The Courts are biased. The legal system as it is structured does not like pro se (self-represented) litigants. DIY – do-it-yourself – works well around the home. It can come with devastating consequences around the courtroom.
It’s an interesting phenomenon. You can’t win without a lawyer. You can’t hire a lawyer without money. A lawyer won’t even look at you if you don’t have money. A lawyer’s objective and motivation is to create billable hours. The entire economy of the legal system is built on the foundation of billable hours.
Rainmaker. If you have never seen that film with a young Matt Damon, Danny Devito, and Roy Scheider…watch it. It gives great insight into how our legal culture works. Marriage Story. If you have never seen THAT film with Laura Dern…watch it. It gives greater insight into how our legal culture as to how family law works…and how it destroys you.
The fact is that lawyers do not care about truth. They don’t care if you are right or wrong…legally or morally. They don’t care if you win or lose. It’s inconsequential to them. They don’t care how long it takes. They only care if you can pay your bill. In fact, what they REALLY want is for your case to drag on. The longer it goes on, the more money they make. A quick resolution is not profitable for them. They want you to be upset, hurt, angry…they want you to remain contentious and confrontational. That keeps it all going. And going. And churning billable hours. Such is the economy of the legal profession.
The mediation aspect can similarly be just as frustrating. Mediators are billing the very same way, with the very same structure. They earn money based on billable hours. So there is no motivation for them to have you come to some sort of agreement early in the process. The longer it takes for you to agree, the more money they make.
And even if you come to some sort of agreement, with some memorandum of understanding, your lawyer, their lawyer, BOTH lawyers, are likely to reject that MOU because that brings it all to a screeching halt.
A billing structure of flat fees would eliminate the utter predatory overbilling that occurs, but then, the members of the Bar would never stand for that.
The option of self-representation is scary…especially if you are forced to go up against an attorney who will try every intimidation tactic in the book…stepping on the line of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct but not going over it. If you appear before the court, the judge will discourage you and try to insist that you “really need” an attorney. And while they won’t say it, they will, sometimes, make you pay the price if you don’t. I mean, there are judges who are ethical and more than fair when it comes to self-represented litigants. But they are very few and far between.
And while it mainly applies to criminal matters, in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the United States Supreme Court recognized that a defendant’s decision to proceed pro se “may be fraught with risk but that the existence of such risk provides no basis to deny a defendant the right to make that choice.” In State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 585-86 (2004), then-Justice James R. Zazzali expressed the view that Faretta, ultimately, is about respecting a defendant’s capacity to make choices for himself, whether to his benefit or to his detriment.
There’s an expression that “the worst attorney is the person who represents themselves.” But the reality is that nobody knows the case better than the litigant themselves. And certainly nobody cares more than the litigant themselves.
The point is…every person has a right to represent themselves.
That hasn’t prevented litigants from being targeted for their perceived “betrayal” of the brother and sisterhood of attorneys, and attempting to navigate the justice system themselves. Ya know, sometimes it’s not because you are being defiant, or don’t want to have someone with expertise steering the ship. Most of the time you simply don’t have the money. You can’t drive a Rolls Royce if you can only afford to ride a Schwinn. And in most cases, litigants are paying enough to buy the Rolls Royce regardless that they only have that budget for a Schwinn.
RUPERT BAPTISTE vs. FATOU JALLOW
Rupert Baptiste…was a typical victim as a pro se litigant. His case is really a sad one…not that all of the others are not…but he is just a simple man, a gentle human being, whose only fault is that he was naïve in his thinking – thinking that the court system yields justice. He learned otherwise.
First, his now ex-wife, Fatou Jallow, committed a marital tort, fraud, by never revealing that she was still married when she married Baptiste. Baptiste found out after the divorce that the marriage was a complete scam, that Jallow was still married in her native country, and that she was simply in the marriage to obtain some kind of financial reward. And she did.
Jallow received a nice-sized settlement for a relatively short-term marriage and got a piece of Baptiste’s pension. Not a small amount of money.
When evidence later revealed the truth about Jallow’s still existing marriage to her original husband, Baptiste filed the tort claim in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under New Jersey and United States tort law, alleging that Jallow committed a fraud prior to marrying Baptiste, and then, subsequently, again in divorce negotiations and proceedings, and was guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(1)(2)(3).
Almost three years later, the United States District Court dismissed the case, without prejudice, indicating that the matter was a state-court domestic relations matter, and stated that Baptiste should first seek adjudication in that jurisdiction. And added that Baptiste could come back to that Court should the merits warrant it.
