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.

the judicial system is a complete joke

I would LOVE to be your adversary. Guaranteed win + fees + sanction award.

You're probably a law student or a paralegal in your first year or 2. I could sit here a try to explain the basic mechanics of the law system, but your ego wont allow you to think outside of your meme law ideas. I actually prefer you stay incompetent, if i faced you in court I'd take everything you had and some. I turned my back on law because I lost faith in the system, but swipping cucks like you seems like a fun ball game

Not a law student. Just an user with a legal dictionary on his bookshelf and a lot of firsthand experience as a defendant.

Have fun, sport.

i wonder who says this, people whove actually done it or people who want you to keep paying for lawyer services.

I WONDER

This post could be put in a "Rekt Thread".

This.

Also access to quality case law.

>tfw I got to clean out an autismal prepper retard like OP for a client

Felt orgasmic. He complained about us to the bar association and I had to waste an afternoon writing an explanation to them though.

Hahaha, So once he schools you it turns to insults, you really are a sad little faggot, how about you go ahead and leave and you know not come back :)

When you have car problem do you fix it yourself? Do you do your own plumbing?

EVEN IF you somehow knew court etiquette and the law, judges HATE people who self represent, to them its highly disrespectful.

> fixing my own car
> installing water pipes for washing machine at my mother's

Your examples aren't the best matey

Do judges really find that disrespectful? I've never been in trouble with the law, but the concept of a judge really burns me, I'd imagine them all to be megalomaniacs

Yes, I do all my own car repairs, plumbing, electrical, landscaping. Why would I pay someone when I can save myself 100+ dollars an hour. And judges are assholes and are overpaid. Maybe they should step in someone elses shoes and understand that not everyone can afford a lawyer either. Especially if its for something really trivial like a traffic ticket that some inbred cop gave you.

>judges HATE people who self represent, to them its highly disrespectful
Disrespectful is the wrong characterization. Judges do strongly dislike pro se litigants, but primarily because they cause more problems and creates more work for the Judge, the Judge's staff, and the other parties. It slows down the process, and Judges do care about moving cases along at a reasonable pace.

In my experience, most Judges will follow something akin to a "three strikes" approach with a pre se litigant. You can make two mistakes/missteps and the Judge will go out of his way to protect you from your mistakes. But eventually the Judge gets tired of you and comes down hard. That often means sanctions, including losing the case and having to pay costs and fees to the other side.

>I'd imagine them all to be megalomaniacs
There are way fewer bad Judges than good Judges. Most are pretty decent people, and just want to do their jobs fairly and efficiently.

>Maybe they should step in someone elses shoes and understand that not everyone can afford a lawyer either.
Good thing you get one for fucking free if you ask.

>Especially if its for something really trivial like a traffic ticket that some inbred cop gave you.
And as these are always summary offenses, you don't even need a lawyer as it's a more lax preceding where you can present your case. Traffic tickets are (99% of the time) so black and white that it's literally just a matter of showing up if you're truly innocent.

>Good thing you get one for fucking free if you ask.
Not a very good one.

They're completely capable of ensuring your rights don't get violated, and in most instances can do a perfectly serviceable job. Go to any courthouse and watch the people with PD's. It's literally just an ARD mill, which is reasonably your best outcome. The problem is the clients. Imagine if your entire clientele was comprised of drug addicts and niggers, and that these people colored public opinion of you.

I literally watched a PD get a client 30 days of license suspension, ARD, and a $500 fine for a DUI. That's a sweet fucking deal. Idiot balked at it and insisted they proceed to trial because he read two or three paragraphs online and thought the case was winnable.

This is why you hire a lawyer; they're not emotionally involved. It's why you sometimes just take the hit instead of rolling the dice. "You have a 75% chance of winning, but your exposure on this is 5 years in jail. The plea is 90 days." You may just be better off taking that deal.

The myth of the bumbling public defender is largely a product of TV and movies. In reality, most public defenders are as skilled as the guys you hire our of the phone book. But, they're horribly understaffed and overworked. I hate to be racist, but this is more a result of the "dindu nuffin" attitude of most defendants, and not a reflection of the lawyer.

If you want a truly skilled lawyer that will outclass and outgun the other side, then you need to open your pocketbook.

He didnt school anything. Its kinda funny you really think you understand. It's people like me that take advantage of people like you. While you type faggot over an internet board i making moves and pulling strings. Keep up the ignorance, makes my job easier.

