I'm sure the Honorable in question finds it refreshing too. I got this via email the other day as well, does anyone know what kind of case the defendant is appealing?

Well, I guess we are required to give pro se defendants latitude. But isn't this a wee bit overboard?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Gilleland: does anyone know what kind of case the defendant is appealing?

---

According to the court's website, this is a prisoner/civil rights case. Don't let your jaw hit the floor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wes Mau:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Gilleland: does anyone know what kind of case the defendant is appealing?

---

According to the court's website, this is a prisoner/civil rights case. Don't let your jaw hit the floor.

---

Could you hear it hit over there, Wes? I'm stunned, amazed, and have lost my faith in pro-se inmate law-suiters. What's next, finding out there is no Santa?

I used to be amazed but now am merely amused at the zeal inmates employ in asserting their rights, seeing what little regard they show for the rights of everyone else.

Given his choice of language, why am I not surprised that he is a criminal defendant?

With such blatant contempt for the integrity of the justice system, I trust the COA simply trashed the NOA.

But I am sure there have been plenty of people who have filed NOAs who have felt that way!

At least it isn't the average inmate pleading, loaded down with misused verbiage intended to make Mr. Pro Se, Esq. sound like an accomplished litigator.

But, on a visceral level, isn't it galling that this guy has an ironclad "right" to appeal (though not necessarily to use the colorful language he has in doing so), but we just have to suck eggs when a jury walks a DWI defendant because "she looks like she's too nice a girl to do somethin' awful like that"? Not that anything like that has happened to our office ....