No not really.

I heard about this yesterday..From one of your co workers

Attorney's have a vested interest in putting down pro se litigants.  The fact is that the legal profession is largely a billable hours game.  Maybe not you, but most of the lawyers I dealt with really only care about the money.  That is why they generally have a bad reputation.  Bankruptcy lawyers that take the lion share of assets in fees, while creditors and investors get little or nothing.  Prosecutors that withhold evidence to get convictions.  PI lawyers, well nothing more needs to be said.

If a person can research and write, they can defend themselves.  It also helps to be a good analyst.  That being said, I have read plenty of pleadings drafted by lawyers that are poorly written, in addition to being poorly reasoned.

I helped a guy in navigate his way through domestic court.  He ended up getting custody of his daughter.  I would be surprised if the guy had an IQ of 100.  He also was a high school dropout and could not write very well.

Well, Jeremy renner trainer at tactical response. What do you expect?

So, Dueling Dicks then?

Couple of things:

1. I was the one who originally stated that it is extremely dangerous for someone to represent themself in an emotionally charged and highly personal case. You immediately accused me of being attorney. Your assumption was incorrect.

2. You say attorneys have a vested interest in disparaging pro se litigants. Actually, attorneys have a love/hate relationship with pro se litigants. They love how much it increases their chance of victory, but they don't love the hassle that pro se litigants create as they frequently slow down dockets, require in court hand-holding, reject normal plea/settlement offers, and churn out ridiculous arguments that they still have to provide a response to.

3. Pro se litigant success rate is highly variable. They rarely win in Federal Court. You can research it if you don't believe me. The success rate there is extremely low. Pro se litigants have a better success rate in family law matters like divorce, child custody, etc. On the other hand, pro se litigants in civil cases do not have successful outcomes very often.

Here are some statistics to back up what I'm talking about:

Pro se litigants had a 10% success rate in immigration court cases compared to a 40% rate for litigants represented by some type of counsel (frequently law students with supervision by one of their professors).

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2005/02/01/BIAProBonoProjectEvaluation.pdf

In the realm of protective orders, 83% of people with counsel were able to obtain a personal protective order. Only 32% of pro se litigants had success.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=972304

In landlord/tenant disputes, pro se tenants essentially almost never had success winning vs their landlord.

http://legalaidresearch.org/pub/1684/impact-legal-counsel-outcomes-poor-tenants-new-york-citys-housing-court-randomized-experiment/

Again, your assumption that I am an attorney is incorrect. I don't have any personal animus against pro se litigants - - I'm just aware of the facts as it pertains to their success rate. I'm actually involved in a case that I'm handling pro se right now as it is an incredibly minor matter, and pro se litigants are common. But, I also know it decreases my chances of prevailing. However, the matter is so trivial it isn't worth the expense of an attorney.

This case, though, isn't a trivial matter, and it involves some rather complex questions that a typical pro se litigant simply cannot be adequately be prepared to handle unless they have substantial assistance by experienced counsel.

One of the main reasons that I believe acting pro se in this case is dangerous is because pro se litigants are prone to accidentally saying or doing things in their written communication or oral deposition/testimony that considerably damage their own case. They don't have an attorney to buffer their responses, claims, theories, or arguments. They may unknowingly admit or deny something that really damages their case when trying to respond to a claim made by the other side. An experienced attorney isn't emotionally invested and knows how to present favorable information without also giving help to the other side.

Finally, pro se litigants frequently struggle with how to provide or submit evidence. They may have the facts on their side, but if they don't follow the proper process to get evidence admitted in the correct way they can easily lose the ability to use that evidence. They also may make mistakes in response to discovery demands from the other side or not know they could've have objected to damaging evidence the other side introduces and have it excluded.

You don't have to believe me. Ask the 1200 state trial judges that responded to a 2010 survey on pro se litigants.

"Self-representation is resulting in worse outcomes for litigants, according to 62 percent of the judges. The greatest problem is failure to present necessary evidence, 94 percent of all respondents said. That was followed by procedural errors, ineffective witness examination and failure to properly object to evidence."

Ask yourself this: why do almost ALL attorneys that face a personal legal issue hire an attorney to represent them? They would likely tell you it is to avoid the potential pitfalls of emotion influencing their decisions, and to have someone experienced in the particular legal area that is at issue. They aren't stupid or simply want to throw money away. They know the old adage is true: A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Attorneys, not attorney's.  

Hang on.  He's preparing a brief in opposition.

I would wager good money Thomas has the benefit of counsel in the case. The counsel's not licensed in Florida, though.

Ben Thomas is a good friend of James Yeager, Jon Willis, Sonny Puzikas, and others who have worked or trained in Camden, TN at Tactical Response. The relationships between many of those folks is very intertwined. Those relationships include Spike's Tactical, Jim Fuller/Rifle Dynamics, the former Sons of Guns / Red Jacket Firearms crew, and others.

Another member of that web of friends is attorney Dana C. Mclendon III, of Franklin, TN. Many of you know him from the Hot/Crazy Matrix video he did with Yeager several years ago. He's also the attorney who posted in a thread on ARFCOM several years back which resulted in Willis finally paying back a member whose gear was never delivered. He's pretty much the attorney for many of the Tactical Response fan club, as he is friends with many of them. It wouldn't surprise me if he's at least offering some advice to his friend from the shadows.

Could be.  Or, like I've personally experienced many times, he pulled a bunch of sample motions to dismiss from the clerk's office and copy and pasted a bunch of stuff he thought was applicable.  The problem is, at some point the important stuff is going to start happening, and he's going to learn what he didn't know.

Dueling.... touching tips... whatever you it's called.

Fun in here, @Aimless

Link to that Willis thread?

I think this was it.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Equipment-Exchange/John-Willis-OSOE/109-929579/?page=1

So which side should I be on/want to win? Need to have some skin in the game to care.

Who are you talking to?

lol, typical.  Wouldn't it be easier to say he is writing a response.  But, oooo, the big lawyer words used to make people think they are smarter than us non-lawyer dummies.

Well, I am guilty of not proof reading forum posts.

Stats usually don't tell the real story.  For example, how many of those people that represented themselves did so because they could not afford an attorney.  This would create a bias, in that, the poor tend to have lower level of intellectual abilities.

Further, I will concede, the system is stacked against pro se litigants.  The courts tend to be hostile towards them.  Keep in mind that the system is a bunch of lawyers.

Finally, I find it interesting that you characterize my guess that you are an attorney as a accusation.  Are you offended by being called a lawyer?

Just like their roll mark.

Give mookie a company credit card?  

Any updates?

It’s always good, but makes us all look bad...

That says a lot about their judgement.  This guy is a shitbird.

I was wondering that too.  But sometimes when you press charges and he offers to pay everything back, charges get dropped or lessened a ton.

Interesting

Civil cases can take months of not years to shake out.

I know, I should have just said bump.

That whole group that runs together are turds.

I'll never understand wearing your cammies out on the town.