut the case down the way a lawyer might.
Let them serve you if they can, but you have no obligation to help with that process. You don’t have to go down to the sheriff’s office or call the firm suing you or its process server. See if they can get you, and if they can’t the case will be dismissed against you. It actually happens a lot, although not a statistically huge percentage of cases.
If you go this route, you will want to keep an eye on the court files to see if, whether or not they HAVE served you, they claim to have served you, and that brings up a special issue that we discuss elsewhere, too.
If you are Served the Suit
If you get served, your next question will be HOW to respond. If you fail to respond at all, the other side will get a default judgment and start trying to get your stuff, so this is probably not a good idea for you. You’ll need to Answer or file what’s called a motion (in some jurisdictions, like California, you could file what’s called a “demurrer,” which is just another kind of motion). To answer this question, you should first consider what kind of court you’re in. Are you in a small claims court, sometimes called a “magistrate” court? Or are you in a “real” court?
If you’re in a small claims or magistrate court, see our video and article on that.
Assuming you’re in a real court, you’ll need to do two things right off the bat. First, find your state’s Rules of Civil Procedure and look up the part about service of process and motions to dismiss. Some motions to dismiss have to be filed before you answer the petition. Find out if you have one of those – the petition is vague, names the wrong person, or violates certain procedural requirements some states have for debt collectors. If you have one of these, you might be (and almost certainly are) waiving your right to bring the motion if you answer first.
If they claim you were served, but you have some reason to dispute that, you probably need to bring what’s called a “motion to quash” service before you answer (as mentioned above), since answering will be regarded as your consent to the court’s jurisdiction.
If none of those concerns apply to you, you will need to answer the suit. In some states, they have what’s called a “verified petition,” which means that someone swore to the truth of the allegations. If you have that sort of petition, you will need to swear to your answer, and this means getting a notary public to witness the document. But this is rare. In most instances, the petition is an ordinary one signed by the lawyer for the debt collector. If that’s what you’ve got, you will simply want to deny almost all of the paragraphs, one by one, in the petition. Don’t go to absurd lengths and deny your name or address, if those are correct, but you should generally deny all of the other substantive allegations. The legal effect of your denial is to say, “prove it.”
In some states you can file what’s called a “general denial,” which does in one sentence what I just suggested.
If you think you have a counterclaim against the person suing you, you will want to add that to your answer.
We discuss “affirmative defenses” elsewhere, but in general they are facts that, even if what the debt collector says in its petition is true, would mean you don’t owe them money. Most typical of these sorts of defenses are some sort of agreement to settle or address the claim, or the passage of too much time before they brought the suit, called the statute of limitations.
The essence of an affirmative defense is that you bear the burden of proof in showing that these factors exist, and you also must plead them in your answer.
Finally, let’s talk about demanding a jury. Our position is, generally, that debt defendants should ask for a jury. We discuss this in greater length in our article and video on juries, but if you think you want a jury (as we recommend), you need to find out how your court and state require that you demand one. In federal court and some states, it’s enough to say it as part of your answer. In some states, you have to make a separate request by separate pleading. Find out what you are required to do and do that.
If by chance you’re just finding out about this after already starting to defend your case, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily too late. If you have a right to jury trial, the right is absolute when you raise it in the proper way and time, but even if you don’t do it when you should, the court should normally grant your request anyway absent some sort of misbehavior or the passage of too much time, and they are required to be “liberal” in their interpretation of what’s too late. That is, they are supposed to lean towards granting your request for a jury, so even if you’re late, you should go for it if you want one.
This article updated 3/25/25
Receiving Summons: What is “Valid” Service of Process
Receiving Summons: What is “Valid” Service of Process
This question comes up a lot, and I have addressed it before. But for this set of videos I want to give a shorter, sweeter answer. Bear in mind that service of process is the way a court asserts jurisdiction over you – “process” is not the lawsuit, it’s the summons, the sheet of paper from the court, and “service” is the way it’s given to you. If it isn’t done correctly, the court lacks power to control your fate. As you’ll see, the rule isn’t some sort of absolute constitutional requirement – it is constitutionally required, but it can vary under circumstances of practicality. We’ll discuss some of those here.
