shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

  Yesterday, Greg Beck asked “Can Everything You Search Be Used Against You?“, in a posting at the Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Dec. 26, 2006).   Worries over the data collected and retained by search engines about their users — Personally Identifiable Information (PII) — made a lot of news in 2006, when the Justice Department obtained data from AOL, Yahoo, and MSN on millions of search queries in support of the government’s defense of the Child Online Protection Act.  At that time, Google resisted the broad data request.

Beck’s posting at CLPB describes a recent criminal case in federal court, where evidence was used about Google Searches made by the defendant on topics related to the crime (which involved breaking into a wireless network service and interfering with other users). The conviction was upheld by the 7th Circuit court of appeals, in United States v. Schuster.  (see Declan McCullagh’s CNET article “Google searches nab wireless hacker,” Dec. 20, 2006, for more details)

We can’t offer you any legal strategies for quashing subpoenas aimed at search engines, or striking the fruits of such discovery in your trial.  We can remind you, nonetheless, as Greg Beck notes: “Google has acknowledged that it can trace searches back to a particular computer or, in some cases, to a particular user.”  The information would allow Google, prosecutors, or opponents in a civil suit to reconstruct your searches and to know which search result links you clicked.   As the World Privacy Forum explains (“Search Engine Privacy Tips,” Aug. 17, 2006):

“People often view search engines as benign blank boxes to which they can pose any question they want and not suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Search engines large and small typically keep logs of users’ search terms, with some search engines going further and matching those terms to your computer address, your name, and other items, depending on how much information you have shared with the search engine.

“Before you type your search terms into a search engine box or register for extra services at a search engine, please be aware of the potential consequences. Searches can come back to haunt you, especially if they are problematic and can be tied directly to you in some way.”

  You can help yourself avoid difficultues by watching what you search for, cleaning up your cookies, and perhaps using an anonymizing tool.  If you click to see the rest of this posting, you will find a list of webpages and articles offering strategies to use in keeping your search engine activities private or anonymous (whether from housemates, government investigators, or litigation opponents):

I just came across a site with resources about dog law and less than a week ago I adopted a dog, so this seems like a good time to highlight a few dog-related sites.

Dog Law is a product of Nolo (we can’t stop saying great things about that publisher!), Justia (a site with legal information by a company that does web design and legal marketing), and Little Sheba the Hug Pug (a dog associated with Justia). So far, it appears that Little Sheba hasn’t provided much content but — good news for readers! — Mary Randolph, the author of Nolo’s Every Dog’s Legal Guide, has. (You might have heard of the book as Dog Law, the title title of its first four editions.) The site addresses:

State and Local Regulation – covers information you need to know to own your dog within the law of your locality. This includes information about dog licenses, getting your dog vaccinated, leash laws, pooper-sooper laws and more…

Landlords and Dogs – covers what you need to know to have dog in your apartment, including negotiating a fair lease, dogs and elderly or disabled tenants, the enforceability of no pet clauses, landlord liability for illegal evictions, landlord liability for their tenants’ dogs and more…

Traveling With Your Dog covers dog travel, including airline travel, international travel, travel in the car, travel on public transportation (buses and trains) and more…

Barking Dogs covers dealing with neighbors, animal control and the police, as well as covering local and state laws and more…

Providing for Pets includes strategies for taking care of pets, why you can’t leave money to dogs (and what happens if you try) and more…

Dog Bites – includes information about dog bite prevention, dog owner liability, other potential liable parties, bringing a lawsuit, Dog-Bite Statutes and more…

Dangerous Dogs – includes information about – dangerous dog laws, criminal penalties for owners of dangerous dogs, and breed-specific restrictions.

