Posted by alexandra_k on October 24, 2020, at 16:02:22
In reply to Re: telegram has channels with conversations..., posted by alexandra_k on October 24, 2020, at 15:46:08
i couldn't find a lawyer. we have lists of pages and pages and pages of lawyers who apparently will work for legal aid. legal aid is a government programme that means the government will pay the lawyers fees. but there is a specific list of fees that the lawyer can claim and it is not as good as they believe they should get so many lawyers don't want to work legal aid cases. but i couldn't find a lawyer who would agree to work a civil case as an applicant. they are used to legal aid applicants being forced to court as defendents. on criminial cases, usually. or civil. but the idea of someone asking for legal aid as an applicant in a civil case... that was something they couldn't really get their head around. becuase it's optional. right? and some options are only available to those with personal riched. right?
fortunately the judges aren't stupid. but i couldn't find a lawyer.
i guess part of it is it is perhaps going beyond their skill / usual expertise. it is a differnet thing to be the originator or the applicant. you have to frame the case etc. that's the hardest bit. it's harder to be the applicant.
i found something that said i could apply for an amicus curiae. a friend to the court. sometimes in big cases the court will commission a report. maybe from the law society or from some external agency. becuase they want legal advice about something of relevance to the case. so the judge can request that. but also i could request one. i suppose. i suppose that's what that means. there was something about how one could be appointed to the court when a party is unrepresented. usually it is about when you have someone who is not competent to stand trial. and then they become unsettled during the proceedings and they fire their defence lawyer. so the judge can request an independent person to ensure the person gets a fair trial. or maybe even keep the persons former defence lawyer on as a consultant to the court even while not representing the person anymore (the person has the right to represent themself but their former lawyer has a clue as to the laws relevant for their best defence).
so i asked for one.
and that was a bit puzzling to everyone. and that was declined.
and then the judge asked a question of the other party. and i said 'objection irrelevant'. because it was a whole garden path side-track waste of time that the other party was trying to hijack the issue and turn it into something else.
and then i was like 'am i allowed to do that?' in whispers... because i interrupted the judge to say that.
and then later i looked things up...
and you are OBLIGED to object. you are OBLIGED to say 'objection. irrelevant immaterial or'... i forget the other one.
and if you don't object then you can't bring it up in an appeal later.
soooooooooooo... what that means...
is that by not appointing me an amicus curae... by my being forced to be unrepresented from poverty... they can't then say that i don't have the right to appeal becuase some law that was relevant was not raised or considered. ot becuase i didn't object to something during the trial.
there are lots of things that i should be saying 'application to strike out. irrelevant'. and then things could progress so much faster. otherwise i need to take every irrelevant thing that they raise and show them to be irrelevant. then i'm talking to idiots. because it's obvious -- right? and i get into a place where i'm explaining p=p and... what the f*ck.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1111015
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20191229/msgs/1112359.html