You could... depends on the court. Small claims, probably.

Realistically how do you find "the best lawyer in town."? Is there a stats system to look at? won defenses or procecutions.

Protip: if the feds are on your ass, its probably a done deal they only go after people that they got a 99.9% conviction rate... they aint going to bring you to trial if theres a even 8 %chance you gonna walk.

...

1241386
Laws are rewriten frequently. The roman law system is what most of the world works under. There is no "american law". court (derived from ancient latin, courtio - to entrust bonds or enbailments for profit.) The procedures are more imortant than the law itself, and you clearly dont understand the fundamental mechanics. Judges understand the terms when you say it to them, they assume your incompetent if you don't and take role as gaurdian.
For the record, this question was asked because i want to see all possiblities the market for lawyers would decrease, and what would be the biggest issue that clients wouldn't want one so that i could solve that issue.
And i also have a bit if experience under my belt and I've always worked with lawyers.

But what do i know im just a dumbass (wink emoji)

You don't belong in Veeky Forums

Did you just type "(wink emoji)"?
Kys faggot.

Yea. It was suitable for the statement and constructed a visusl concept of what my intended message was. And i dont wanns use an actual emoji.
And you shouldn't tell people to kill themselves on the internet its rude, if your having some personal issues you shouldn't try to compensate for it by attempting other people to visualize your painful life.
Keep reading and stay healthy bud. You'll make it.

No. Seriously kys.

If you asked nicely i wouldve considered it, but na

I'd tell u do the world a favor by blowing your puny braind out but then i woudnt be able to profit off of your stupidy. Plus im sure Darwinism will take care of you.

Pretty please with a cherry on top... kill your fucking self.

if you have broken the law / been caught breaking the law you are too stupid to represent anyone in court including yourself. end of story.

Yes when you show up without a lawyer to the judge it says, "this is no big deal, I don't need help or guidance, I can just walk in here and do what I want".

Is that the case? No, you just don't want to give some suit fuck your money.

But thats how judges see it.

And as the other user said it slows things down and brings error into the court process which judges don't like.

Specialization is the key to wealth user...

I remember using that analogy as a toddler. It was effective. I can feel the passion and emotion written behind that request. I was damn near about to jump out a window. Damn your negotiation skills are really good. You're going far boy.

This

There WILL be some weird loophole or you WILL say something that can be interpreted, in legal language, against you.

Noted. I agree with the fact that it does make the trial easier, it also brings money into the court, which is the main objective, also not poking the bear in the eye. So i suppose the demand is high enough to thrive and secure a wide market. Cool beans

I was sued by a debt buying law firm, and I kicked their ass, Pro Se. That's because they come with the flimsiest cases though desu. Not too hard to beat if you're diligent in your research.

...

This is a chin gripper and a head nodder. Noted user.

That's awesome. Remember to kill yourself anyways.

Uk law student here. You have no idea the amount of work involved to be able to understnd the law and how to make use and advantage of it in your way.

The thing is that in the UK and Muricuh the law is of an adverserial nature. Which means that there are 2 lawyers competing against eachother both who have to essentially put up a "show" which convinces either the judge or jury in case of criminal cases. All these people are still humans with their own emotions and thoughts. Once you learn to manipulate them is where you are hitting the right spot.
Just look at the OJ simpson case, it was such a travesty. He was convicted as guilty in th3 civil case but his case was quashed in the criminal division because of the ability of the lawyer to manipulate the system in such a way that he actually got a guilty as fuck man free.

Your best bet is to look up the bar association of your state/county/municipality to find a directory of all the attorneys registered by the local bar. Then just do your research on each attorney.

>Laws are rewriten frequently.
Correct.

>The roman law system is what most of the world works under. There is no "american law". court (derived from ancient latin, courtio - to entrust bonds or enbailments for profit.) The procedures are more imortant than the law itself, and you clearly dont understand the fundamental mechanics
I didn't realize the depth of your knowledge. You should not only represent yourself, but take the bar exam as well. Others need to benefit from your legal prowess.

If you're actually a law student, you're not a very good one. The OJ case had nothing to do with the skill of the attorneys (note: plural). It had everything to do with the different burdens of proof in the civil and criminal trials.

That you don't know the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence" suggests that you know about as much about the law as the OP (who, in case you hadn't noticed, is legally brain dead).

according to everyone else in this thread, neither do you.