shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

Archive for the 'News Items' Category

plain english: will cops follow courts?

david giacalone - November 14, 2006 @ 12:21 pm · News Items

At Language Log, yesterday, Robert Shuy reported “plain english creeps into police radio transmission” (Nov. 13, 2006) Prof. Shuy’s piece gives a summary and adds historical and linguistic background to a Washington Post article, “Va. State Police Swap ’10-4′ for ‘Message Understood’,” Nov. 13, 2006.

The Post explains that police departments evolved different sets of “10 codes” over the past decades, making interdepartmental communication — more important than ever in a post 9/11 world — difficult. For example, “10-13” stands for “officer down” in Arlington, Virginia, but means “request wrecker” in nearby Montgomergy County, Maryland. Eager to avoid such mix-ups, “Virginia’s government has become one of the first in the nation to try to eliminate traditional cop talk. For months, officials in Richmond have worked with police and firefighters to come up with a substitute for 10 codes, finally deciding on a statewide “common language protocol” — which we might translate as “plain English.”

It’s no secret that shlep advocates the spread of Plain English into the nooks and crannies of our society where jargon and in-group, specialized speech hamper communication with other groups (or even intra-group). (see, e.g., Mary on Plain Language forms, and myself on pro se nomenclature). Pro se practitioners and advocates who agree may find the LL posting and WP article helpful in demonstrating the need for plain, standardized language and understanding the resistance among jargonistas when asked to change in response to linguistic “corpus planning“.

In addition to basic human inertia, it is interesting to see that many police officers very much enjoy the mystique that comes with a their specialized jargon. Of course, demystifying the law has always been a prime purpose in the Plain-English/Plain-Language movement. Prof. Shuy notes that resisters also “reason that if doctors and lawyers can have their language codes, why can’t police?” Of course, “But he’s doing it, too, officer” never seems to work for me. More important, we need to remind those who resist Plain English that some of the worst language offenders on the planet — yes, lawyers and judges and courts — have been doing a pretty good job of cleaning up their act.

Australian pro se defendant told to resubmit her defense

david giacalone - November 9, 2006 @ 5:06 pm · News Items

Last month, sixty-six year old Jeanette Beninca was “dumbfounded” to find she was being sued for $300,000 by Glenn Bruun, a policeman whose little finger was injured in a “paranoid episode” that left her mentally-ill son shot dead. She reponded that “I would rather go to jail than pay, because it is so unreasonable.” (see The Australian, “Mother defiant on son’s killing,” Oct. 15, 2006). However, according to the Sunshine Coast Daily, Mother who lost son in siege sued for $300,000, Oct. 14, 2006), “Mrs Beninca is asset-rich but cash-poor and ineligible for legal aid. She said she could not afford to pay a lawyer on her income and planned to represent herself at the hearing on November 9.”

Yesterday was Mrs. Beninca’s hearing at the District Court of Queensland, in Brisbane, Australia, before Her Honour Judge Helen O’Sullivan. Beninca did indeed appear without counsel. We do not know the nature of the “defence” presented, but ABCNewsOnline reported this morning, in “Mother urged to resubmit defence against policeman’s damages claim” (Nov. 9, 2006) that:

“Judge Helen O’Sullivan today formally struck out Mrs Beninca’s defence on the basis that it was not reasonable at law. Mrs Beninca, who is self represented, has been given a further three weeks to seek legal advice and resubmit her defence.”

Was Judge O’Sullivan’s intervention, which gives the pro se defendant a second chance to submit her theory of defense, proper? Your shlep Editor decided to see if Australian courts have practice guidelines that would help us understand Judge O’Sullivan’s action. We found a well-written, 17-page Guide for Unrepresented Litigants (Higher Courts) (Feb. 2006), which cautions that “Unless you are very experienced and have a good understanding of legal practice, the law of evidence, court procedures and the law about the particular dispute, you could be disadvantaged, particularly if the other side is represented by a lawyer.” It also briefly explains the role of the judge. with statements such as: “The Judge can explain the process of how the trial will be conducted, but cannot favour or be thought to have favoured you simply because you are not a lawyer” and “Natural justice or fairness requires that any assistance given to you by the Judge is limited to matters of procedure.”

