Self-Represented Litigants Legal Self-Help Center The free, online legal self-help center will help you find information about your legal rights and responsibilities, videos on what happens in court and some legal documents and forms which you can fill out and file. You can use the legal self-help center online or in the Law Library.
There is a crisis of access to justice in Canada. In a next article, I will give my interpretation about the causes of this phenomenon, in the broad context of judicial and legal-system bias, by describing the different types of circumstances in which extreme judicial bias is most likely to occur, and the systemic devices that are used to cover-up judicial bias.
I have already written several preliminary articles about judicial and legal-system bias. Self-represented litigants regularly picket outside courthouses and lawyers offices across the country.
Egregious and Sustained Judicial Bias In a single case of alleged defamation for words on a blog, I have been required to go before 17 different judges, at all courts up to the Supreme Court of Canada, in over 30 open court hearings and a trial, over more than three years — in the trial, motions, appeals of motions, and case conferences in the action against me.
See Footnotes 10 and 11 In light of my recent experience as a self-represented litigant, it is difficult for me to believe that the pleas of the chief justice are authentic.
I tend to think that the chief justice means only that lawyers should be affordable and available for ordinary persons, and that she wishes that the legal processes were less wasteful. However, access to lawyers alone does not provide access to justice, and neither does strong-handed case management by judges.
I feel like I have seen it all in terms of the behaviour of judges, in terms of the tremendous systemic bias against self-represented litigants, and that is described by legal researchers and commentators. In my case, the Self represented litigants for systemic bias is increased by the fact that the plaintiff is a high-status lawyer within the legal establishment, and two of the lawyers who oppose me have formerly represented Canadian prime ministers.
In addition, the private plaintiff is funded without a spending limit by a non-party using public money, a situation that has been denounced by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.
But obvious asymmetries of means are not the only problem. Systematic and Habitual Judicial Bias The evidence for habitual judicial bias, as I see it, is overwhelming and includes: Legal researchers virtually never do this work but, instead, content themselves with clever analyses limited to the tunnel-vision of the Reasons themselves.
Judges Close Ranks In fact, there appears to be no limit to what the court thinks it can get away with when dealing with a self-represented litigant.
In the middle of the proceedings, I learned that he had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party University of Ottawa intervening for the plaintiff in the case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court.
He had not disclosed any of these ties. I raised the matter through available procedures with three more judges of the Superior Court, three judges of the Court of Appeal, and six judges of the Supreme Court in two applications for leave to appealbut all of them refused to allow bias as a ground for appeal.
In my first attempts, I was not even allowed to access the Supreme Court. It is a demonstration of apparent systemic judicial bias at the highest level that the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to accept my duly prepared application — and then refused to accept my motion to denounce his refusal to accept the application.
Few self-represented litigants can defend themselves this effectively, and there are far too few resources among civil rights organizations to address the gargantuan need. None of this mattered and the trial judge refused to recuse himself. A Notice of Appeal from the outcomes of the trial was served on July 4, Such evident, overt, and pervasive bias proves that the judges are not impartial, but rather are significantly influenced by the social status and power of the litigant.
Corporate and government litigants know this well, and count on it. It is the elephant in the courtroom for self-represented litigants. This crisis will not be solved by increasing access to lawyers and reducing court backlogs.
The solution will require that litigants themselves and civil rights organizations insist on and monitor impartiality of the courts. Only this type of protest-application of the open court principle, in combination with media exposure and civil society association pressures, has any chance of catalyzing a reform in a system that has now degraded itself beyond self-repair.
This must be accompanied by formal appeals to the courts, which have been known to make judgements towards correcting undemocratic and unjust systemic trajectories of the legal system. The judge then some three months later, prior to the hearing dropped all his charges when he realized on further reflection that he had not followed the accepted procedure for criminal contempt of court: The judge never told the accused to not do what the judge wanted to jail him for if he did it!Resources for Self-Represented Litigants.
For Legal Information. For free legal information and legal aid referrals, please visit Illinois Legal Aid Online. For information about civil appeals, please see the Guide for Appeals to the Illinois Appellate Court for Self-Represented Litigants. (8) Assist Self-Represented Litigants in selecting the correct forms, and instructions on how to complete forms, based on the Self-Represented Litigant's description of what he or she wants to pursue or request from the court, including, but not.
Information for Self-Represented Litigants The Tarrant County Family Judges strongly encourage you to hire a lawyer, if possible. Please remember that the court clerks, court staff, and judges want to help you, but they cannot give you legal advice, help you fill out your forms or tell you what to do.
exploration and articulation of the population of self-represented litigants (SRLs) in the civil justice system in Australia takes place and to make recommendations to improve the . The Broome County Surrogate’s Court ensures that self-represented litigants have clear and unencumbered access to the Court.
This office provides basic information to self-represented litigants on procedural matters, court rules and statutes. Help for Self-Represented Litigants Below are several sources of information for persons who do not have a lawyer.
The information is not legal advice and does not take the place of talking to a lawyer.