If you’re in small claims court, there may be special rules regarding service of process. There often are. For example, service by certified mail, or even just first class mail, may be sufficient. If you receive a summons by mail, you should look up the court’s rules on service. Sometimes, even if service by mail is good, there may need to be some proof that you actually received it. Check your rules and see if what you got was good enough. Obviously you don’t want to call them, identify yourself, and ask if receiving service by mail was good enough, since that would be admitting you got it.
If you’re being sued in something other than small claims court, it’s probably going to take more than just the mail. They’re probably going to have to hand you the suit or offer to do so.
Here again, the rule is not absolute. If they offer you the summons, and you refuse it or run away, you will have been served. It isn’t necessary for you to take it for service to have happened, just for it to be offered.
But what if they tack it on your door? Or put it between the screen door and your front door? That’s normally not going to be enough, since there’s no certainty you will be the one getting it, but if that happens, you’ll want to research the question before deciding it wasn’t good enough. Incidentally, if we’re talking about a foreclosure or rent eviction, tacking the suit to the door might be enough to get jurisdiction over the property even if not over you, personally. That would mean that they could evict you if you don’t answer, but not hold you liable if there’s anything else owed.
What about if they give the summons to a neighbor? Probably not enough (check your state’s rules) and possibly a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, too.
How about giving it to you child at the door? This, too, is going to be determined by state rule. Most states have rules that allow service upon residents at a place who are a certain age or above. So ordinarily that would not give a visitor a right to accept service on you, or a child under a certain age.
If you haven’t been served adequately, you may wish to oppose the court’s jurisdiction over you. I actually usually suggest you hire a lawyer to do that for you, since it’s just a more powerful statement and can be done without being tremendously expensive. You would file what’s called a “motion to quash service,” to have it deemed ineffective by the court.
What if they can’t find you or reach you at home? There are other ways you can be served, but usually the plaintiff has to ask for permission to do that. They could serve you “by publication,” which means posting notice in some legal publication. Since no one ever reads those publications, you won’t see that, but if you’re aware they’re trying to reach you, you should follow the case docket and see if they ask for permission to serve you that way. If so and the court gives them permission to do so, you’re probably going to want to go ahead and waive service and ask them to mail you the summons and complaint. But it’s quite rare for debt collectors to take all the trouble to serve by publication for a very good reason: if they can’t find you to serve you, they’re not likely to be able to find your assets to collect on them. Everybody in the debt collection business likes to get paid, and if they don’t think they will be, they usually won’t put in the effort.
As you can see, I generally think the debt collectors should have to put in the effort to serve you. If they can’t, there isn’t much reason for you to make that easier for them. They might drop the suit on you completely. That’s a winner.
[updated 3/26/25]
Talking with the Judge and the other Lawyer
Talking with the Judge and other lawyer
I’ve discussed some of the background realities of talking with the judge and the attorney for the other side when you’re representing yourself as a defendant in a suit for debt in “Real Words about Talking to Judges and Lawyers.” I mentioned that neither judges nor the lawyers will start off respecting you if you’re pro se. That means you’re going to need to do certain things.
When speaking as a pro se defendant in a debt case, your first rule, always, is to speak normally. That means, use plain English – don’t try to impress anybody with you or what you know. Impress them with the facts. Speak in a normal tone of voice and with respect but not fear. Don’t kiss up to them, but treat them the way you’d treat somebody you like or can work with. Keep your cool. You’re in a situation where disagreements always come up – they’re not personal, or at least you should never make your words personal.
With those things in mind, there are some specifics to remember with judges and the lawyer for the other side.
