Judges Opinion on "Pro Se" Litigants (IT AIN'T GOOD)

Saw this on the Evening News, and it shows what the judiciary thinks about unrepresented litigants.

Here's the link to the video, and it was titled Big Break in Judge Case

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/even...ningNews.shtml

Charles l. Brieant, Jr., Federal Judge expresses his opinion on "Pro Se" Litigants.



Charles Brieant Jr.:"Pro Se Litigants very readily become paranoid. The Court's in league with the other side, the lawyer on the other side is crooked."


Cynthia Bowers: "So those seeminly innocent cases could potentially be among the most dangerous?"


Charles Brieant Jr.: "They Can, Every one of them."


Here's a better picture of this "public servant." (cough)

http://www.trinityossining.org/charles2.jpg




http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/USDJ/brieant.htm
Hon. Charles L. BRIEANT [Jr.]
United States District Judge

United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas Street, Room 275
White Plains, New York 10601-4150
(914) 390-4077

Courtroom 218
Deputy (914) 390-4081



His church:
Trinity Episcopal Church
http://www.trinityossining.org/people.shtml
7 South Highland Ave. (Rt. 9)
Ossining, NY 10562
(914) 941-0806




Martindale.com information:

Charles L. Brieant, Jr.
U.S. Dist. J.
300 Quarropas St., Rm. 175
White Plains, New York
(Westchester Co.)

Born 1923; Admitted 1949; Columbia University, B.A.; Columbia University, LL.B.


Public Information Home Address:

Charles L Brieant JR
205 Cedar Ln
Ossining NY 10562


Maybe write this guy a letter to let him know that he is in error?

What an arrogant load of donkey .....


If you don't have a lawyer in this guys court, I'd pull this quote out and demand that he recuse himself. (Say you're paranoid that he has a bias)

Just my opinion. Pursuant to Judge Brieant, we must all be allowed to have them, but if I'm paranoid,

Why does HE have armed guards and a metal detector at the front door?


Again, in my opinion, if the Judges didn't enable their BAR buddies, they couldn't be crooked.


HB

P.S. Everything I put in this post was readily available on the internet. I found all of this in about 10 minutes. I figure it was worth it for a judge who talks derogatory about Pro Se Litigants, clearly showing his BIAS.

It doesn't play.

[sfergnel]

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews.shtml

then click on "Big Break in Judge Case" - the comments by the judge are near the end, but HB has broken them out in his post.

After having a night to sleep on it, and think about it, let me respond by saying

Judges very readily become corrupt.

I said that, and you can quote me on that.

HB

...it is because they (so-called) federal judges do not have any authority/contract over "unrepresented" parties?

United States District Courts only have jurisdiction over fictions/corporations.

The only so-called danger that I would see is that a federal (alleged) judge is afraid of the liability issue?

hummmm? (grin)

[iamfreeru2]

Have to get ready to leave for our seminar here in Florida, but wanted to chime in here. I have never spoken of this on this board and I do not like saying anything about family, especially one that is deceased now, but my uncle, before he passed away a few years ago, was a federal judge sitting on the bench is Atlanta. Was appointed by Nixon. He and I had a few talks and I can tell you there is definitely a bias in favor of the bar card carrying actors. Wargames has said they have no control over the "pro se" litigant, not so and I would refrain from going in as "pro se." If you are going to go in, go in In propria persona. Pro se you are going in as a legal fiction representing yourself also the legal fiction (Strawman). Also always go in by special visitation only.

[test]

Judge killed in courthouse shooting


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/11/at...ing/index.html

Iamfree,

I didn't say that judges don't have jurisdiction over pro se litigants!

I said... judges don't have jurisdiction over unrepresented parties!

However, you are correct on the In Propria Persona application vs. pro se.

Enjoy the seminar this weekend!

I wish I could be there, even for the warmer weather!

Originally Posted by test

Judge killed in courthouse shooting


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/11/at...ing/index.html

Barnes was "extremely highly thought of in the legal community," attorney B.J. Bernstein told CNN.

Read=sounds just like "Corrupt."

If he had been extremely highly thought of in the community of those who don't hire lawyers, you might be able to say he was fair.

"The right to self-representation is a right of high standing, not simply a practice to be dishonored by a Court depending on it's assessment of the desiderata of a particular case" O'Reilly v. New York Times, Co., 692 F. 2d 863, 867 (2d Cir. 1982)

Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F. 2d 90, 91 (1983); “Implicit in the right to self-representation is the obligation on the part of the Court to make reasonable allowances to protect Pro Se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training." And “the Court's duty is even broader in the case of a Pro Se defendant who finds himself in court against his will with little time to learn the intricacies of civil procedure and law."

See 28 U.S.C.A. 1654