One thing the site doesn’t appear to have much on (yet) is service animals (a topic someone asked me about yesterday). See Commonly Asked Questions about Service Animals in Places of Business (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section). Check to see if your own state has something similar. For instance, in my state the Washington State Human Rights Commission has Service Animal Questions. (By the way, the prosecutor’s office here has two service dogs who help with vulnerable witnesses, often children who have been the victims of sexual or physical abuse. See my post at Trial Ad Notes.)
Other resources:

• Animal advocacy groups often include information about legal developments. For instance, the Humane Society of the United States has sections on federal legislation, state legislation, and its litigation.
• Animallaw.com, from the Internation Institute for Animal Law “provides access to legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of animals. AnimalLaw.com supports information concerning animal cruelty, animal control, laboratory animal welfare, the use of animals in education, product testing and in the laboratory, animal control issues, and general animal welfare.”
• The Animal Legal Defense Fund has a page of Do-It-Yourself Resources.

Since it’s that time of year, it doesn’t hurt to pass along the Humane Society’s cautions that puppies don’t always make good gifts. See How Much Is that Doggy in the Window?, Dec. 4, 2006. (Our new dog is our gift to ourselves — but we’ve adopted from the same rescue organization before and knew just what we were committing to.)

Happy holidays, and many tail wags to all!

For most of us, this holiday season revolves around visiting grandparents or remembering such visits from our youth.  For a small percentage of children, however, whether they get to see grandparents is a decision being made by family court judges, with grandparent rights being pitted against those of parents who want to deny or restrict such visitation. Just yesterday (Dec. 20, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review a recent Pennsylvania case, Hiller v. Fausey, involving grandparent visitation. (see How Appealing, whose editor represents Fausey, the parent who lost below)

The Fausey v. Hiller Petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify an issue left unresolved in its landmark grandparent visitation case Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated when a court orders grandparent visitation over a fit parent’s objection, where the grandparent has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that such an order is necessary to prevent harm or potential harm to the child.

Like any good petition for a writ of certiorari, the Fausey Petition has a useful summary of the split among the state courts and legislatures over whether and when the decision of a fit parent can be overridden by a court “in the best interests of the child.”  

  AARP’s Grandparenting webpage

If you would like more information on this topic, you should check out:  a) AARP’s Grandparent Visitation page, which includes suggestions for avoiding these issues down the road or resolving them out of court; b) the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Hiller v. Fausey, linked at the FamilyLawProfs weblog, which give a summary of the issues and policies involved — looking at the rights of parents, grandparents and children; c) a recent summary at the California Family Law Blog; and d) the Sept. 12, 2006 USA Today article, “Recent rulings favor grandparents.”

 Some court self-help websites may also help you to understand the law as it exists in a particular state.  And, as always, your law or public librarian should be able to help you find relevant materials on grandparent visitation.

A $15,000 grant by the Foundation of the State Bar of California will help to expand a program that helps grandparents who want to be named guardians for their grandchildren.  The grant is going to the Superior Court of California’s Self Help Assistance and Referral Program (SHARP).

According to an article in the Oroville [CA] Mercury-Register, “Grant funds grandparent guardianship program” (Dec. 20, 2006), court staff have observed “a recent dramatic increase in grandparents seeking completion of the legal guardianship process. The 2000 California Census showed that 6.8 percent of all children under 18 years of age in California lived in grandparent-headed households.” 

“The approved grant allows the [s]elf-help program to provide informational seminars and presentations by local practitioners (judges/attorneys) to grandparents seeking guardianship. Additionally, SHARP will frequently offer a slower-paced three-hour workshop given by a local attorney geared specifically towards grandparents. The award funds production of a video and written material on grandparent guardianship to be shared with other community organizations, self-help centers, and governmental agencies. 

You can learn more about SHARP programs (including Kinship Care assistance and guardianship clinic) at the website of the Glenn County Superior Court.  As we noted in a prior post, SHARP serves self-represented litigants in three rural Calirfornia counties via videoconferencing workshops. “The centers offer procedural help with certain legal issues, as well as self-help resources and computers.  SHARP’s managing attorney conducts topical workshops by videoconference so that clients at all of the centers can participate simultaneously.” 

