On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:18 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>Tony23 wrote:
>>>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>>>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...
>>
>>Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
>>state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
>>that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
>>where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
>>course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"),
>
>It's that "due" that turns it from "with all respect" to
>"with no respect because you are due none".

Well, there's that. In fact, most <successful> trial lawyers really
try to avoid that phrase, as it's saying exactly that.
>
>>please direct me
>>to the portion of the Code of Civil Procedure that prohibits me from
>>representing myself."
>
>And he says, "it's not my job to advise you and if you
>had a lawyer you'd know that already," with the subtext
>"(and because you don't have a lawyer you have no way of
>challenging me successfully on this)".

"So, your Honor, you're indicating that there *is* something in the
Code of Civil Procedure that either bars or allows my
self-representation? If so, it *is* your job to cite to case or
statutory law in disallowing my pro se request. You cannot just say,
'Catch me if you can.'"

And then let the appellate court reverse his *ss.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:40:24 GMT, blake murphy >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>the only reason i can think of that *pro se* would be forbidden is a
>'competency' question, i don't know if there's a line between
>'incapable of aiding in his defense' and 'incapable of representing
>himself.' it's a bad idea, in any case. 'fool for a client' and all
>that. you will notice that most attorneys do not represent
>themselves.
>
>on the other hand, at least if you represent yourself, your attorney
>is not likely to fall asleep during the trial, as sometimes happens in
>texas.

Interesting link regarding pro se representation:

http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-...ff-pro-se.html

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:55:03 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:40:24 GMT, blake murphy >
>rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
>>the only reason i can think of that *pro se* would be forbidden is a
>>'competency' question, i don't know if there's a line between
>>'incapable of aiding in his defense' and 'incapable of representing
>>himself.' it's a bad idea, in any case. 'fool for a client' and all
>>that. you will notice that most attorneys do not represent
>>themselves.
>>
>>on the other hand, at least if you represent yourself, your attorney
>>is not likely to fall asleep during the trial, as sometimes happens in
>>texas.
>
>Interesting link regarding pro se representation:
>
>http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-...ff-pro-se.html
>
>Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

that is interesting. i could see where a *pro se* defendant might be
less willing to plead out.

your pal,
blake

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:40:24 GMT, blake murphy >
>rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
>>the only reason i can think of that *pro se* would be forbidden is a
>>'competency' question, i don't know if there's a line between
>>'incapable of aiding in his defense' and 'incapable of representing
>>himself.' it's a bad idea, in any case. 'fool for a client' and all
>>that. you will notice that most attorneys do not represent
>>themselves.
>>
>>on the other hand, at least if you represent yourself, your attorney
>>is not likely to fall asleep during the trial, as sometimes happens in
>>texas.
>
>Interesting link regarding pro se representation:
>
>http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-...ff-pro-se.html

Interesting stats. The differences are huge. But maybe
it's because people who know they're guilty know they need
a lawyer...

We'd know the truth if we could determine guilt for sure,
after the fact.

BTW, have you heard that the Goldman family bought the full rights
to OJ's "If I Did It" book -- essentially paying themselves since
they get any money he earns -- and are republishing it with a title
like "Confession of a murderer"?

--Blair

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:43:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
among random neurons and opined:

<snip>

>BTW, have you heard that the Goldman family bought the full rights
>to OJ's "If I Did It" book -- essentially paying themselves since
>they get any money he earns -- and are republishing it with a title
>like "Confession of a murderer"?

I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't googled it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19581585/

The Goldman family bought it out of a bankruptcy from the trustee. The
DH, who is a bankruptcy lawyer, knows of the judge in this case and
says "he's great." And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
a fraud."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:43:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
> among random neurons and opined:
>
> <snip>
>
>> BTW, have you heard that the Goldman family bought the full rights
>> to OJ's "If I Did It" book -- essentially paying themselves since
>> they get any money he earns -- and are republishing it with a title
>> like "Confession of a murderer"?
>
> I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't googled it:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19581585/
>
> The Goldman family bought it out of a bankruptcy from the trustee. The
> DH, who is a bankruptcy lawyer, knows of the judge in this case and
> says "he's great." And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
> Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
> book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
> is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
> a fraud."
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>

My wife tells me that Kim Goldman has stated (on the John Ziegler show,
KFI) that this is not an accurate report, and that the matter is not
firmly decided in any way.

Sorry, I can't find anything else about it..

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:13:12 -0700, Tony23 >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:43:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
>> among random neurons and opined:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> BTW, have you heard that the Goldman family bought the full rights
>>> to OJ's "If I Did It" book -- essentially paying themselves since
>>> they get any money he earns -- and are republishing it with a title
>>> like "Confession of a murderer"?
>>
>> I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't googled it:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19581585/
>>
>> The Goldman family bought it out of a bankruptcy from the trustee. The
>> DH, who is a bankruptcy lawyer, knows of the judge in this case and
>> says "he's great." And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
>> Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
>> book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
>> is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
>> a fraud."
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>
>
>My wife tells me that Kim Goldman has stated (on the John Ziegler show,
>KFI) that this is not an accurate report, and that the matter is not
>firmly decided in any way.
>
>Sorry, I can't find anything else about it..

What part isn't accurate? As I looked the case up on Pacer (the
federal research website) and it looks pretty accurate to me as to the
bankruptcy action.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
>Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
>book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
>is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
>a fraud."

If a judge had said that, we would already be watching
OJ being taken to jail.

--Blair

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:39:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
>>Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
>>book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
>>is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
>>a fraud."
>
>If a judge had said that, we would already be watching
>OJ being taken to jail.
>
The judge said it. It's up to the trustee or a prosecutor to pursue
the fraud. Not the judge. A judge only rules/opines.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:39:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
>among random neurons and opined:
>
>>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>>And the new book title would be, _Confessions of a
>>>Double Murderer." And evidently the $630,000 advance OJ got for the
>>>book went to a compnay owned by his daughter, Arnelle (at least this
>>>is my inference) and the judge found that it was set up to "perpetrate
>>>a fraud."
>>
>>If a judge had said that, we would already be watching
>>OJ being taken to jail.
>
>The judge said it. It's up to the trustee or a prosecutor to pursue
>the fraud. Not the judge. A judge only rules/opines.

A judge also orders. Bench warrant. Perps in the
courtroom ordered arrested pending charges, etc., etc.

It would take seconds for it to be the biggest story
in papparazswana.

Personally, I'm hoping one of his golfing buddies caps
him with a sand wedge when he tries to cheat.

--Blair

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:23:34 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
among random neurons and opined:

>A judge also orders. Bench warrant. Perps in the
>courtroom ordered arrested pending charges, etc., etc.

In this case (a bankruptcy judge), the judge would refer the matter to
the US Trustee who would investigate, decide if it rose to the level
of fraud, then refer it to the US Attorney's office, who would
investigate, decide if the case was meritorious, then kick it over to
the FBI for investigation, the FBI would investigate, decide if a
fraud had been perpetrated, then return it to the US Attorney's
office, who would file suit in US District Court.

<sigh> Your tax dollars at work.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:23:34 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > rummaged
>among random neurons and opined:
>
>>A judge also orders. Bench warrant. Perps in the
>>courtroom ordered arrested pending charges, etc., etc.
>
>In this case (a bankruptcy judge), the judge would refer the matter to
>the US Trustee who would investigate, decide if it rose to the level
>of fraud, then refer it to the US Attorney's office, who would
>investigate, decide if the case was meritorious, then kick it over to
>the FBI for investigation, the FBI would investigate, decide if a
>fraud had been perpetrated, then return it to the US Attorney's
>office, who would file suit in US District Court.
>
><sigh> Your tax dollars at work.

**** it. Where's my niblick. I'll serve justice with
a nice chianti and a few ****ing fava beans.

--Blair