More directly relevant to the judge’s role, is an online document for the Supreme Court of Queensland called the Equal Treatment Benchbook, which offers guidance to judges for maintaining fairness in many types of situations. Sec. 12 is concerned with Self-Represented Parties. The Introduction states that “Many issues arise for the Court when a party appears without legal representation which affect the capacity of the court to administer justice both fairly and efficiently.” It goes on to assert that the right to present a case yourself “must be balanced against the rights of other parties who are involved in the litigation, including the right … not to be involved in pointless litigation and to have the litigation conducted properly and with reasonable promptitude; and it must be balanced against the right of the public generally not to have the court’s time wasted.” It continues (emphasis added):

“What steps will be appropriate, in a particular case, to prevent injustice being done to parties who find themselves involved in litigation conducted in this way, must, of course, be determined in the light of the facts of that case: but it should be clear that it is proper that steps be taken to that end.”

The Benchmark discussion describes the various types of self-represented litigants and notes that “their ability to represent themselves varies greatly.” Despite the disclaimer that “the following information does not intend to criticise or detract from the right of a person to appear self represented,” the Benchmark goes on to say that “These people lack the skills and abilities usually associated with legal professionals. Their limited knowledge of the relevant law almost inevitably leads to ignorance of the issues that are needed for resolution of the matter in court.” Therefore:

“Whatever their reasons for self representation, litigants in person may be stressed, usually as there is a lot at stake. It is to be expected that they may experience “feelings of fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and disadvantage, especially if appearing against a represented party.” Judges should aim to maintain a balance between assisting the self represented litigant and protecting their represented opponent from problems arising from the self represented party’s lack of legal knowledge.”

One general statement of the judge’s role, from the leading Full Federal Court case of Abram v Bank of New Zealand [1996, ATPR 41-507], says that “what a judge must do to assist a litigant in person depends on the litigant, the nature of the case, and the litigant’s intelligence and understanding of the case”. The following excerpts offer more specific guidance that seems relevant to the Bruun v. Beninca case:

12.3 Judge’s Role before a court appearance. . . . Judges should ensure that a self represented party leaves a directions hearing appreciating exactly what is required of him or her. A judge should always be ready to explain fully the precise meaning of any particular direction or court order.
12.4 Judge’s Role During the Hearing . . At the beginning of the proceeding, the judge should also identify and if possible get the self represented party to agree upon the true issues in the case. Careful explanation is required so that the litigant agrees to proceed on the basis identified, and most importantly to appreciate why that decision has been taken. This may help to shorten the proceedings. . . . . . . If the substance of the submissions of the self represented litigant is clarified by the judge, it may help to eliminate any problems which arise because of garrulous or misconceived advocacy which causes substantive issues to be ignored, given little attention or obfuscated.
Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may: draw attention to the law applied by the Court in determining issues before it; . . . identify applications or submissions which ought to be put to the Court; suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party; . . .
[The court may] Offer the unrepresented litigant the option of [an adjournment] if necessary. This could mean reconvening later the same day or returning to court another day. [and] Allow or help obtain assistance for the unrepresented litigant.

How do those guidelines jibe with Judge O’Sullivan’s actions and with the practice in your jurisdiction? In the recently-promulgated Massachusetts Judicial Guidelines regarding self-represented litigants (see our prior post), the Commentary on Guideline 1.4 Application of Law cautions “Although self-represented litigants may not be treated more severely than other litigants, they are not entitled, because of their status, to be excused from relevant rules of procedural and substantive law,” citing several illustrative cases. On the other hand, the Commentary to Guideline 2.1 Prehearing Interaction notes that “In the judge’s discretion, the elements of claims and defenses, as well as the burden of proof may be explained in the same manner that they would be explained to a jury.” (and see our discussion of Prof. Jona Goldschmidt’s paper “Judicial Assistance to Self-Represented Parties: Lessons from the Canadian Experience“)

Mrs. Beninca appears to be a sympathetic defendant. Let’s hope that she gets some good legal advice and uses the next three weeks well. At this juncture, I am not willing to say that Judge O’Sullivan misused her discretion in an attempt to make sure that Mrs. Beninca is given a fair chance to present a competent defense.

