Written by Gregory Monte.
I accompanied my son to his summary appeal at the Wayne County (PA) Courthouse on March 7, 2019. When the judge decided to prevent him from offering important evidence, I felt obligated to call out from “behind the bar” to let the judge know that she was making a mistake. My son was having difficulty explaining why the evidence was legitimate, so I called out Rule 902. This was a reference to the rule about self-authenticating evidence.
In an attempt to shut me up and shut me down, the judge shot back with a quick question:
“Excuse me sir but are you an attorney?”
I felt like saying the following:
“No I’m not a f***king attorney, but I obviously know more about the rules of evidence than you do in this case.”
Instead I calmly responded with these words: “His evidence is self-authenticating.”
She still didn’t get it and repeated her question.
This time I responded with a simple “no.”
But a light bulb must have gone off in her head at this point, because she called a 5-minute recess. When she returned, she allowed my son to proceed with his case.
Do you think that maybe she looked up Rule 902 back in her chambers? I think so. I showed her that I knew not only more than she did, but that I knew more than most attorneys.
My point is that, by spreading the news about my traffic-ticket research, I am attempting to make all traffic attorneys superfluous. By revealing a full set of defenses available to the regular citizen, I am bypassing the normal way of doing business in the world of “justice.”
Screw the attorneys – you don’t need them.
One thought on “No, I’m not a f***ing attorney – but I know the law.”