Baptiste filed the same action in the Superior Court of New Jersey…and won. Jallow even tried to negotiate with him up until the date of a proof hearing.
Just before the proof hearing, Baptiste received a letter from an attorney, Bernice, M. Jalloh, Esq., demanding that he withdraw his action. She did not file a motion for reconsideration, which was out of time. She did not file an appeal, which was out of time. She demanded that Baptiste just reconsider his action and drop it.
And so, at that proof hearing, Baptiste was victimized a second time, by Hon. Daniel R. Lindemann, J.S.C. Again, Judge Lindemann had already entered a default judgment and ordered the proof hearing. Judge Lindemann was provided with all of the proofs of service, signed by Jallow herself, and proofs that the ex-wife was still working to negotiate with Baptiste.
But then the inexplicable happened…inexplicable if you are not familiar with the way the system works. Jalloh the attorney appeared in court, representing the ex-wife, and Judge Lindemann, against all of the rules of law, reversed course, and vacated the default judgment.
And to add insult to injury, Judge Lindemann, rather than recognizing that he, himself, had already adjudicated the matter on the merits based on the evidence presented, admonished Baptiste and sanctioned him with unreasonable fees for the audacity to bring the matter before it…again…after already having entered the default in Baptiste’s favor.
Baptiste continued to pursue the matter and went to the Appellate Division where he was quickly denied. He then sought certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court. There, too, he was turned down. Baptiste then filed to reinstate the case with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He was turned down.
The question that nobody wants to address is: How does this happen? How did a judge rule in favor of a litigant, only to reverse the decision – without any proper procedures adhered to – and then sanction the person so severely, the one who was to be awarded the damages at a proof hearing?
An attorney showed up and magically the entire situation is turned around…at the ruination of the pro se litigant. And no court is willing to deal with the injustice.
MELISSA A. GALVIN vs. MARK Z. GALVIN
Melissa Galvin…was victimized as a pro se litigant, not once, not twice, but three times in trying to simply get her ex-husband to comply with his court-ordered obligations. Melissa had to go back to court in 2021 when Mark unilaterally decided to stop paying support because he got angry.
Mark, who constantly claims to have no money, hired the law firm of Goldstein Law, LLC, Lisa Stierman Harvey, Esq. as the representing attorney.
Regardless that there was a court order that had been violated by Mark, in 2021, the Hon. John A. Jorgensen, J.S.C. ordered the case to mediation with Hon. Bradley J. Ferencz, J.S.C. Ret.
The mediation was conducted via Zoom. The issues at hand were support of the two children, and the college expenses of both children – one of whom was already in college, and the other soon to graduate high school.
Judge Ferencz, a very well-respected judge and arbiter, was a bit flippant throughout the process. And regardless that Mark had violated court orders and unilaterally stopped making support payments necessitating the action, Ferencz pushed for Melissa to agree to reduce Mark’s spousal support obligations by five (5) years,.
Melissa agreed to reduce the alimony from 16 years to 11 years, a total of $90,000 that went toward Mark’s side of the ledger, with the last five (5) being non-modifiable in exchange for having no obligation for the five years remaining of undergraduate studies (one for the older daughter and four for the younger daughter). The logic – at least from Mark’s attorney’s POV – was that Mark had given both daughters cars as birthday gifts, was paying for insurance and upkeep on those vehicles, and that was a part of HIS contribution.
He also agreed to continue to put $100 a week away for the younger daughter as a weekly allowance, something he had done for the older daughter, once the older daughter was done with college. So keep in mind that there was a one year gap from the older daughter finishing, and the younger daughter starting, and that point was raised. Nevertheless, Ms. Harvey indicated an account specifically designated for the younger daughter would be set up and started after the older daughter finished.
Although not happy, Melissa agreed to the terms and Ferencz instructed Harvey to write up the consent order. Ms. Harvey wrote up the order, had it signed by Mark, and then emailed it to Melissa. Melissa signed it, and sent it back.
Rather than filing the consent order with the Court, Mark Goldstein, Esq., in taking over for Ms. Harvey, through email, attempted to strong arm Melissa into modifying the Agreement for the benefit of his client. Mr. Goldstein didn’t participate in the mediation but Ms. Harvey did. The terms were explicit in the fact that the spousal support would be non-modifiable for ANY reason, specifically, as a concession on Melissa’s part for absolving Mark of responsibility for five more years of college contributions for the two children. It was a suggestion made by Judge Ferencz in order to amicably settle the matter. Ms. Harvey and Mark fully understood that.