Update (March 21, 2007): see our post on the California’s 265-page “Handling Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants: A Benchguide for Judicial Officers.” (CA Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, January 2007) (SelfHelpSupport.org members have access online to the document). At the foot of that posting, you’ll find a list of similar resources discussed up to that date at shlep.

will Winkelman harm children?

david giacalone - November 7, 2006 @ 5:33 pm · News Items

An article in the newest issue of Education Week discusses the case of Winkelman v. Parma City School Distirct, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Education Week, “IDEA Issues Getting Ear of High Court,” by Andrew Trottter, Nov. 8, 2006). As we explained in a prior post, the case will decide whether a parent who is a nonlawyer can represent his or her child in IDEA special education disputes with school districts. The EdWeek article features lawyers offering their opinions on whether allowing such suits by parents would be harmful to children.

The article reports that “Experts who generally favor families in IDEA disputes, as well as those who favor school districts, disagreed about whether allowing nonlawyer parents to conduct IDEA appeals would be harmful to the child or might be the best available alternative.” Thus:

Christopher P. Borreca, a lawyer with Bracewell Giuliani in Houston, who represents school districts in IDEA cases, notes that “the rights provided by the law belong to the child, and you are, in a sense, doing a child an injustice by not hiring an attorney.”
Kathleen Boundy, a co-director of the Center for Law and Education, says parent representation is a second-best solution to ensuring that low-income families have better access to legal representation. She wants more legal services for the families and asks “How many parents can really represent themselves pro se?”
Michael J. Eig, a Chevy Chase, Md., lawyer who has represented families in many IDEA cases, supports the parents in the Winkelman case, but apparently sees an “irony” if the parents win, in that “one has to believe that in the long run, the school districts are going to win more IDEA cases against unskilled parents representing themselves.” [Eig’s Law for Children firm website offers a brief history of special education laws and links to cases and other resources.]

Is no appeal on behalf of the child, due to lack of funds for a lawyer, better for the child than allowing the parents to represent the child in court? Are the lawyers quoted above being too pessimistic about the ability of parents to present their case and get a fair hearing without counsel? If you have an opinion, please leave a Comment.

is self-help an issue in judicial elections?

david giacalone - November 4, 2006 @ 7:08 pm · News Items

While most eyes are on legislative races this weekend, candidates are also seeking to win or retain judicial seats in many states, across the nation. Although we should have started sooner, it’s not too late to ask whether dealing with the oft-sited “pro se crisis” is being addressed in judicial elections. In a posting on October 10th, we were pleased to see that candidates in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had been asked how to make their courts more “user-friendly,” and that at least one candidate stressed the need to improve self-help assistance and to raise small claims dollar limits.

A quick bit of Googling this afternoon suggests, however, that expanding or establishing Self-Help Centers and similar services is not an issue on the radar screen of most judicial candidates. Some questionnaires given to the incumbents and challengers (like this one from the King County, WA, Bar Association) are amazingly issue-free, offering candidates little more than space to create rambling resumes. Others (see this one out of Illinois) are thinly disguised propaganda pieces on social or political topics.

Having limited resources (can you say “one tired guy”?), I decided to focus on one state, choosing Minnesota, which offers a nice mix of urban and rural settings, and has an active but not comprehensive self-help program already in existence (such as the two Hennepin County [Minneapolis] self-help centers, and a statewide website). My source is the Minnesota Lawyer Judicial Elections 2006 website. Although there are dozens of judgeships up for election this year, only seven districts have contested trial court races. No issue-oriented informaiton is provided for the uncontested judgeships. The questionnaire used by Minnesota Lawyer has one set of questions that gives the candidate the opportunity to raise the self-help or access-to-justice issue: “What are the major issues facing the court on which you wish to serve?” and “How can these realistically be addressed?”

Of the fourteen rural and urban candidates, a dozen completely failed to raise the self-help/pro se issue, although many complained of caseloads that were too high and resources that are too scarce. [One judge, having served on the bench for over 27 years, responded “I don’t believe there are any” major issues facing his court.] Two candidates (Benanav and Savre) did mention using ADR/mediation to expedite cases. But only sitting Hennepin County Judge John Q. McShane and his opponent Kevin J. Kolosky directly addressed the topics. Judge McShane stated:

What are the major issues facing the court on which you serve?
Access to justice is one of the major issues. We must ensure that the justice system is and is perceived to be fair, responsive, timely, open and effective to the people it serves. People must believe that they have had their day in court; that a judge heard their story. Public confidence in the judiciary is also an important issue. All Minnesotans must believe that they are being treated fairly in our courts.

