Quote:
I honestly would prefer that judges not do this, and simply refer to Meads v. Meads rather than spending further time on nonsense like this. The judge in this case actually considers the arguments. It's a waste of judicial resources, which are already scarce, and even more so now due to the fact that a bunch of things got postponed this year.
I assume Graesser talked to Rooke about it before doing this, but I just don't see the point in any of it. It's a bunch of nonsense. We know. You don't even need to entertain it.
|
One of the great struggles of expanding access to justice. Its almost unavoidable that, as self-reps gain an increased ability to handle their matter before the courts without the assistance of a lawyer, the courts will see an increase in the occurrence of such quackery. Very difficult balancing act that I wouldn't even begin to pretend to have a solution for.