• update (2 PM): You can find information on the kinship foster care policies (concerning grandparents or other relatives) of each state, and other issues affecting grandparents, through this Grandparenting Fact Sheet page from AARP.

 Holiday spirits are put to the test in mid-December at family courts across the nation, as divorced or separated parents battle over how and where their children spend various portions of the holiday season.  While serving as law guardian for many children caught in the middle of such disputes, I saw how often the parents placed their own emotional/ego needs ahead of the needs of the children — and, how often lawyers made things worse by stoking the yuletide fires.  The South Carolina Family Law Blog has a number of recent postings that might help to avoid court or to bring out the estranged parents’ better spirits.  (via Kansas Family Law Blog)

  Their Dec. 15 posting Tips to Help Divorced Parents Avoid Holiday Visitation Issues has some good advice, and is based on this article by Dr. Ruth Peters, which covers keeping it civil, accommodating schedules, coordinating gifts, respecting each others’ religious traditions, and more.  The posting Ten Tips to Minimize Divorce Trauma During the Holidays is also worth reading by parents and, if they have them, their lawyers. [via California Divorce and Family Law weblog]  You can find a link to an article on Holiday Blended Families issues, here.   I suggest you wait until after the holidays to deal with Tax Deductions and Non-Custodial Parents.

Family Advocate magazine, from the ABA’s Family Law Section, often has excellent materials on parenting after divorce and finding alternatives to ugly divorces. Many editions are turned into Client Manuals.  For example, check out:

• Client Manual: What Your Children Need . . . Now! 
• Client Manual: My Parents Are Getting Divorced

 Here are my own Tips on Parenting-Apart, which I used with a course for separated parents.  If you’ve been warring with your “ex” over parenting issues, consider changing your ways in the New Year — for the sake of your children.

 Back on Black Friday, shlep offered holiday-season shopping information to help our readers avoid shopping grief.   We hope you survived the post-Thanksgiving holiday frenzy, with sanity and finances intact, and will be able to get your Holiday Shopping completed before the last-minute rush.   Here are a couple more ideas for keeping the holiday spirit alive despite the rigmarole that accompanies this season.

Gift Cards

The Motley Fool (“Gift Cards Exposed,” Dec. 9, 2006) offers Commentary that is stuffed with common sense for those who want “the scoop on these festive little slabs of plastic.” Find out what to look for in the fine print, where and how to purchase them, what to think about and do if you receive one.  The Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Alert “Buying, Giving and Using Gift Cards” also offers a good checklist, plus tips if you have problems or complaints.  A condensed version is available in this Dec. 11, 2006 FTC press release.

Kvetching Korrectly

A New York Times article “Complaining Correctly Can Pay Off” (Dec. 9, 2006) is filled with advice on how to get (relatively) painless satisfaction when you phone Call Centers with a consumer complaint.  Many companies now rate their representatives on whether they solve the customer’s problem with one call and no transfers — rather than how many calls they can handle (terminate) in an hour.  This calls for a different attitude from both the consumer and the phone rep, and the article suggests ways to take advantage of the enlightened perspective on handling consumer complaints.

   Mad Kane on How to Avoid a Caning

Humorist and recovering lawyer Madeleine Begun Kane offers her Mad Gift Giving Guide — a contract between Husband/Father and Wife/Mother meant to save a marriage or, at least, prevent trips to the mall to return unwanted gifts.  In our experience, it is the Husband who especially needs this Guide, and who should be giving special attention to the spousal clauses in the Agreement (such as no self-serving or practical gifts for Wife and nothing that can be purchsed at an airport).  The Guide includes good tips on gifts for children, and has helpful general advice and admissions, such as “Husband concedes that there is no connection between gender and gift wrapping.” and

 “Husband acknowledges that reminding Husband about his parents’, uncles, aunts, and siblings’ birthdays is not the Wife’s job. However, in light of Husband’s actual or feigned absentmindedness, Wife will make reasonable efforts to do so. But if Wife screws up, Husband has to deal with his mother.”

