Court case against my hackers.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carlos said:
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is - in the view of judges, or juries... They don't see it as a good move, so it looks bad on him. However, I do agree that he's not inhibited, or prohibited from seeking counsel should it escalate.

Whether it's a civil case or criminal one... That's not the point that I was making.

Hey, don't be like that. :(
Click to expand...
Carlos with all due respect that is not true what you have written. Last year I defended myself when my ex wife claimed that I sexually assaulted her and bashed her (this was to improve her stand in the on going child custody case we have). I was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault and one of domestic violence.

I had my day in court, I represented myself, and went up against not one but TWO police prosecutors it took me 20 minutes to have the judge immediately dismiss the charges of Sexual Assault when I was able to make the two police officers investigating the matter trip up over themselves and look like liars, when my ex took the stand and I made her show she is a liar and her new boyfriend - midway through parading my witnesses the judge interrupted and threw out the sexual assault charges.

Mainly because I could prove that when she claimed it happened I was about 50 miles away from the apartment we were sharing.

Then after another hour of battling against the two police prosecutors and dragging witnesses through the stand the verdict came back as Not Guilty - the judge declaring that for starters there was insignificant evidence to proceed and lay charges in the first place, however hearing the testimony and reading the evidence in front of him that he is declaring that nothing happened on the night in question. That the defendant (me) has been falsely accused, falsely arrested, that the police from the [insert town] Local Area Command failed to investigate the claims thoroughly and therefore there is no option but to dismiss all charges against the defendant.

I tell you that story because it shows people representing themselves can do a good job if they do their research. I spent months leading up to the court case investigating the judge, seeing what type of person/cases he dealt with, then went to legal forums asked questions read through millions of posts. Looked through the laws here in Australia and my right as a civilian.

Then finally I researched the police prosecutor who had not lost a case for 11 months.

So to the OP I say go for it, even if it escalates as long as you do your home work you will be fine.
 
Brendon Meynell said:
Carlos with all due respect that is not true what you have written. Last year I defended myself when my ex wife claimed that I sexually assaulted her and bashed her (this was to improve her stand in the on going child custody case we have). I was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault and one of domestic violence.
Click to expand...
Like most people, you mis-understand me.

I was saying in general.

Congratulations on successfully representing yourself. But not a lot of people can represent themselves like you can, so it's better to have a lawyer than to self-represent. And if you flipped a coin to take a risk by representing yourself, you increase the odds of being seen as how do I say this... "irrational."

When you successfully represent yourself, there's a high likelyhood that you're going to surprise your jurors, prosecutors, your ex, and whoever was in that courtroom. You proved them wrong.

Some judges before a case is heard, strongly warn you, and ask you in a "What the heck?" kind of attitude "are you sure you want to represent yourself?" On top of that, they usually tell you the penalties if you mis-represent yourself, and strongly suggest you consult a lawyer. I said SOME judges. I repeat; "SOME."

This goes double for a case like yours. Once you misrepresent yourself, you're good as jailed. It is never a 100% guarantee that you win each time while representing yourself.

If I was in your shoes, I would not take that double risk.
 
Brendon Meynell said:
Carlos with all due respect that is not true what you have written. Last year I defended myself when my ex wife claimed that I sexually assaulted her and bashed her (this was to improve her stand in the on going child custody case we have). I was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault and one of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't waste your time arguing with Carlos. He has his mind made up and you won't be able to convince him otherwise.

But thanks for the encouragement.

maidos said:
im curious what made you changing your judgment to go for criminal charges?
Click to expand...

Hopefully I will be able to explain tomorow assuming the correct information has been posted to me and gets delivered tomorow morning.
 
Slavik said:
I wouldn't waste your time arguing with Carlos. He has his mind made up and you won't be able to convince him otherwise.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? What's that?

Insult me directly. Do it. Don't tell others that they should not waste their time with me. Insult me directly.

My mind is not made up. I am open. But if you want to continue to tell others lies about me, go ahead. Do it.
 