Talking with the Judge
You’re going to have to be better than the lawyer for the other side. There are reasons this is possible, but it’s primarily because of the business model of the debt collectors. They take a factory approach, and their lawyer won’t work on your case much at all. It just isn’t profitable for them to do that. Nor is it profitable for them to hire the smartest lawyers in the business. Their whole approach is to bug you into paying without suing you and then to file huge numbers of suits knowing most people won’t defend themselves at all and will allow a default judgment. This isn’t to say their lawyers aren’t any good and can’t win, but it gives you a good chance if you’re willing to work.
Defending yourself takes you way out of the “ordinary” kinds of cases the deal with, and it’s a start, but you also still have to put in enough work to be better than the other side, and that’s what we discuss here.
Because of the general lack of respect for pro se defendants, when you say something, you will be more likely to need to cite controlling authority than a lawyer would. They can make references to “black letter law” (which is just legalese for “generally obvious”), but you will do better, if the issue is important at all, by citing a case that supports it. That means research is going to be important to you. (We have a product that can help with this.)
One thing non-lawyers seem to have trouble with is keeping things “relevant.” If you’re arguing about whether the debt collector has proof they own the debt, some things will shine a light on the issue, but the fact that the company has been sued by the federal government for collection abuses will not be, for example. Because of the way the court sees you, it will have very little tolerance for any straying off topic – the judge will think you’re wasting time and often tune out. Therefore, make sure everything you say relates to exactly the issue you’re discussing.
A related issue is keeping things brief. Again, the court will quickly sense that you’re wasting time if you veer away from the most important things at all. The judge doesn’t need to know why you thought something or planned something, it needs to know what the law requires. Pro se defendants seem to have a tremendous difficulty with this – you want to tell your story, but let me tell you that the court could not give one damn about your story. Legal talk is very different in this respect than regular human talk. Do NOT waste the court’s time.
Don’t whine. This is probably self-explanatory, but it’s part of the other things I’ve mentioned. Because the court does not care about your feelings, it will regard anything you say or insinuate about your feelings as a waste of time.
Know when to hold and when to fold. This is part of maintaining self-discipline and paying attention to the judge. When the judge says they’ve ruled, you are on extremely borrowed time. Ordinarily you should shut up and sit down. As I point out in “Real Talk,” you do that by saying, “Thank you, your honor.” But sometimes you don’t think you’ve had a chance to raise a crucial point. In that situation, you say something like, “I hear that, your honor, but I wanted to make sure you knew that they caught the defendant red-handed holding the knife with blood all over him…”
What I’m saying here is that if you want to say something after the judge has already ruled, it had better be damn good, and even then you’re on thin ice, but sometimes you have to say something to preserve the record. Judges can be hasty, and specially so with pro se debt defendants, so sometimes you may feel you have to point something out, but make sure it’s good – otherwise you’re just going to make the judge mad.
And speaking of anger, you must ALWAYS keep your feelings in check when you’re talking to the judge. If you raise your voice you could get thrown in jail for contempt of court, but of course it’s much more likely that the judge will just stop listening to you for the rest of the case. Baseball coaches seem to think it helps sometimes to get kicked out of a game, but this is never going to be a good strategy for you. Shut up, collect your thoughts, and be ready for the next thing.
Talking with the Lawyer
And now just a few words about the lawyers. First, keeping your cool is just as important with them as it is with judges. They can’t throw you in jail, but they can certainly tune you out in lots of ways. It won’t be good for you if they do.
Because you’ll be negotiating in various ways with the other lawyer, you need to remember one thing: threats are cheap. Because they don’t have a lot of respect for you, if you tell them “we should settle this thing now, or I’m going to file a motion for summary judgment next week…” they’re just going to ignore that. They don’t think you’ll do it. Any similar threats are pointless and more harmful than good. Instead, do the work first and let your actions speak for you.
In other words, don’t tell them you’re going to file a motion – file it and then talk. That would be more work, no doubt, if they ever would listen to threats and save you the trouble, but they never do. Threatening will lose ground for you. Doing without threatening (or warning, or negotiating to try not to have to file something) will gain ground for you.