Thank-You Notes  (are to be encouraged throughout the year)

 Thanks to Hanna Hasl-Kelchner, at Legal Literacy.com, for tipping us off to Mad Kane’s Gift Guide, in Blawg Review #87, and for pointing to the shlep posting below on Scrooge and pro bono.]

Thanks, also, to the folks at Google, who have brightened our holiday season by making shlep‘s About Page in the #1 result (out of over a million) for the search request /advocacy for self help law /.

My local paper, the Seattle Times has been investigating courts’ practices in sealing records in a series called “Your Courts, Their Secrets.” The latest focus of investigation is the guardianship system. Articles this week have discussed some horribly frustrating interactions when family members (often unrepresented) have tried to monitor the care professional guardians are providing their disabled loved ones. (See my post on Trial Ad Notes.)

That led me to look for some more information about guardianship (of adults, not children)…

  An editorial in Sunday’s Foster’s Daily (Dover, NH) gives a good review to the new “limited litigation” rules for New Hampshire lawyers, which took effect on July 1. (“À la carte lawyering an important step toward affordable justice,” Dec. 3, 2006)  Noting that the Supreme Court decided to allow “a la carte lawyering” in response to “a sharp rise in do-it-yourself lawyering” and “the enormous hourly rates charged by many lawyers,” the piece summarizes the advantages and potential pitfalls of unbundled litigation.   It also describes a report done for the judiciary that calls for making courts “more user-friendly,” and changing the attitudes of some judges and court staffs, who seem to “resent civilians.”   This excellent editorial concludes:

“At least now litigants have the option of working with their lawyer to save money and learn more about the judicial system while they are at it.  That should, in the long run, serve well the judicial system and the general public by demystifying the process and lowering costs.”

Note: Rule 1.2 (f) of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth the lawyer’s obligations when engaging in Limited Representation in Litigation, and (g) offers a Sample Form “Consent to Limited Represenation,” as a guide for client and lawyer.

 As discussed at f/k/a, the New Hampshire judiciary published a first-rate report on the needs of pro se litigants in January, 2004. Called Challenge to Justice (Jan. 2004), it is notable for both its positive tone and thorough approach to helping the pro se litigant.  A key concept is summarized in two sentences: “All of the suggestions within this report however, are grounded on the single principle that meaningful access to justice in today’s world means a clear recognition by those involved in the system that many of our constituents want to go it alone when they come to court. Our obligation is to give these citizens the help they want, need and deserve. ” (emphasis added)

Self-Represented litigants often find it difficult to sift through the copious and confusing amounts of information on legal websites. As such, Montana and Iowa have launched a new feature called ‘LiveHelp’, where users can chat with a live trained operator to address their concerns or questions regarding legal information. The chat button is located in the upper right hand corner of both websites, Montana’s here and Iowa’s here. ProBono.net recently published an article about the feature.

Everybody handling a lawsuit needs to work within the court rules — for instance, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alas, court rules are sometimes written in a rather dense style. But there’s hope! For over a decade a group within the Civil Rules Advisory Committee has been working on a revision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to make them clearer and easier to understand.

Hello, all, my name is Orijit and this is my first post on the site. I am currently working as an Americorps VISTA volunteer with Montana Legal Services Association (MLSA) on self-help law in Montana. As the only provider of civil legal services statewide, MLSA must turn down many clients that are income-eligible for services because of resources and other constraints. Therefore, MLSA has made an effort to promote self-help law practices such as pro se clinics, self-help workstations and a comprehensive website to provide assistance to those who cannot be directly represented.

On page 11 of this month’s ‘Montana Lawyer’, you will find an article I authored which summarizes the state of pro se activities in Montana, along with a rough outline of what we hope to provide in the future. Please check back for updates on new resources and legislative activity that I hope to provide as soon as they are available.

