Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
Well, since I failed to make my point (I was in a hurry and had to head out the door) I can understand why you were unimpressed. My point wasn't to impress you or to brag about my ability, it was to illustrate the fact that someone being a lawyer (and passing the bar exam) doesn't really mean diddly squat about their skills or intelligence. If some kid, who knew nothing, could research the law and write motions that got cases dismissed, that means that the charges should have never been made in the first place and that the city attorney's inability to see this means he was most likely incompetent — yet he held the job. Not impressed.
As for my being "officially unqualified" to defend my family members, you obviously don't know how the U.S. court system works. Any person can defend themselves in a court of law. You don't have to be "qualified" to write a motion. Although, when I filed the second motion (for my brother) the Country Clerk told me "the judge will just throw it out." I had to tell her to just file it, it wasn't her job to make the ruling.
I had the FACTS on my side. That's why we won. I didn't grandstand by making juvenile "emotional" accusations. And now we're back to why I wrote my original post you responded to.
|
I understand the right to waive a lawyer. And doing so is risky in most cases, especially when the chance of winning is unclear at best. Sure there is bad lawyers not worth their money, and some that are outright mean. That is in every profession. Like the one you were up against, and you are probably lucky it went this smooth. As with most things in life, usually a professional is better suited to give satisfactory results than a diy or layman job. They are professionals for a reason.
Why do many lawyers defend guilty people that they know are guilty with the facts clearly against them? Because the prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer is not always perfect, a mistake can dismiss the case or get an acquittal.