How can these realistically be addressed?
Each judge must take the necessary time to hear and fairly consider the matter that is before him or her. Specialized courts, such as drug court, community court or domestic violence courts are particularly effective in ensuring an effective resolution of the matter being heard. Statewide race data collection and review in criminal, juvenile and traffic proceedings help ensure that all Minnesotans are being treated fairly in our courts.

He also noted that “I am most proud of the cases in which the participants have thanked me for being respectful and listening and letting them tell their story.” His opponent, attorney Kolosky responded:

What are the major issues facing the court on which you wish to serve?
The Hennepin County District Court serves a very large and very diverse population base. The challenge is, and always will be, to provide fair and efficient service to the ever-increasing number of people and entities that come before the court to have their disputes settled.

How can these realistically be addressed?
Fair means to provide adequate services for those who do not understand the court system and those who cannot afford legal representation. Continued expansion of self-help centers with adequate interpreters and support staff would be a goal. I still believe that Hennepin County should institute a night court for those who have extreme difficulty in making it to court during the daytime hours. . . . .

Bravo to McShane and Kolosky. But, the situation is indeed dispiriting. It’s hard to justify the failure of the other incumbents and challengers to address the access/pro-se issue, which is palpable in every courthouse. It’s difficult to believe they simply don’t care. Are they afraid to offend the bar or holding onto resentment over pro se parties? Do they believe the public in general is apathetic? What do you think? How can we make sure that future campaigns and questionnaires help to focus the spotlight on self-help law in judicial elections? [update (Nov. 6, 2006): thanks to Edward Still at Votelaw for including this post in Blawg Review #82, which links to a lot of recent weblog commentary on the 2006 elections, and other “blawg” highlights from last week.]

Arnold is hard to interpret

david giacalone - November 3, 2006 @ 8:16 pm · News Items

California is often in the forefront of the fight to open the justice system to everyone. Therefore, it wasn’t at all surprising to see that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently wrote to the State Assembly, asserting “it is essential to provide non-English speaking litigants with interpreters in order to provide meaningful access to our justice system.” However, the rest of his message was indeed surprising: he vetoed Assembly Bill 2302, which would have required the courts to provide an interpreter in civil cases for the seven million Californians who cannot “proficiently speak or understand the English language.” [Litigants would have been expected to pay for the services, in accordance with their financial ability.]

The Bill’s Legislative Digest correctly described the plight of those appearing in court without adequate English language skills — especially those appearing pro se: “For Californians not proficient in English, the prospect of navigating the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing number of parties who do not have access to legal services and therefore have no choice but to represent themselves in court, which is a virtually impossible task for people who are unable to understand the proceedings.” Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to justify the veto by saying that California is attempting to eliminate its $5 billion dollar structural deficit and the extension of the interpreter requirement had a $10 million-dollar price tag. Nonetheless, if your English reading skills are better than your aural and oral abilities, the California court website does suggest how to ask for an interpreter (getting one is not guaranteed) and provides an e-brochure on how to best use a translator in court.

On a much more positive note, we are pleased to say that the D.C. City Council has earmarked $3.2 million for civil legal service providers working with poor and underserved District residents. In particular, we note that a portion of the funds are to be used to create “a shared legal interpreter bank for all service providers to draw on when assisting non-English-proficient clients.” (D.C. Bar News)

p. s. The above stories were both covered in the Legal News Roundup section of the newest HALT eJournal, Oct. 27, 2006; you can sign up at HALT’s HomePage for the bi-montly eJournal.)

California expands unbundling to all civil cases

david giacalone - November 1, 2006 @ 6:09 pm · News Items, Resources-Consumer, Resources-Practitioner

At its October 20, 2006 business meeting, the California Judicial Council (policy-making body for the California court system) accepted Item A11, the proposal before it to extend limited scope representation to all civil cases, adopting the necessary court rules and model forms. The Report on Limited Scope Representation in Civil Cases of the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee (Oct. 6, 2006, 39 pp. pdf), includes the proposals, with explanations, and samples of the now-adopted forms. The Judicial Council adopted Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.35, 3.36, and 3.37, and form MC-950 [Notice Of Limited Scope Representation]; and it approved forms MC-955 [Application To Be Relieved As Attorney On Completion Of Limited Scope Representation], and two related forms. The new rules and forms are effective Jan. 1, 2007. (hat tip to M. Sue Talia, California unbundling pioneer)

