Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
a question for the lawyers
If one party self represents and the other hires a lawyer does the self rep get ignored or must they be included in normal lawyer to lawyer meetings?
Comments
Okay, now any instances of the pronoun "you" or "he" in the following do not mean you, Steve. The following is just my rant against a general trend seemingly followed by the population as a whole - not you personally.
Seriously, why does everyone think they're an expert in this one particular profession? I wouldn't try to perform a tonsillectomy on myself, and I wouldn't try to replace the muffler on my car, and I wouldn't try to perform a root canal on myself. I think we can all agree that these types of things kinda sorta require some specialized knowledge and/or experience and are best left to people who know what they're doing.
So why is law so different? Why does anyone who can read past the third grade level think he can be a lawyer?
Is it all the TV shows? Is it that you have an inherent contempt for all of the professionals in this field? Is it because you think you're so super-smart that you don't need the education and experience that a lawyer normally possesses?
One of my favorite self-representation stories: When I was a public defender, I had this prisoner who was charged with a felony. The first time I saw him was the day I was appointed to represent him - the day of his probable cause hearing. The first thing he said to me was that he didn't want me to help him - he would represent himself because he was just so fucking smart. So . . . I told the judge he wanted to represent himself, and the judge allowed him to once he had satisfied himself through questioning that this guy was at least competent enough not to be obviously batshit insane.
After the officer's testimony regarding probable cause, the judge told the guy that he could cross examine the officer. The guy stood up and said, "Well . . . I mean . . . hmmm . . . AW SHIT!", and then sat back down. I'll have to say - that display of advocacy was one of the most practiced, scholarly, and profound as I have ever seen before or since. He really helped himself out there, and certainly did a much better job than I could have done for him. I'll always remember and be inspired by his scholarly example.
So, the best thing to do when you have a question about self-representation is to just forget it and get yourself a lawyer. If I needed to replace the muffler on my car, I could probably read up about it and I might even have a shot at doing it myself, but in the end, why take a chance on doing it wrong? There are people who can do that stuff for you and actually do it well. Why would you try to do it yourself and possibly fuck it up beyond recognition when you could just get one of the people who do this type of thing for a living to do it for you correctly?
Oddly enough, it's like a face.
On the face of it, the law really is very simple, and since people understand things like "Killing people is murder, and Murder is against the law" or "Taking someone else's stuff is theft, and theft is illegal". But much like looking at someone's face, they see Skin, Nose, eyes, lips, what have you, and think "Well, that's a face." A Kid could tell you what the bits are, what they do, and even draw you one.
They never think about the underlying cartilage bone and muscle, the tendons, veins and capillaries, and how they all work together to produce the simple thing they see on the surface, and how they think that whole deal works - and in that regard, a lawyer is not like a kid drawing faces and going "That's a nose", a lawyer is more like a maxillofacial surgeon, knowing what the bits do and how they work and effect each other.
But, people are still gonna think they know about faces, because they know what a nose is. Law doesn't have all the complex terminology of medicine, like maxillofacial or a penetrating trauma inducing a primary pneumothorax(a sucking chest wound, to us laymen), so people make assumptions based on what they know, without realizing how much they don't.
EDIT: Don't take this as a slight against your argument, Joe. I'm with you on this one.
Similarly, I don't need a mechanic to refill the windshield wiper fluid in my car. However, if I need a brake job, I'm hiring one.
That's why. People don't trust lawyers, nor should they.
Actually, I think the best thing I have to say about this is not the angry bit, but just the convenience bit. As I said, there's plenty of information on the internet that I could read that would make me an "expert" on replacing my muffler, but I have a strange feeling that if I actually started trying to do it for myself, I'd fuck it up. That's why I take my car to goddamn Midas or the fucking Shell Answer Man, because they know how to fix that shit and I don't. That's why I pay them - because they can do things that I either cannot do or that I would find difficult or inconvenient to do well.
