anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and ass for attorney

[Noomi]

They asked me. I called them a couple of ugly dykes and threw them out. Since it was two women asking to have me paint their wedding portrait it was pretty obvious that they were lesbians. There was nothing to find out later. Now I do admit that I initially tried to be more gentle in refusing by simply saying no and suggesting a portrait artist that advertised for commissioned work. It was only after they pressed the issue by telling me I was discriminating against them that I told them no way was I going to paint a couple of ugly dykes.

I wouldn't have taken that insult well. You could have handled it better - but at least you tried to assist them by directing them elsewhere to someone who may have been willing to help them out.

They lost anyway. They should have just gone and gotten another artist.

They wasted a lot of money on what was a useless lawsuit, for sure.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wouldn't have taken that insult well. You could have handled it better - but at least you tried to assist them by directing them elsewhere to someone who may have been willing to help them out.

They lost anyway. They should have just gone and gotten another artist.

They wasted a lot of money on what was a useless lawsuit, for sure.

Which is why it's usually good to settle disputes out of court for a fraction of the price.

 

[Avatar4321]

They ruled against you. You admitted you didn't know the terms of the contract. Don't sign things you don't read

They ruled against me WITHOUT LETTING ME OPEN MY MOUTH.
I do not know if you are really that ignorant, or just trying to provoke an argument, but I assume you are ok with this type of justice system - Jesus must be proud of you

In the late 1990s I was sued by Verizon, for not paying the advertisement bill in yellow pages. I was excited to go to court, to explain.. that when the Verizon saleslady was discussing the bill with me, she never mentioned that this will be a monthly $300 bill, so, I was under the assumption that it is a one time fee. I was so enthusiastic to speak in front of the judge, holding in my hand documents proving my innocence. But when my turn came to speak, the judge asked me if I have a lawyer, I said no, I can speak for myself. she said no, you need a lawyer. she did not allow me to say anything, and I was found guilty right then and there. and I was forced to pay 24 times more then what I originally thought. supposedly I was not allowed to speak because me and my father are set up as a 2 people corporation, and as a corporation you are required to have a lawyer, but it does not matter to me, I will carry the conviction of my innocence to my grave. and that $5000 made Verizon rich and famous, and ordinary people like me, indebted as a nation.

You were always going to lose anyway. You had no defense. Not understanding the terms of the contract that runs for a year is not a defense. I don't know why you would think that it was a one time fee. Phone book advertising contracts are very clear. I've signed many of them.

Without knowing anything more than what you said just now I know exactly what happened. You were served with the breach of contract complaint and did nothing. You did not read the Summons that told you that you had to answer within 30 days. You did not answer. Your default was taken and the matter set for a prove up hearing. You thought (wrongly) that you would get to present your side at the hearing. In fact the case was over and no one was going to listen to you. You had already received the full benefit of the contract because your ad was in the yellow pages for a full year. You didn't have to pay anything you should not be paying.

Do you understand why you were not taken advantage of?

Even at this late date. You already lost. Had you gone to see a lawyer that lawyer would have made a motion for relief from default and gotten the ruling set aside. Then the lawyer would take a magnifying glass to the ad and find what was wrong with the ad printed in the yellow pages. The typeface was wrong. A comma was misplaced. Maybe a misspelling. The location on the page was different than that represented by the agent. The lawyer would have said to the court that even if you owe the money, you are entitled to a reformation of the contract to reduce what you owe because the ad was not what you purchased. You are entitled to diminution of the value. You might only have had to pay 10%.

There. You have been educated. Don't make the same mistake agsin.

Sounds about right.

The lesson is make sure you understand the deal before you make it.

Second lesson is make sure you understand the law or hire someone who does.

 

[Katzndogz]

They lost anyway. They should have just gone and gotten another artist.

They wasted a lot of money on what was a useless lawsuit, for sure.

Which is why it's usually good to settle disputes out of court for a fraction of the price.

They lost. I won. It didn't cost me anything but the filing fee. I got that back. I had a lot of fun letting their attorney make a fool of himself. The fact is, they were never going to win.

 

[Avatar4321]

They wasted a lot of money on what was a useless lawsuit, for sure.

Which is why it's usually good to settle disputes out of court for a fraction of the price.

They lost. I won. It didn't cost me anything but the filing fee. I got that back. I had a lot of fun letting their attorney make a fool of himself. The fact is, they were never going to win.

It wasnt you I was suggesting settle lol

 

[FA_Q2]

So you made a contract you obviously didn't read and are upset because you had to pay the bill. Not surprised you lost.

It wouldn't surprise me if he was lied to in order to make him sign on the dotted line. It happens - businesses will lie through their teeth about their fees, and then claim ignorance when they are questioned.

Right. it is amazing how judgmental even "Christians" like avatar here can be. in the other thread he already found me guilty of running a stop sign.

Judgmental?

He stated a fact - there is nothing judgmental about that. If you are too ignorant to understand that I see why you have no concept of the statement this thread is supposed to be focused on. You certainly did have and fool for a client and an ass for an attorney.

 

[FA_Q2]

Right. it is amazing how judgmental even "Christians" like avatar here can be. in the other thread he already found me guilty of running a stop sign.

They ruled against you. You admitted you didn't know the terms of the contract. Don't sign things you don't read

They ruled against me WITHOUT LETTING ME OPEN MY MOUTH.
I do not know if you are really that ignorant, or just trying to provoke an argument, but I assume you are ok with this type of justice system - Jesus must be proud of you

In the late 1990s I was sued by Verizon, for not paying the advertisement bill in yellow pages. I was excited to go to court, to explain.. that when the Verizon saleslady was discussing the bill with me, she never mentioned that this will be a monthly $300 bill, so, I was under the assumption that it is a one time fee. I was so enthusiastic to speak in front of the judge, holding in my hand documents proving my innocence. But when my turn came to speak, the judge asked me if I have a lawyer, I said no, I can speak for myself. she said no, you need a lawyer. she did not allow me to say anything, and I was found guilty right then and there. and I was forced to pay 24 times more then what I originally thought. supposedly I was not allowed to speak because me and my father are set up as a 2 people corporation, and as a corporation you are required to have a lawyer, but it does not matter to me, I will carry the conviction of my innocence to my grave. and that $5000 made Verizon rich and famous, and ordinary people like me, indebted as a nation.

Your own thread and you are derailing it. The statement above (anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and ass for attorney) has nothing to do with being ‘all right’ with the justice system in this nation. It has nothing to do with how fair, corrupt or wrong the justice system is. All it has to do with is reality – cold and hard. The statement is very true.

You are an idiot if you try and represent yourself. You are equally an idiot if you try and build a home when you are a painter or paint a portrait if you are a framer or complete a bridge in your wife’s mouth if you are a surgeon or any other of a thousand professions that you are not a part of. To think that you can navigate this nation VERY complex law system without any knowledge whatsoever of law is both extremely arrogant and moronic.

Why do you think you can be a lawyer but have no want to perform surgery? What makes you think you do not need to be proficient in law to practice it but accept such proficiency is required for a thousand other professions?