The Advisory Committee’s Statement to the Council notes that the adoption of the new rules and forms “will make it easier for attorneys to provide limited scope representation to parties in civil cases. Previously adopted rules and forms had made such representation easier in family law proceedings. The new rules and forms will expand the provisions regarding limited scope representation to all types of civil cases.” Pages 2 to 3 of the Report give a good summary of benefits to parties and the court system from the increased use of limited scope representation. One new rule allows attorneys to assist with document preparation (ghostwriting) without disclosing their identity. We heartily agree with the Advisory Committee that these milestone changes are “advantageous to members of the public and the State bar.”

identity theft, security freezes, fraud alerts, and more

david giacalone - November 1, 2006 @ 11:07 am · News Items, Resources-Consumer, Resources-Practitioner

An identity thief “co-opts some piece of your personal information and appropriates it without your knowledge to commit fraud or theft. An all-too-common example is when an identity thief uses your personal information to open a credit card account in your name.” (USAFedCU brochure) There are many resources available online to help you deter, detect and defend against Identity Fraud, and much legislative and regulatory activity aimed at those goals, and consumer advocacy for additional protection.

For example, as of today (Nov. 1, 2006), New York State residents have the power to place a “security freeeze” on their credit files which can help in “thwarting someone from opening credit cards or lines of credit in another persons name.” (CPB press release; Westchester Journal article) Twenty other states have so-called Security Freeeze or Fraud Alert laws of various sorts, and Consumers Union lists the states, with brief descriptions of their laws and links.

Consumers Union is also engaged right now in an election season campaign to send messages to federal candidates asking for more financial privacy protection, including giving consumers in every state the right to place security freezes on their credit files. You can find more CU information on Identity Theft protection here, and its Financial Privacy Now weblog here.

Here are two other comprehensive sources of information to help you prevent or battle identity theft:

Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Website. The FTC has compiled easy to understand guides for those who think they are already victims of identity theft and for those who want to do all they can to prevent ID theft. E.g., hey have guidance on dealing with local police in filing complaints, as well as an ID Theft Affidavit (with instructions) to use to inform credit bureaus of your fraudulent credit activity taking p lace in your name.

Consumer Action.org, on Oct. 26, 2006, added several ID Theft documents to its Library. One is ID Theft & Account Fraud Prevention and Clean Up, which “can help you take steps to prevent ID theft, or if you are a victim, to clear up the problems created by ID theft and to lessen its impact on your life.” (Spanish version) Another is a 24-page Leader’s Guide Strategies for Prevention and Clean Up, which is “written in question-and-answer format to help you anticipate frequently asked questions about ID theft and account fraud” and prepare for in-service or train-the-trainer presentations.

Mass. project allows limited court appearances

david giacalone - October 29, 2006 @ 7:31 pm · News Items, Resources-Consumer, Resources-Practitioner

update: see our Jan. 1, 2007 posting on Universal Unbundling in California for more information on the benefits of unbundling and the extension of limited representation to all civil cases in California and New Hampshire.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has okayed a pilot project that would make it easier for lawyers and pro se litigants to enter into limited scope (“unbundled”) representation agreements in Probate and Family Court proceedings. [via Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites] As the MA Trial Court Library’s pro se webpage explains:

Beginning November 1, 2006 and continuing for 18 months, attorneys will be permitted to provide limited assistance to pro se litigants in the Hampden [Springfield] and Suffolk [Boston] Probate and Family Courts only. “The Project will permit attorneys to assist a pro se litigant on a limited basis without undertaking a full representation of the client on all issues related to the legal matter for which the attorney is engaged.” Attorneys may limit the scope of their representation, including appearance and drafting documents.

Unbundling advocates (such as Forrest Mosten) have long argued that such limited-scope representation (or “discrete task lawyering”) is (1) a win-win situation for lawyer and consumer, and (2) already permitted under current ethics rules (e.g. ABA Model Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation; and Comment to Rule 1.1 Competence) . The rub has been whether courts would prevent a lawyer’s withdrawal from a case once making an appearance on behalf of a party. The Massachusetts order sets forth a procedure for permitting that withdrawal when the lawyer has been retained on a limited basis. Similar rules already exist in several states, including:

– – California: California Rules of Court, Rule 5.70 and Rule 5.71 [update (Nov. 1, 2006): see Calif. Expands Unbundling to All Civil Cases]

– – Florida: Unbundling Rules (discussed in this ABA Journal article)

– – Maine: Bar Rule 3.4(i); Civil Procedure Rules 5, 11 (b) and 89 (a).

– – Nevada: Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Rule 5.2.

– – As shlep has reported, court self-help centers in Idaho and Nevada compile lists of attorneys willing to take family law matters on a limited-scope basis. If you know of similar lists, let us know.

— Click for the NCSC List of State Laws regarding Unbundling. For more, see UnbundledLaw.org and the f/k/a posting Six States Address Unbundling in Their Own Ways. For a smile, see Prof. Alan Childress‘ take on Carolyn Elefant’s food preparation metaphor [hat tip: OotJ‘s Jim Milles]

– update (Nov. 27, 2006): At Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch (Georgetown Law’s Ethics Counsel) reports on the state of unbundling in Arizona, saying “Arizona must be included on the survey of states that allows some limited-scope representation and ghost writing of briefs.” Mike also links to a very useful webpage on Unbundling in Alaska. Presented by the Alaska Bar, it defines unbundled services and its benefits, and has a very nice listing of the kinds of “discrete tasks” that a lawyer might do for a “limited representation” client — including over a dozen tasks.

afterthought (Dec. 5, 2006): Things aren’t going so well in New York State. See our posting “All Bundled Up in New York.

self-help stats from Las Vegas

david giacalone - October 28, 2006 @ 10:16 am · News Items

Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rose included information about the Clark County (Las Vegas) Self-Help Center in remarks to the local bar association on October 18, 2006. Here’s how an article from In Business Las Vegas (Oct. 27, 2006), described the Chief Justice’s remarks:

“The courts have also vastly expanded their services for people representing themselves in court matters. The Las Vegas self-help center, he said, has an average of 10,400 visitors each month, including 6,200 walk-ins. And about 281,000 legal forms are downloaded from the self-help center’s Web site each month as well, he said. Clark County Legal Services is swamped, he said, serving about 1,000 clients a month. And Justice Nancy Becker is creating a pro-se (self-representation) training manual for court staff so they can better help people.

“‘Needless to say the pro se situation creates additional demands on the court system and we’re trying to meet it because it’s not going to go away,” Rose said. “If people have contact with the court, a lot of them are going to be pro se and how we deal with them and how we can help them means a lot’.”

Click for the Clark County Family Court Self-Help Center website. It’s great to see particpation by both the Clark County Bar Association and students from UNLV Boyd School of Law. Boyd law students, as part of a 60-hour community service requirement, provide self-help classes for the Center on topics such as family law, bankruptcy, guardianship, small claims issues, custody/paternity. The Self-Help Center teaches a class on preparing for a hearing. The Center also has a list of attorneys willing to take family court cases on an unbundled basis [I wish the list were identified as such on the Center’s list of services, and not simply as attorneys willing to take family law cases.] As it should be, “There is no income or asset qualification for access to the services of the Family Law Self-Help Center.” The Nevada Supreme Court Council for Pro Se Assistance has compiled a list of pro se resources across the state.

it’s back: Maxam again claims “Fair Use is not applicable”

david giacalone - October 26, 2006 @ 10:25 am · News Items

After posting her news articles for one day without claiming that “Fair Use is not applicable” (see our post yesterday), June Maxam of the North Country Gazette has re-inserted that erroneous assertion in NCG‘s copyright warning in pieces put online on October 25, 2006. For example, look at the bottom of this editorial, and this, this, and that news article. Maybe such obliviousness-stubborness is why she is on Libertarian Rick Stanley’s Patriot A List, which honors “Patriots who do more than talk about standing up to those in government that are operating outside the law or under color of law.” Note: Ms. Maxam

— changed: This article is copyright protected and Fair Use is not applicable.
— to: This article is copyright protected. Fair Use is not applicable.

Even if psychologists can’t offer long-distance analysis, we’d like to know from legal textual experts and our linguist friends at Language Log whether turning the two clauses into two sentences makes an important difference (we’d guess “no”). Meanwhile, I wonder if this latest move was taken with or without legal advice. [See Comment #1 on my methods for obtaining the permalinks for NCG articles.]

woops: More Threats from NCG’s June Maxam

david giacalone - October 25, 2006 @ 1:38 pm · News Items

Looks like my relief might have been premature. Below is an email from June Maxam, the Editor of North Country Gazette, along with mine to her this morning.