Incidentally, a lot of lawyers try the same trick with the same results (nothing), but whereas I could probably draft a motion for summary judgment and send it to the other side saying that if they don’t settle I’m going to file the motion, you probably couldn’t even do that. There’s a chance they’d read it if a lawyer wrote it, but they probably won’t read anything you send until you file it. So go ahead and file what you’re going to file. Let your actions do your talking.
Don’t be afraid of the work. As long as the case continues, nothing you do will be wasted – everything you do will teach things you’re going to need to know.
On Being Nasty or Difficult
I hesitate to address this topic, but think I must. The lawyer for the other side does not take you seriously most of the time, and getting personal will normally not do any good. However, he or she is a person, and in a rare case, especially where there are complicated legal issues or where you’ve already done some winning, being personally difficult or unpleasant can work to your advantage. They already don’t want to work on your case, and if you can make them feel worse about that you might hasten their willingness to settle. This is rarely a good strategy, however. If you’re good at it (and you will know if you are), and the situation develops correctly, you might consider it. This is obviously only relating to the other side’s lawyer, never the judge.
[This article updated 3/26/25]
Real Words about Talking to Judges and the Other Side
Real Words about Talking to Judges and the Other Side
If you are being sued for debt and representing yourself – that’s called “pro se” – you’re going to be talking to judges and also to the lawyer for the other side. That presents special challenges for pro se defendants, and particularly pro se debt defendants.
The first thing you must remember is that any FACTUAL thing you say to anybody can be taken as an “admission.” That means, any fact you say that could hurt you will be regarded as proven. That can be huge in debt cases where debt buyers often cannot prove things with legitimate evidence. If you say “I know I owe…” or “I know I did…” or “You told me…” or anything else that leads to a factual statement, that fact will be regarded as proven. Not BY you, incidentally, but AGAINST you. So don’t try to get cute and say, for example, “I know you can’t prove your case.” The rule only applies to what are called “admissions against interest” and it’s a one-way street: you can’t make admissions for the other side. Is that clear?
Talking to Judges
When you’re talking to judges, they may simply ask you, for example, whether you used or had a credit card or something along those lines. You may be disputing, primarily, whether the debt collector has a right to collect from you, which could be a completely different issue, but if you admit you got the credit card you will lose the case 99% of the time. You must resist the temptation to answer such a question with an admission. You can say, instead, “that’s one of the things the other side has to prove, and I’m not admitting it.”
You are not a witness under oath when you’re talking to the judge in open court unless you are, in fact, testifying, and you should not feel required to make admissions. If the judge presses you very hard, simply say you don’t think so.
Talking to the Other Lawyer
If the lawyer for the other side asks you point blank for some similar admission while you’re negotiating or haggling over discovery or at any other time than while you are under oath, you should simply say you “deny” it. That’s what you’re doing by your denial of the allegation in your answer.
Some Hard Facts about Judges and Lawyers
Now let’s go to some “unwritten” facts, you might say. And they’re frankly not going to be pleasant to hear, but you need to know them. Both judges and the other side – lawyers and their minions – regard you as socially inferior. You may feel it and feel intimidated, or you may not even feel it, but most of the time it is a simple fact. They do not respect you in a fundamental way.
With judges that can never be remedied. They can respect your intelligence and your willingness to compete, shall we say, and they like fighters, but they are in a position of power over you that is virtually absolute, and they’ve been in that position or some similar position for a long, long time. This gives you kind of a delicate task which we’ll come back to in a minute, but first we’ll talk about the lawyers and the other side generally.
