What's the point of having a lawyer if you can present a case yourself?

If im representating my self as an individual under pro se invivus, it cancels the court presumption, so im not under the full jurisdiction of the court. I can call for a demoura anytime because during prolocution i presented my stance in compitence. So the question was why i need a bar official, in a public sector, if i know I'm innocent.
And the previous answers actually gave some insight & understanding without being putsy face cucks. You're 2 cents should've been invested on a hooker.

Watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=NAVsBfOjc4c

Reading this was as difficult to understand as the image.

Well shit thats art. I studied law for years and was leaning towards the field of finance and government law. I love the game and the cutthroat warfare, don't get me wrong. I just went through a few things and changed my view and somehow concluded the world is ending so the demand for anything commodities would decrease. But i suppose if you're gonna play the game might as well have your own piece

They have a personal relationship with the judge.

Shkreli?

Graphic designing/Visual communication and common, statutory, & international law are pretty hard concepts to graps, so its ok.

>pro se invivus
It's just "pro se".
>it cancels the court presumption
There is no such thing.
>im not under the full jurisdiction of the court
Yes you are.
>demoura
Not a word.
>prolocution
Not a word.
>i presented my stance in compitence
Jibberish.
>bar officia
Not the correct term.
>in a public sector
Not the correct context.
>if i know I'm innocent
Irrelevant.

This was possibly the dumbest post I've seen on this board in 2016. You are either legitimately retarded, or you ran this through Google Translate four or five times. Either way, please leave and never post again.

Actually you're complety wrong and I'm right.

There is actually 3 forms of pro se;
Pro se in rein - under jurisdiction of the court,
Pro se in vivus - as an individual person
Pro se in triformes - as a a third party

Presumption is the act in which if you don't specify your stance of action specifly, it is presumed to be the negative; hence just saying "pro se" you're presumed to be pro se in rein.

A demoura is a call for a "sieze fire" or intermission of the current case due to the evidence being insubstantial with the claim.

A bar official is someone who passes the bar exam. Roman direviaton actually. It is a public sector when its a jury.
Being innocent is irrelevent. But by agreeing to a summomns with properly objectifying it prior, you technially admitted, because you presumed to be in contingent with the accusations.

You hollow head ignorant fuck don't think you understand it all because you know the surface. Someone always knows more.

>There is actually 3 forms of pro se;
Not in American court. The only place I can find mention of this stuff is some weird new-age website.

Presumption in American courts refers to guilt. You're presumed innocent; the only changes to it are during criminal and civil cases. You have either beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence.

Demoura is not a modern legal term. The word you're looking for is a dismissal if you're doing it pretrial. If you don't want the evidence admitted to the case, you file a motion to suppress it. The case does not get dismissed if this happens, but the evidence is no longer admissible in the trial.

Everything else you're saying is misconjecture on your end. You're using outdated(?) or just plain wrong words. When a jury is present, it's a jury trial
That's literally it.

Get a lawyer, because no judge is going to tolerate this shit. They help pro se defendants a bit during the case (telling them when to talk/how to ask for what they want), but they're not going to let you pretend to be a legal expert when you don't know the first thing that's going on.

And you need to just shut up when talking with your lawyer. Trust me; they know more than you.