  No Santa Symbol, St. Nicholas Defense Action Committees, Netherlands

Notice:  This time each year, the Editor of this weblog suffers from HAH! [Holiday Agita & Heartburn], as well as BHS [Bah Humbug Syndrome], due to the excessive commercialization of Christmas and related holidays. See f/k/a, St. Nicholas v. Santa Claus, Dec. 12, 2005.  Nonetheless, in the true spirit of the Season, he offers this self-help advice to those caught up — intentionally or not — in the Christmas shopping frenzy and other schmoliday customs.

In the normal course of the English Language, the term Black Friday would refer to a Friday infamous for financial market disaster (viz. Sept. 24, 1869) or for other forms of social calamity.  In the United States, as you surely know, it has also come to signify the Day After Thanksgiving.  It is deemed either the “official” or “unofficial” start of the Christmas-Holiday Shopping Season, and designated “Black” to refer to the day that retailers can (hopefully) stop recording losses in red ink in their account books, and can instead start to show profits in black ink. (see CBCNews/AP, “U.S. Shoppers Hit Stores on ‘Black Friday’,” Nov. 24, 2006)

Some shoppers are up early for Black Friday, or never go to bed, envigorated by the thrill of the chase for bargains. (e.g., AZCentral.com, “In Search of a Deal,” Nov. 25, 2006) Yet, Black Friday can also be a day filled with stress and confrontation (New York Times, “Attention Holiday Shoppers: We Have Fisticuffs in Aisle 2,” Nov. 25, 2006), and begin a season of true financial disaster for millions of American consumers. 

orig.  

shlep may not be able to keep you from busting your budget, or mistaking massive gift-giving for the manifestation of love and affection, but we hope to help you avoid getting scammed or suffering other shopping and holiday pitfalls, and to help you find solutions or legal remedies, if you’re victimized by the dishonest or unscrupulous.  As the wise self-helper knows: the best way to “solve” a legal problem is to prevent it in the first place; and, prevention often means knowing your rights and/or acting with common sense.  The follow links and resources should assist you in those goals (if only by keeping you and your credit card occupied instead of shopping).

 If your Thanksgiving was as tastey and relaxing as mine, you’ll understand why I never quite got around to posting here yesterday.  If I had, I surely would have joined in the annual obsession with things turkey.   Here, a day late, is a little gravy for your leftovers:

  1)  Turkeys Teaching Law: Does your self-help legal issue involve the Law of Contracts?  Professor Meredith R. Miller of ContractsProfBlog has opined once again this year that “nearly all contract law concepts can be learned with turkey cases (and one chicken case … and maybe one cow case).”  Prof. Miller stuck her neck out last year, and described two leading turkey cases: in “Turkeys, Oral Contracts and Mr. Gouge (Nov. 18, 2005), she serves up the decision in H&H Poultry Co. v. Whaley, 408 A.2d 289 (Del. 1979); and in “Turkeys, Damages and Alternative Obligations” (Nov. 17, 2005), she thoroughly digests Jacobsen-Reimers Co. v. Tozai Co., 42 Cal. App. 178 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1919).” (via Robert Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch, in “Turkeys Teaching Law,” Nov. 22, 2006)

2) Talking Turkey: A quotation from the trial court judge in Prof. Miller’s posting on the H&H Poultry Case, is a good reminder that the judge’s role quite often is to get “a feeling for a close case, where I believe people may sincerely feel they are telling the story as it is.”  From my personal experience watching judges, lawyers, litigants and witnesses (and dealing with adolescents at home and in my office), I firmly believe that the most believable evidence (and pleading) consists in “talking turkey” — speaking plainly and to the point.  The pro se party should not, in my opinion, attempt to emulate lawyers who seem to be hiding the ball with arcane jargon, weasel words, rhetorical flourishes, or other verbal dodges meant to obscure the weaknesses in his or her client’s case and to distort the opponent’s arguments and evidence.   Speak plainly and honestly to the judge, if you want to increase your credibility.