Slavik said:
I wouldn't waste your time arguing with Carlos. He has his mind made up and you won't be able to convince him otherwise.

But thanks for the encouragement.
Hopefully I will be able to explain tomorow assuming the correct information has been posted to me and gets delivered tomorow morning.
Click to expand...

I do see what you mean. At first he claimed if you represent yourself your going to Jail - I told a very personal story which was hell for me but proved you could do it and he changes his story as to what he was saying.

People have the right to defend/represent themselves if they so wish - if according to Carlos a Judge makes up his mind that you are already guilty for doing that then it is immediate cause for a retrial and for the judge to be excused from hearing your case.

Either way I am not going to get into any sort of arguement here, I wanted to tell you my story of reprenseting myself so if you opted to go down the same path it was some sort of 'light at the end of the tunnel' where you knew if you did your homework you would be alright. The difference between my case and yours is if I stuffed up I was going to jail if you stuff up you may still have the civil option.

I wish you all the best of luck with it.
 
Brendon Meynell said:
At first he claimed if you represent yourself your going to Jail - I told a very personal story which was hell for me but proved you could do it and he changes his story as to what he was saying.
Click to expand...
I never said that if you represented yourself, it would mean that you go to jail. I said that if you represent yourself... You risk having a stigma among those in court, especially the judge.

I tried making this point since this thread got heated. But everyone wants to think my opinion isn't valid, therefore confusion takes rein.

If you represent yourself the jury questions your case. The same exact way that when you put a person on the stand and they flat out lie on the stand, they risk obscuring the defendant's [in other cases the plantiff's] overall truth. It affects the person's overall guilty-ness. On top of that, if the person on the stand lied, and the judge sees the lies, it may affect them.

The jury questions the witness' overall trustworthy, especially when he/she lied once or twice. As is the case with your Ex-Wife, since she lied a lot, the jury throws every assumption about the Husband (you) right out of the door, which in turn makes it easier to vote her guilty. Now, let's think about the flip coin; the defendant's self-representation. Upon making your case, you may fumble and say something that the jury will crucify, and make it easy to turn your entire verdict to "Guilty." So, again, rolling the dice by self-representation is risky.
People have the right to defend/represent themselves if they so wish - if according to Carlos a Judge makes up his mind that you are already guilty for doing that then it is immediate cause for a retrial and for the judge to be excused from hearing your case.
Click to expand...
Once again, I never said that people don't have the right to defend/represent themselves. It's just that you're putting your entire case on the line, especially if you do not have a lot of experience.

It's not always immediate cause for retrial, and recuse. At the best, if the judge listens to your case, you are against an odd of the judge thinking that you're crazy for self-representation. You're battling against the jury's pre-assumption. You're battling against the prosecutor's weight in the case.

Do you see where I am going now?
Brendon Meynell said:
I wanted to tell you my story of reprenseting myself so if you opted to go down the same path it was some sort of 'light at the end of the tunnel' where you knew if you did your homework you would be alright. The difference between my case and yours is if I stuffed up I was going to jail if you stuff up you may still have the civil option.
Click to expand...
This is the best part of your post. You summed up perfectly.
 
So basically we can conclude that representing yourself is perfectly fine IF and only IF you do your homework and come prepared. No one, not even a professional lawyer is going to win a case without some sort of effort and the same goes for someone who has little to no legal experience. I'm not sure about Australia but I would assume that a jury should be picked so that they do not have any presumptions about the defendant and should only consider the evidence that is presented to them and not what they feel personally. Representing yourself is one of the most useful rights for anyone who can not or will not pay for legal fees. I mean honestly if you can do it yourself(which in reality anyone can so long as they dedicate their time to it) and save yourself some very expensive legal fees then why not? I mean unless your rich(or at least financially well-off) and have more pressing matters to tend to then maybe you will have to/want to pay for your legal fees.
 
I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advise...it is an opinion after reading parts of this topic.