—– Original Message —–

From: June Maxam

To: shlep

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:09 PM

Due to the threats, intimidation and profanity which you caused, directed and encouraged, you were reported to law enforcement. My attorney is currently monitoring the defamation which has resulted by your acts and we will be proceeding. The harassment caused us to disable the email accounts for the news site. Do not send any further mail as your IP and email address has been blocked.

—– Original Message —–

From: David Giacalone at SHLEP

To: jmaxam

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:48 PM

Subject: thanks

Dear Ms. Maxam,



Thank you for making that small but important change concerning

Fair Use. I’m sorry this all got so aggravating.

best wishes,

David Giacalone

[note: email addresses removed March 24, 2007]

NCG has improved its copyright warning

david giacalone - October 25, 2006 @ 12:27 pm · News Items

It looks like our “pro bono” efforts (shlep‘s and those of webloggers around the world) to correct the erroneous copyright notice at North Country Gazette, has apparently been successful. As our Commentor Sansavarous noticed this morning, items dated October 24, 2006 at NCG no longer have the erroneous statement “Fair use is not applicable.” Unfortunately, the SideBar continues to have the obnoxious warning “In accordance with Fair Use of Copyright: WE FORBID ANY REPRODUCTION in part or in whole of The North Country Gazette.”

In addition to a Commentary piece, which remarkably only has “© 2006 North Country Gazette” after the article, along with a general notice in the footer, you can find examples of the cleaned-up copyright notice here:

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/102406MBCFraud.html
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/102406CopDies.html
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/102406DebateOust.html

The new version still claims to prohibit all copying “without the express written permission of the publisher,” but that’s a fight for another day (and another weblogger). [Special thanks to Eugene Volokh and Cory Doctorow, who really got this campaign moving after our first post. Volokh continues the topic in another posting today, Oct. 25, 2006)]

BUT SEE: Woops: More Threats from NCG’s June Maxam

a little international judicial irony

david giacalone - October 24, 2006 @ 3:30 pm · News Items

Given our post on Saturday praising the assistance Canadian judges are allowed to give self-represented litigants, it is ironic that Monday’s Law Times of Canada had an op/ed piece in which an Ontario justice opines: “Self-represented litigants, and lawyers of lesser quality than Ms. Curtis [a lawyer critical of Family Court judges], often provide the court with inadequate and incomplete evidence. Poor submissions and advocacy can leave a judge with far too little grist for the decision-making mill.” (Law Times, by Justice Robert Spence, ” ‘Harmful’ decisions often from poorly presented cases,” Oct. 23, 2006). Justice Spence also added: “The court is not an investigative body. Accordingly, judges are forced to contend only with the evidence they receive and make the best decision possible, based on that evidence.”

Meanwhile, SelfHelpSupport.org pointed yesterday to a piece in the Wisconsin Law Journal Judges Directory that spotlights Madison (WI) municipal court judge Daniel P. Koval, and his efforts to better serve the self-represented. The article notes that “Koval has spent a good deal of time off the bench, updating and/or creating forms, brochures and other documents that explain municipal court procedures: how to get a police report, for example, or an explanation of plea options.” It ends with a telling quote and a plea:

“[Pro se litigants] make more work for Koval; yet he is sincerely determined that each and every one of them leaves his courtroom feeling satisfied that justice was served: ‘I want them to come away from the experience feeling that, while they might not agree with my ruling, at least they were given a fair shot to present their side of the story.’

“Attorneys, please assist him in that endeavor.”

Mass. lawyers terrified over landlord agents in Housing Court

david giacalone - October 20, 2006 @ 12:38 pm · News Items

Really. See this article from Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly (Oct. 23, 2006). As attorney David Florio told the Mass. High Court recently: “[T]he trial courts and the appellate courts could find themselves presiding over cases prosecuted by non-lawyer agents who are paralegals, maintenance men, office managers, real estate agents, collection agents, and even disbarred attorneys. No individual would be required, as a prerequisite to practice law, to be licensed, but only to be an agent, thereby undermining the practice of a law.”