3) Gobbledygook v. Critical Thinking:  Let’s be frank: While gathered around their holiday tables yesterdary, many Americans engaged in and/or were subjected to all sorts of specious, misleading or otherwise faulty arguments and opinion, masquerading as truth or wisdom (or even God’s Will).  You will, of course, also encounter such gobbledygook (those poor maligned male turkeys!) in the realm of legal advocacy.  A few days ago, I discovered A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking, by Gregg R. Haskins (Aug. 2006) This 18-pp. pdf. file “presents a concise introduction to critical thinking. It is intended as a handy tool to help anyone evaluate or develop sound reasoning and arguments.”  Here’s Haskins’ definition of Critial Thinking:

 A process by which we use our knowledge and intelligence to effectively arrive at the most reasonable and justifiable positions on issues, and which endeavors to identify and overcome the numerous hindrances to rational thinking.“

To help the reader become a critical thinker, Haskins explains a five-step process, offers an Argument Checklist for evaluating arguments, and presents four Hindrance Charts, which describe the Hindrances to critical thinking due to Human Limitations, The Use of Language, Faulty Logic or Perception, and Psychological or Sociological Pitfalls.  Within each category of Hindrance, Haskins defines numerous varieties, gives examples, and suggests critical thinking tips.   Haskins not only treats well-known ploys such as Ad Hominem Attacks, Slippery Slopes, and Red Herrings, but he also gives names and examples for many more stumbling clocks to taking “reasonable and justifiable” positions and recognizing arguments that fail to achieve those goals.   In his acknowledgement, Haskins credits two books, both by skepdic.com‘s Robert Todd Carroll, PhD, The Skeptic’s Dictionary (2003) and Becoming a Critical Thinker — A Guide for the New Millennium (2000).

4) Thankful for:  There are lots of important things that we should all be thankful about in our lives.   On a more modest scale, two articles that appeared online this week brought small bits of good news that could make pro se litigants grateful: a)  In his law.com column for Nov. 27, 2006, Howard Bashman explains the effects of two new Federal Rules of Appellate Practice that will go into effect on Dec. 1, 2006.  One of them is of special interest to pro se litigants:   The change to FRAP 25(a)(2)(D), a rule that addresses electronic filing on appeal.  Bashman explains a new mandatory hardship exception to any electronic filing requirements:

The amendment authorizes federal appellate courts to require that pleadings, briefs, and other papers be filed electronically, but the amendment also states that “[a] local rule may require filing by electronic means only if reasonable exceptions are allowed.” This so-called “hardship exception” is undefined, allowing the federal appellate courts that will require electronic filing on appeal to experiment with different formulations. The most obvious form of a hardship exception will apply to pro se litigants who do not have access to the technology necessary to prepare and file documents in electronic form.

[For help appearing pro se in an appellate court, see our prior post] 

 b)  The hordes of pro se litigants who appear in the Justice Courts of the State of New York, got good news this week.  Surely spurred on by the New York Times three-part series in September, describing the oft-malfunctioning system of small town and village courts (see our prior post), the NYS Chief Judge, Judith S. Kaye, announced a set of reforms that include “plans to increase training for the justices, to improve their supervision and to better monitor whether they are protecting basic legal principles like the constitutional right to a lawyer” and the requirement “for the first time to keep a word-for-word record of their proceedings, like other courts in the state.” (New York Times, “Justice Courts for Small New York Towns to be Overhauled,” Nov. 22, 2006)  Other major issues were not addressed in the proposals, because they would need legislative changes and face considerable political opposition from local politicians. “Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that while the reforms suggested by Judge Kaye were welcome, ‘these are Band-Aids on a system that needs serious systemic reform’.”