All that being said Steve, you might even think of it this way: I've never played BOARD GAME X. So, when I first play BOARD GAME X after quickly skimming through the rules, I might make some mistakes. Then, when I get into an argument with someone who's played BOARD GAME X for many years, I will most likely be pwned, no matter how awesome I think I might otherwise be - my BOARD GAME X skills just don't measure up to Mr. Experience. That's the same situation that some random guy trying to represent himself in a legal matter against experienced lawyers will find himself facing. The other guys know all the rules and have all the experience, so does random guy really think he'll win?
Lawyers are human, like the rest of us. Some are good, some are utter bastards. You just gotta sort out which is which. Does the Legal profession attract a larger share of bastards? Maybe, I don't know. But it doesn't change the base requirement of having to find one you can trust, and who knows their job well. Pretty much. The law is kinda like taking apart and rebuilding an engine - you're taking a lot of distinct parts, and they're meant to work together in a certain way, and you're aiming for a beneficial result - be it a better-performing engine, or not being in jail. Sure, you could take the engine apart, bit by bit, learn what all the parts do, figure out how they all go together and work together, and how to make it work how you want it to if possible. Or, you can pay the guy that already spent the years learning that shit, so that you don't fuck it up because you misunderstood something, or thought you knew something you didn't.
Today I hear that ex's lawyer is meeting with GAL to work out a deal. If I had a lawyer my lawyer would be involved so why am I not invited to these meetings?
Then they end up in the courtroom, and they find out one of America's dirty little secrets: You don't understand the law, and unless you are willing to devote some serious time and effort to learning it, you never will.
Additionally, many people are hesitant to depend on someone else for their own well being. For some people it's easier to screw up doing a job yourself then to trust someone else to do it right.
It's easy to trust someone to fix a muffler, because if he screws it up one can just have someone else put another one on. If one's lawyer screws up, the consequences can be much more serious.
Obviously it is a stupid idea. In reality the law is complex, and if you want to succeed you should hire an expert or study very hard to become an expert.
Yet, there is one sense in which the law is different. Ideally speaking the law should be accessible to all. Someone who lacks money should not be denied the same justice as everyone else. If someone wrongs me, and I sue them, why shouldn't I be able to represent myself? If the facts of the case are actually in my favor, and the system is just, I shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to win. An ideal system of justice would make the just, correct, and same decision whether I am represented by a monkey or by the best lawyer on earth.
And as is well known, many people have great trouble separating ideals and reality. If I needed to go to court for serious, I would definitely have a lawyer because while I believe I shouldn't have to in an ideal world, I know I do have to in this shit world.
Also, how reliable is your information that these people are actually meeting in the first place?
These days, there are plenty of out-of-work or underworked attorneys. Somewhere there is someone who would LOVE to help you out. Make some calls. Get someone to help. It'll be far easier for you in the long run.
As for most people thinking they know the law: nonsense. Look at the staggering volume of Western memes about fine print, silver talk, rhetorical traps, etc.
This said, if wife has a lawyer, you'd better have one. It's a necessary evil.
I know I will have custody when we go back to court in October I just fear being blindsided by some weird agreement I am not involved in creating.
A) Samples MLP
C) Takes the melody from MLP, but arranged differently
D) B and C
E) References MLP things by name, but is an original song
A) The sample would have to be cleared by Hasbro for it to be legal.
B/C) Covers can be cleared using mechanical licensing, through a service like Limelight, but since you are using it in a video game and not selling the cover as a standalone recording, the licensing process may be slightly different.
E) Use of trademarks is a possible issue, but I don't know as much about non-musical intellectual property rights stuff. My feeling is that most likely no one will care, and if they do, you can probably plead parody.
My advice, just don't bother. Ask one of the Ponybeat composers to make you similar, original music that doesn't have anything directly to do with ponies for your game instead.
A, B, and C are pretty clearly copyright violations, but Hasbro will likely ignore you unless the video game is trying to make money, in which case you'll almost certainly have to license from Hasbro, since I think they likely own the copyright to everything from the show.
Also, you should definitely get permission from the person who made the music i.e. Eurobeat Brony AND put them in the credits, because not doing that is a real dick move.
Alright, so F) In the case of the linked song, the references to the MLP character are obvious, but the word "discord" is a real word. The song doesn't actually mention MLP things by name. Could you get away with that without asking Hasbro?
Also, thanks for answering.