There was an agreement/consent order signed by Mark, agreed to by Ms. Harvey representing Mark, drafted by her, and then sent on to Melissa for signature. Mr. Goldstein stepped in after the parties agreed to, and signed, the agreement. Mr. Goldstein didn’t approve of what his associate agreed to with the client, and attempted to back out of an agreement that was derived from a successful mediation.
Mr. Goldstein also presented a complete falsehood, as the modification of alimony based on income (the income amount Mr. Goldstein presents is incorrect) was denied by Judge Jorgensen and that was never a part of the mediation. Further Melissa specifically asked Judge Ferencz if the language, the way he dictated it, would suffice. He answered, “It is non-modifiable. You could live in a commune with five men and it wouldn’t change anything.” Mark, of course, presented to Mr. Goldstein that he was unaware of this, but the concessions were made very, very clear.
Mr. Goldstein flat out lied by saying that there was never a signed agreement. However, his firm, his paralegal, forwarded a document prepared by his associate and signed by his client to Melissa. The proof was in the email, and yet, Mr. Goldstein, an officer of the court, with an obligation to be truthful, lied to the court.
Melissa requested a Harrington hearing. Judge Jorgensen asked Mr. Goldstein if he was prepared to submit to that inquiry. Mr. Goldstein relented and that consent order was signed by Judge Jorgensen.
Fast forward to 2024, and Mark was at it again.
Mark did NOT set up the account designated for the younger daughter and did not deposit $100 per week into said account. Rather, he waited until the days before the younger daughter left for college in August of 2023 to set up an account. Lo and behold, by Thanksgiving he was giving no monies into that account and by April of 2024 he was $880 behind.
The younger daughter had gotten into a motor vehicle accident with her car in July 0f 2023. Mark had the car towed to his home and put on his driveway where it remains today under a tarp rotting. He never reported it to the insurance company and never had it repaired. The daughter hasn’t had a car since.
Mark had previously gotten angry at the older daughter and repossessed her cell phone and her birthday gift, her car.
Melissa reached out to Mark via email in an attempt to amicably resolve the issues…to no avail. As such, Melissa filed a motion asking for the Court to find Mark in violation of the consent order regarding the $100 per week payments, and to return the daughters’ motor vehicles.
Melissa asked for two things – proof of monies Mark was obligated to pay to younger daughter in a “designated account just for her,” and a return of the girls’ vehicles that were birthday gifts.
At first, Mark did not get representation and didn’t even respond, completely ignoring everything. The Court, Hon. Aravind Aithal J.S.C., granted Melissa’s request for relief. Melissa served Mark with the Order and gave him ten (10) days to comply. He didn’t. Melissa filed a motion for sanctions against Mark. That motion, too, was granted. Melissa served Mark with that Order as well.
Guess what? Mark hired Michelle Roman, Esq., a municipal court judge in Perth Amboy, and filed a 146-page pleading filled with deceptive statements and outright lies for no other purpose than to attempt to create a smoke screen to disguise Mark’s defiance. In fact, he provided a CIS that, by his own submission, gives the proof that what Melissa was saying was true.
Ms. Roman filed a motion for reconsideration that was weeks “out of time.” Her only recourse was to file a formal appeal with the Appellate Division. However, Judge Aithal granted the reconsideration and vacated the two orders already signed.
Mark, AFTER the filing of the motion for reconsideration by Ms. Roman, quickly deposited a large sum of money into the daughter’s account and then claimed he was up to date. And because Mark had never transferred the motor vehicles into the daughters’ names (what parent does?) Judge Aithal wouldn’t rule them as gifts and said that he couldn’t “order” Mark to deliver the cars. So they rot on his driveway.
The question that nobody wants to address is: How does a judge rule in favor of a litigant, only to reverse the decision – without any proper procedures adhered to and then not even punish the person for violating multiple orders? An attorney showed up and magically the entire situation is turned around…at the ruination of the pro se litigant…and her daughters.
ANN MINZNER-CONLEY vs. DANIEL CONLEY
Daniel Conley was operating pro se. That, of course, wasn’t working in trying to deal with his ex-wife’s attorney. So he enlisted the help of family friend, Charles Brumlik, Ph.d., J.D., an exceptionally knowledgeable person but not familiar with litigation work. Brumlik is treated just as coldly and harshly as any non-attorney.
Dan and his wife were divorced in April of 2022. But there were some issues left. Ann had to return to the marital home to retrieve belongings and she was delinquent in spousal support payments.