Representing yourself is a double edge sword and should be drawn with caution. Remember (in the US anyways) you have the right to remain silent...and anything you say can and WILL be used against you in a court of law. Knowing that and nothing else...one could guess that anything you say in a courtroom can and will also be used against you.

If the other party has an average lawyer...that lawyer will have a field day with the average pro se party from the opposition on the stand. I don't know how it even generally works in the area of the event of the OP though.

However to the best of my knowledge, representing yourself should not be done in criminal matters where you can go to jail, or when you stand to loose your shirt and the closet you hang it in, and lastly if you have never had to speak in court in your life, don't try to represent yourself. Swallow your pride and the temporary loss and pay someone to handle the business.

I know of only one out of many people who have represented themselves in a courtroom in something more serious than a traffic violation and had not screwed themselves in a way (trivial or severe) that could have been avoided just by seeking legal counsel. Even if you insist on representing yourself, sitting down and paying for a half an hour of an attorney's time to get a firm grip on what your are dealing with is a great idea.
 
Generally, self-representation is foolish. Without legal training and experience in court, things can go very wrong quickly.
Just getting a good understanding of the rules of evidence, the consequence of objecting or not objecting to something, and the procedural rules normally takes many years of experience. If you don't know and understand the "rules of the game" it puts one at a distinct disadvantage in court.

That said, people can and do successfully represent themselves. In some cases, like when you cannot afford representation, there is no choice but to represent yourself. In other cases, people can afford to have an attorney, but choose not to. If it works out in their favor, then so much the better for them. But, this is not the preferred choice and most times, people lose when they do so unless the facts and the law are so clear that they would win no matter what (a rare occurrence).

If you have a torn meniscus, do you go online, read a few articles, a wiki or two, and try to perform surgery on yourself? If your car's transmission is busted, do you do the same and try to fix it? If the foundation of your house is cracked, do you read up on it and go to the Home Depot and try to fix it yourself? If you have a minor cut, do you go to the store, buy some antibiotic cream and a band-aid and apply it yourself? In the last case, I bet you do. In the other cases, if you have the aptitude or the skill (and the time), you might, but it is likely cheaper in the long run to hire a professional. Similar considerations apply to pro se (self) representation.
 
My opinion:

I don't know all the relevant facts of the case but from what I have seen so far, you would be lucky to win a case like this. Especially if the defendants were working from a college network. Computer equipment would be vital evidence in this but would probably take months to searched by law enforcement for criminal activity.

I study law and I can safely say I wouldn't be representing myself in a case as technical as this. This is quite a technical case, even for an experienced lawyer and would require a good deal of research and preparation of documentation (relevant laws, required evidence etc).

If you expect to turn up without proper preparation then your case may very well be thrown out instantaneously. Lawyers may be expensive but they're there for a reason and in instances like these they are vital. As far as I know, a case like this is also expensive to go to court and lawyers would be a good idea in expensive cases. If you lose your case you will most likely have to pay all court fees which may well cost more than what you gain from it.

By the way, self-representation is perfectly fine and will (should) never be viewed differently be the judiciary. It is a perfectly fine way of legal action provided you know how to do it effectively.

Good luck in your case and I look forward to hearing the outcome! :)
 
Slavik,

My general comments above were not directed at you and I hope you have been able to get success against the jerks who hacked you. Hope it goes your way!
 
Slavik said:
A major development occured today in our favor. The next few days will be volatile. Stay tuned :)
Click to expand...
Good for you mate, you're an inspiration to us, and I do hope you share your costs with the rest of us, I've had to opt out of a court case due to the sheer cost of these things here in the states.
 
Audentio said:
Good for you mate, you're an inspiration to us, and I do hope you share your costs with the rest of us, I've had to opt out of a court case due to the sheer cost of these things here in the states.
Click to expand...

The costs of handling it myself are, very small, under $500 at the moment.
 
What country are you in? What did you file to begin the case? As in small claims or something.
 
Slavik is a teaser, I get excited then it dies down, then excited again, then it dies down again. :'(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom