On a number of occasions over the years, I've had the need to go before a judge at one of the various courts, usually to seek relief from some impending action. Not infrequently, I was down in my chips. On a few occasions I was basically broke. On these occasions I might appear as a plaintive "pro se." I would always file the papers necessary to appear "in forma pauperis" ["in the manner of a pauper"], so that I would have the right to petition without assuming any of the usual costs associated with filing a lawsuit. However, as often as not, the judge would turn me down. This was so, even when I was living in a car, the car was broken down, and I had no money to fix it.
Oddly, the usual reason for my appearing at court was to file an injunction against the I.R.S., which is a unit of government that doesn't recognize the term "impoverished" nor the concept which the term suggests. As an impoverished person, I naturally was not appearing at court in a respectable three-piece suit. Judges tend to suppose this is an intentional affront and act accordingly.
Now, judges, who receive regular checks, compliments of the "tax payers," don't have a lot of sympathy for poor people. Judges have been around the block a few times. They tend to think that poor people are "tax cheats." Tax cheaters are a threat to the revenue accounts of government from which, presumably, regular checks are issued to judges, politicians, and bureaucrats. Hence, judges tend to view any plea filed by ANYONE against the I.R.S., as inherently "frivolous and without merit." However, if the judge is given to humorous comments, he may tolerate such pleadings as an opportunity to unleash his wit.
Other judges may be famously dyspeptic and ascerbic in court. Lawyers plying their craft at courthouses relish the arrival of a poor person, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, before such a judge, because they know that he will treat them with utter disdain, demonstrating the difficult and brusque personalty these lawyers have come to cherish (when applied to others).
Not only does the impoverished individual face certain difficulty with the judge in tax cases, but he or she must endure the "railbird," regular lawyers giggling, as the judge makes swift "hash" of the pleading. The Justice Department provides an attorney in court cases involving the I.R.S. As a general rule, he/she announces to the court that he/she is present in behalf of the defendant (I.R.S.) and believes that the plea by plaintive will be dismissed in about five minutes, or words to this effect.
This assessment almost always proves to be accurate, as the judge stirs a paper or two, allows the impoverished one to say a few words, and then dismisses the case as "frivolous and without merit." The lawyer from the Justice Department has a content, almost smug, expression as he/she prepares to exit. The abruptly dismissed plaintiff, perhaps lingering at the lectern in a daze, is then almost "knocked over" by the attorney for the next case, who is typically "weighty" from too much money chasing too much food. [The impoverished tend to be lean.] Bar lawyers don't usually have much respect for pro se people. They won't admit it, though. Yet, they view such people as being a potential threat to the "money spigot at law," which keeps them fat and respected members of society.
These observations led me to conclude that "if you can't beat them, join them." I read law. In time I, too, was a proud member of the Society of Ambulance Chasers.
P.S. I am now quite phat.