Ann had sixty (60) days from the time of the execution of the marital settlement agreement to get the items from the home. There were some issues related to the home visit. And on January 20, 2023, the Parties entered into a written agreement, not a part of any record with the Court, whereby the Parties agreed that Ann “has 9 hours remaining to enter Dan Conley’s home at 32 Cedar Brook Drive in Franklin, NJ to obtain her belongings as per the parties’ marital settlement agreement.” Although there were other conditions, the hours pertaining to the Plaintiff’s return to the home to retrieve her belongings was the main focus of the handwritten agreement.
On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff ANN MINZNER-CONLEY went to the marital home, accompanied by two (2) Franklin Police Officers. From 10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. the Plaintiff ANN MINZNER-CONLEY retrieved the items she wanted.
Sometime soon after, Ann unilaterally made the decision to not pay the spousal support and was in arrears for over $30,000. Her reasoning was that there were still items that she wanted in the marital home.
Dan sent three correspondences over a period of six weeks asking for the list of items that Ann desired, as well as a list of proposed dates and times for the retrieval to take place.
Instead, Plaintiff Ann’s counsel, Bilal Hill, Esq., refused to cooperate in good faith and, instead, chose not to provide any list, nor any dates.
On October 17, 2023, Dan filed a Motion to Enforce Litigant’s Rights.
On November 17, 2023, a hearing was held before Hon. Robert G. Wilson, J.S.C.
Dan asked that the Trial Court compel Ann to pay her support obligations as dictated by the Marital Settlement Agreement immediately; to compel Ann to provide a specific list of items that she is looking for to retrieve from the marital home, and set a date and time limit for this to occur.
Dan asked Brumlik to assist him as he struggled with operating pro se, especially for a hearing. Brumlik appeared before Judge Wilson and stated that he was, in fact, a friend of the family and only “assisting” on a pro bono basis, that he was not the attorney of record.
Judge Wilson appeared cordial and helpful, and instructed the attorneys to have a conversation with the hopes that an agreement could be reached. After much discussion, there were terms that were agreed to by the Parties and Hill read a Consent Order into the record.
Multiple communications were sent to Hill by Brumlik. Hill refused to respond, refused to communicate, to abide by the terms that he, himself, read into the record for the Court and denied that there was even an agreement.
As there seemed to be no way to get him to respond, and as the days passed, and with no way to comply with the agreement he read into the record, a motion to enforce was filed.
The history of Hill refusing to communicate with Brumlik was outlined, and documented. However, when the Parties appeared before the Court the next time on January 19, 2024, the Court deemed the situation to be the opposite, that Dan was the uncooperative party and Brumlik didn’t know what he was doing and was guilty of wasting the Court’s time.
The transcript of the verbal attack on both, especially Brumlik, was unacceptable in any court of law, especially against at attorney. During the course of Brumlik’s statement, Judge Wilson made several remarks that were disrespectful, and disparaging.
Judge Wilson made a capricious and arbitrary decision to “afford Mr. Hill, really whatever remedy you want.” It was not only inappropriate, it was without any basis in law.
The evidence presented to the Court clearly indicated that Ann and her counsel, Hill, were the ones who were not cooperative and non-compliant with the consent order read into the November 17, 2023 record. The evidence presented to the Court clearly showed the multiple attempts by Dan’s counsel, Brumlik, to communicate with Hill to effectuate the final home visit to no avail.
The Court’s anger directed at Dan and his counsel, Brumlik, continued through the end of the proceeding in a long-winded soliloquy that took up over five (5) pages of the transcripts…a very interesting read.
Judge Wilson spanked Brumlik verbally and hit Conley with $5,885 in sanctions. Why? Because Brumlik is NOT a trial attorney and is not a part of the fraternity. So Conley was viewed as a pro se litigant and Brumlik was tattooed for helping him.
Judge Wilson denied all relief requested by Defendant DANIEL CONLEY and granted Plaintiff ANN MINZNER-CONLEY an award of $5,885 in sanctions.
Why did Judge Wilson, regardless of the evidence, take the opposite stance from the first hearing and back up an un-cooperative and defiant Hill at the second hearing? Why was Hill, with all of the violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, treated with respect, while Dan and Brumlik were emasculated? Because Brumlik it not a part of “the club?”
The system is broken. Nobody is willing to fix it. Nobody is willing to even listen. I am connected to over 11,000 people on LinkedIn. Over 75% of those people are attorneys all across the country. Multiple times I put out the question: When you are working on a case, how much does truth matter? Not a single person responded. And guess what? They won’t. Jeralyn Lawrence who loves having such a presence on social media and making herself the spotlight of all she can…SHE won’t even answer that question. Because it really doesn’t matter.