Lawyers don’t respect you, either, and neither, most especially, do their owners the debt buyers. Again, you cannot fix that, but you must treat them, as much as you possibly can, as your equals. They’re not your parents and will never, under any circumstances, do anything in your interests that doesn’t help their interests, so do not ask them for guidance in any way. Ask me. Or ask a trusted friend. And then do your research. But when you’re talking to the lawyer you should be aware of the power dynamic and resist it. I’m not saying to be rude or overbearing; I’m saying to keep your cool and treat the lawyer the way you’d treat anyone else you’re in a professional relationship with. Because that’s what you are.
Believe me, though, they usually start with contempt for you, and that will never change unless you fight and win. You fight and win by standing up for your legitimate rights, keeping your cool, not making admissions, and forcing their hand where possible. Eventually, if you do these things, they’re likely to develop a sort of grudging admiration for you – fighters like fighters, in a way. They respect that about each other. But they’re never going to invite you to the boathouse, if you know what I mean. Know that fact.
Back to Judges
Now let’s get back to judges, because your relationship to them is much more complicated.
Your job, as an advocate, is to instruct the judge on what the law requires, as you understand it. If the other side is suing you for a debt they cannot prove they own, you have to tell the judge that that failure to prove ownership requires they lose the case. When you object at trial or in motions, for another example, you have to tell the judge why legal precedent in your state requires that your objection be sustained.
Lawyers do this all the time, although even lawyers handle judges they don’t know extremely well, with kid gloves. And your job is much much harder because the judges regard you as socially inferior. You still have to tell the judge what the law requires, and you can’t mince your words about that. But never, ever, interrupt a judge, raise your voice, or lose your cool. Don’t forget that judges can make mistakes (and so can you, of course), so work with that. It doesn’t mean they’re against you – it doesn’t usually mean much of anything. It’s usually impersonal, and even if it isn’t you have to act like it is.
Remember that judges are in a god-like position over you, and a lot of them seem to think they are god, too. If they tell you to shut up or it’s over, they’ve ruled on a question, they expect you to thank them! They do, and it’s standard. The judge says, “I’ve overruled your objection,” and you say, in response, “Thank you your honor.”
It could seem disgusting, but it’s tradition as much as anything else, and you are respecting their position when you say that more than their person.
So you have a challenging balancing act with judges. You have to tell them what the law requires and what makes you think so – and they actually may not know or remember. But you must keep in mind that their power is nearly absolute, so you should usually treat your arguments as “reminders” to them of what you expect they already know. And yet you are their intellectual equals, too, so you should stand up for the right of your position even if the judge is questioning it.
With all that said, a lot of judges are intelligent, nice people. ALL of them are, at least some of the time to some people. Recognize that fact and understand that they play a role in this case, and that role is to make judgments, some of which you aren’t going to like. Don’t personalize their rulings, and don’t think that because they disagree with you on some point that they’re against you on all of them. Unless you’re a competitive athlete or a lawyer, this is probably way out of your experience, but referees in football are required to look at every play and make their best judgment regardless of who they like better. They try to do that, and so do judges, most of the time. Understand that fact – it’s just their job.
When you’re talking to the other side, but especially when you’re talking to a judge, remember to listen carefully. So often people just listen to what others are saying primarily as a way of marking time – you have something to say, and you’re just waiting for them to finish so you can say it. Don’t do this in the law. Listen to what they’re saying – it’s usually important.
And make sure the things you say are important, too. Stay on point and remember that anything you say that seems to go off-point will cost you respect and attention. No one wants to hear your feelings or difficulties. They want to hear what the law is and what it requires. If you’re representing yourself, you’re going to have strong feelings, but keep them in check and keep them quiet. Talk about the few things that matter to whatever you’re discussing.
Remember that above all, the case that means so much to you means very little to the other side or to the judge. It’s just a job to them, which they may take more or less seriously, but for you it is much more important. Act like the case is important to you and work steadily and hard, and stay humble. Hope the judge will take his or her responsibilities seriously enough to be fair and listen to you when it matters, and that the lawyer on the other side is as uninspired as most of them are. Keep those things in mind and you’ll have a great chance to win.
[Article updated 3/26/25]