Winkelman v. parma City School District

[Libertarian]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-983.ZS.html

A new decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the right to file a lawsuit in federal court without a lawyer.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-983.ZS.html

A new decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the right to file a lawsuit in federal court without a lawyer.

Thats a good case Libertarian.

Thanks for finding it and posting it.

IEP fraud is a big money maker for public schools, I have experienced from the viewpoint of a teacher who advocted for both students, parents, and other teachers and staff.

The abuses can be unbelievable.

IEP's will be written and funded and the child will not receive the full benefit and the school will pocket the difference.

This is SOP, and staff that balk at doing bogus paperwork do not last long.

(The implications are applicable across the board though, and not just for this particular type of issue, correct?)

[Libertarian]

The implications are applicable across the board though, and not just for this particular type of issue, correct?)

The Court re-affirms that you do not need a lawyer to sue in federal court to assert your own rights. That ruling is applicable across the board. The IEP issue involved the question of whether the parents were suing to enforce their own rights or their childrens' rights, and the Court said it was their own rights (hence their ability to proceed in propria persona).

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

The Court re-affirms that you do not need a lawyer to sue in federal court to assert your own rights.

That ruling is applicable across the board.

The IEP issue involved the question of whether the parents were suing to enforce their own rights or their childrens' rights, and the Court said it was their own rights (hence their ability to proceed in propria persona).

Thanks again.

You say "re-affirm;" when and how did they affirm, and why did they have to re-affirm?

(Really want the info if you know.)

[Libertarian]

I meant "re-affirm" in the sense that the Court wasn't deciding anything new, but merely repeating what courts have said many times before. For example, the Court says:

there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . .”)