Oral Argument for Appeal

[JT]

Socrates, happy holidays to you and yours!! My X filed an appeal last year(05) on the final order. She was unable to pay for the transcripts of the final hearing for the appeal court to review. Her Brief was 67 pages long, however it appeared to have no legal basis for appeal, and that was what I said in my answer brief. However, it appears that the Appeals court has requested Oral argument for February. Is this normal in FL, or should I be overly concerned? I do not have a lawyer, nor does she. My guess is that they want to ask her directly what she is appealing on a legal basis? Her Brief was a lot of false accusations, heresay, etc. etc. Thanks for your help, JT

[socrateaser]

>Socrates, happy holidays to you and yours!! My X filed an
>appeal last year(05) on the final order. She was unable to pay
>for the transcripts of the final hearing for the appeal court
>to review. Her Brief was 67 pages long, however it appeared to
>have no legal basis for appeal, and that was what I said in my
>answer brief. However, it appears that the Appeals court has
>requested Oral argument for February. Is this normal in FL, or
>should I be overly concerned? I do not have a lawyer, nor does
>she. My guess is that they want to ask her directly what she
>is appealing on a legal basis? Her Brief was a lot of false
>accusations, heresay, etc. etc. Thanks for your help, JT

This is extraordinary. Individuals have no Constitutional right to an appeal, so almost every appellate court will refuse oral arguments presented by pro se litigants, because they litigants won't understand either the argument process or the law.

On appeal, only the trial court record is considered. Any new allegation raised on appeal will be ignored, except for subject matter jurisdiction, which is a non-issue for you. The only issues is whether or not the trial court:

1. misinterpreted the law and/or facts;
2. misapplied the law and/or facts;
3. abused its reasonable discretion.

Anything in your opponent's brief that does not directly address one or more of the above is objectionable, and I would respond to such a brief by pointing out every error so that the appellate court will know that you know that these issues should not be addressed.

In appellate court, you will start to talk, and in about 10 seconds one of the justices will interrupt you and ask questions. From then on, you will just be answering questions.

So, if you want to highlight your single most critically important issue, that needs to be the first thing that comes out of your mouth -- otherwise, you'll never have another opportunity.

[JT]

Thanks Soc, now you scared me. She had been denied a request for Oral argument twice before. If the Appeals Court does not have the transcript from the 2 days of trial, how can they even hear arguments? My answer brief basically stated that she was only trying to re-argue the final hearing. This case took 3 judges and 2 years to complete due to her dismissing 2 lawyers, and then causing 2 judges to recuse themselves. Can I argue that the court cannot make a ruling without reviewing the final transcript? It appears that the courts bend over backwards for certain Pro Se litigants in FL. I have spent over 120k in lawyer fees and have no more credit cards to charge for a lawyer. If she has no grounds for the above 1,2, and 3. Can I just state that to the court during Oral argument? Thanks Soc, JT  

[socrateaser]

>Thanks Soc, now you scared me. She had been denied a request
>for Oral argument twice before. If the Appeals Court does not
>have the transcript from the 2 days of trial, how can they
>even hear arguments? My answer brief basically stated that she
>was only trying to re-argue the final hearing. This case took
>3 judges and 2 years to complete due to her dismissing 2
>lawyers, and then causing 2 judges to recuse themselves. Can I
>argue that the court cannot make a ruling without reviewing
>the final transcript? It appears that the courts bend over
>backwards for certain Pro Se litigants in FL. I have spent
>over 120k in lawyer fees and have no more credit cards to
>charge for a lawyer. If she has no grounds for the above 1,2,
>and 3. Can I just state that to the court during Oral
>argument? Thanks Soc, JT  

If that's your position, I would file a motion to dismiss on grounds that the appeal is entirely frivolous and void of any question of fact or law appearing in the trial court record. You could even ask for an "appropriate" sanction against the other party which the court believes will discourage future abuse of the legal system.

If you go to the hearing, you can certainly immediately state the same thing, and then add that if the court has questions that you will be happy to try to answer them.

I really don't know what's up. The whole things seems really weird.