Many, if not all, counties in Georgia have responded to the increase in unrpresented parties in their family courts, by creating and handing out forms, templates, and packets for individuals to complete themselves. Almost always these forms come with disclaimers, advising the user that they should seek legal help from a lawyer, and that they use the forms at their own risk.
Unfortunately, the warnings do little, if anything, to cause litigants to slow down and really consider the effects of what they are doing. Too many parties view the paperwork simply as a hoop they must jump though to get that divorce.
Certainly all individuals have the right to represent themselves. But preprinted forms won't help a pro se litigant against an experienced divorce lawyer. Lawyers know not only the published rules, but the informal practices at each court. They know the judges, usually, and their likes and dislikes. Lawyers are practiced at assembling the evidence into a presentable and understandable fashion. Too many litgants, show up before the judge with a naive outlook that they will somehow get justice if they speak earnestly.
Divorce courts are no place to play amateur lawyer. The stakes, in terms of family relationships and finances, could not be higher. Too many clients come to me after the disaster has struck, wondering just what happened to them and where it went wrong.
If you find yourself in a likely divorce situation, don't trust your future to a blind faith in the court. It is likely to come out poorly. Save your pennies and go hire a good lawyer.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Court denies relief from abusive quasi-criminal proceedings
We were disappointed to see that the U.S. Supreme Court, after accepting certiorari in Robertson v. U.S. ex rel Watson, belatedly changed its mind and denied cert as "improvidently granted." Justice Roberts authored a stinging dissent, arguing that the court should have re-emphasized that the power to bring criminal proceedings belongs exclusively to the sovereign, and should not be wielded by private parties.
This cert denial allows the Court of Appeals and trial court rulings to stand. Those rulings had allowed the former girlfriend to sue her former boyfriend in criminal contempt, thereby adding three consecutive 180 day jail stays on top of an existing multi-year sentence - even though a duly-empowered prosecutor for the state agreed that no charges would be brought as part of a plea bargain in a subsequent case.
This dangerous ruling allows to continue the dangerous trend of mixing civil and criminal remedies together, under the umbrella justification of addressing "domestic violence". This author believes the laws empowering civil courts to impose criminal sanctions is not only dangerous, but a breach of our fundamental constitutional rights to confront our accusers and receive a fair and impartial trial, and the rights against double jeopardy.
Too many states now rely upon the federal dollars attached to so-called domestic violence cases. Too many prosecutors are being constrained from making common-sense decisions. The lure of federal funding for such cases, in a time of tight state budgets, creates near-irresistable pressure to take domestic violence cases to the mat, wastes important state resource, and causes defendants in domestic violence cases to be singled out for harsher treatment merely because the actions arose between individuals who had been living in the same house.
Most troubling is the Court's apparent sanction of legislative efforts to strike at some of the most fundamental rights we have to protection against abusive government action. We can only hope that the Court will readdress this issue in the near future, and provide a curb against the tide of abusive prosecutions that is occuring under the banner of "domestic violence".
This cert denial allows the Court of Appeals and trial court rulings to stand. Those rulings had allowed the former girlfriend to sue her former boyfriend in criminal contempt, thereby adding three consecutive 180 day jail stays on top of an existing multi-year sentence - even though a duly-empowered prosecutor for the state agreed that no charges would be brought as part of a plea bargain in a subsequent case.
This dangerous ruling allows to continue the dangerous trend of mixing civil and criminal remedies together, under the umbrella justification of addressing "domestic violence". This author believes the laws empowering civil courts to impose criminal sanctions is not only dangerous, but a breach of our fundamental constitutional rights to confront our accusers and receive a fair and impartial trial, and the rights against double jeopardy.
Too many states now rely upon the federal dollars attached to so-called domestic violence cases. Too many prosecutors are being constrained from making common-sense decisions. The lure of federal funding for such cases, in a time of tight state budgets, creates near-irresistable pressure to take domestic violence cases to the mat, wastes important state resource, and causes defendants in domestic violence cases to be singled out for harsher treatment merely because the actions arose between individuals who had been living in the same house.
Most troubling is the Court's apparent sanction of legislative efforts to strike at some of the most fundamental rights we have to protection against abusive government action. We can only hope that the Court will readdress this issue in the near future, and provide a curb against the tide of abusive prosecutions that is occuring under the banner of "domestic violence".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)