Why can&#39;t self-represented litigants use &quot;I&quot; to refer to myself? How can this be true for even pro se litigants in court? Why can't they use Singular First Person Pronouns in their pleadings, when they are alleging causes of action to them personally? How must they call themselves then? Isn't it tedious and weird to keep calling themselves as &quot;Plaintiff&quot;, or their own full name? Use “we” for yourself and your client, and use “counsel for appellant or respondent” for opposing counsel. Do not use “you” to refer to the court. Do not use “I” to refer to yourself. This book bases on US law. Bahrych (PhD University of Washington in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, JD University of Washington), McLellan (JD Santa Clara University), Merino (JD Stanford). Legal Writing and Analysis in a Nutshell 5th edition (2017). 163.
That book provides advice on legal writing; it is not a source of rules for legal writing. Rather than repeatedly identifying themselves using their full name, parties customarily refer to themselves in the third person, e.g., &quot;The defendant refused to waive his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.&quot; In practice, though, pro se litigants regularly refer to themselves in the first person, and there is no formal consequence for this.
If you aren't publicly registering a trade name you are probably engaged in illegal conduct. Among other things, by doing this, you are effectively hiding yourself from any lawsuits arising from the business that accurately name the defendant. You can have a business mascot or trade name, but you have to disclose that this is what it is and provide a means by which a reasonable person who needs to sue you could properly identify you.
You'd have to specify the cases you want. All court transcripts are a matter of public record, though a copy may cost you a fee from the court clerk's office to recieve. It should be pointed out that not all cases got to an evidentiary stage to actually evaluate on the record any evidence. A vast majority were decided on pre-evidentiary rules such as standing or laches (timeliness) and not all cases that were able induced evidence debunked the evidence. Any appellent case would also not induce evidence as all appeals cases are strictly matter of law rather than matter of fact (evidence), so those cases would be asking a higher court to double check non-evidentiary decisions. The fact that the party that brought the suit does not have standing to bring the suit OR that the party that brought the suit brought it too late for the courts to proceed on the matter does not debunk evidence that the fraud happened in the eyes of the law... it simply means the questions of fact were never addressed at all
Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."? "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts. Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned. These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom). But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form. Why the seemingly random capitalization? The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.) Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name. Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings. Enter was improperly capitalized. Petitions is improperly capitalized. (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.) Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.
In dealing with financial, medical, insurance and basically any other forms found in the U.S. do I have a legal responsibility to identify myself as Divorced? Or in other words, could identifying myself as Single as opposed to a divorcee incur any type of liability of which I should be aware? Since you specified the financial and medical contexts, yes, sometimes it is mandatory to disclose that you are divorced. Any time your signature is involved, be as accurate as the form allows. The worst consequence I can think of is actually pretty bad (&quot;penalty of perjury&quot; is no joke, and whether or not it should, divorce does impact a surprising number of especially financial considerations.) If possible, it would be better to simply not answer at all than to sign off on something other than the most accurate option available. In these contexts, the designation as having been divorced is often an archaic throwback predating no-fault. For example, divorce adversely impacts your credit (more than the loss of a partner's presumed earning power, the reasoning here is basically that marriage was a long-term commitment you entered into willingly that was not fulfilled.) Jobs or employment opportunities demanding a very high degree of personal integrity may be negatively impacted by having, or having had a divorce, by the same reasoning (the examples that pop to mind are officers the military, depending on the career field.) Divorce can be interpreted as an indication that the individual in question is currently not as stable in their personal life and affairs (moving, figuring out joint custody, jealous/vindictive ex, etc.) as a prospective lender or employer requires. As far as healthcare is concerned, it can have an impact on health care services and how providers interact with you, your ex, etc. (for example, your child's pediatrician.) Having had a divorce can be a flag to health care provider to screen for depression, anxiety, blood pressure, and so forth; likewise, insurance companies consider divorce a &quot;major life event&quot; that qualifies you to change your coverage out-of-season (I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if divorce somehow impacted your rates because of statistical increased risk of specific ailments.) Furthermore, there can be far-reaching implications for others - how long you were married determines whether or not social security benefits are conferred to a surviving spouse, for example, or calculating your kid's FAFSA in five or ten or fifteen years.
I haven't reviewed the filings, but I can tell you that it's perfectly routine for lawyers to describe the other side's position as &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; with no regard for the actual merits. The lawyer's job is to make his client look good, in court and in public; the existence of this question shows that he's doing a good job at least on the latter half of that equation. But in truth, it's such a generic thing to say that no lawyer who hears it will actually think it means anything. In all likelihood, the filing is like most others, in that it makes a good case on some points and a bad case on others, and the opposing lawyer's job is to argue that all of them are bad. In the rarer case that a filing is actually &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; courts can and sometimes do impose penalties under Rule 11, which allows for sanctions against parties and attorneys who make factual assertions that are not supported by reality or arguments that are not supported by the law.
There is a legal dictum, de minimis non curat lex, which might lead to an exasperated court official refusing to issue your lawsuit (with or without providing the $1 out of his own pocket to save everybody's time); I recommend you look it up. But there is no official term for what you suggest, although many lawyers might off the record provide colourful descriptions. If you wish to waste your money on such a claim, then obviously in your view it is worth pursuing. Clients often say "the principle is more important than the money", though they say so more often before they receive the bills than after.
It is actually because "this is important". Under US law, disclaimers must be "conspicuous" (UCC 2-316). So you can talk regularly when you're just stating the terms, but if you're disclaiming liability, YOU MUST BE CONSPICUOUS ("to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous"). There are many ways to make text conspicuous, so bold or larger type would do, but all-caps is pretty bullet-proof from a technological perspective. Thanks to ohwilleke for salient citations: invalidation of a plain-type buried indemnification clause, all-caps clause held to be sufficient, law review article on the conspicuousness requirement.