Public sentiment is predominantly negative towards the legal system, reflecting widespread concerns about corruption among lawyers and police, a lack of trust in the judicial process, and the potential erosion of attorney-client privilege. Many commenters express frustration with the inefficiencies of the legal system, highlighting a significant demand for reform along with confusion over implications for access to justice, especially for the underprivileged.

Supreme Court

Lawyers

Police

(1) Don't fail to appear -- that'd be a dumb way to get a warrant and turn this petty offense into a situation where you could spend a weekend in jail;

(2) Don't dress like a slob;

(3) Do be polite;

(4) Apply for a public defender if you're eligible (this depends on the seriousness of the offense, and I wouldn't know from here if it's a possibility), or retain a lawyer if you have the resources to do that on your own;

(5) We can't really give you substantive legal advice here (see sidebar).

Good luck.

[deleted]

Dude.  Call the clerk of the courts, ask for crim/traffic division, and they'll let you know if its a crim issue, or a civil infraction.  

But, if you have to go to court, here is what to expect.

Upon your arrival, you will immediately notice that there is a milling about of "people" out front of the courthouse.  These "people", my friend, are not people but Courthouse Zombies.  The are the living undead of the juvenile, domestic, and misdemeanor court's trial docket.  Sometimes they stand motionless, eyes wide, and hands trembling, awaiting the arrival of their errant attorney; others casually smoke cigarette after cigarette, medicating themselves with sweet, sweet nicotine in an attempt to deaden their nerves for their impending doom; and the last sort are often the employees and minions of the clerks offices themselves, on a break or otherwise absent from their duties, they curse their very existence and those who dare ask them for assistance; they are not to be trifled with.

Upon entering the courthouse, you and your fellow man are herded much like animals into a line where you are immediately suspected of the most heinous crimes, and for your untrustworthiness you shall be searched involuntarily and shall be forced to yield to the repeated bombardment of various radiations upon your person and your possessions.   A sentinel, armed with the various accoutrements of his torturous arts, shall waive a magical wand over your form, and woe unto those whom effect a hellish tone from the demon's stick... for they shall certainly be subjected to further defilings of their person and their garb.

Should you be lucky enough to make it past the watchmen, the ways and passages of the courthouse shall not suffer you lightly, and the various wanderings and meanderings of more courthouse zombies will befuddle your senses as you seek your destination, all the while, the clock proceeding uncaringly towards your fateful time, and ultimately your destiny.  Should you find yourself lost, you may attempt to implore the fast moving and fairly clad Lawyers who travel the various biways of the courthouse... but do so at your risk.  Many lawyer's souls have been taken by the madness, and have devolved emotionally into something subhuman, yet still possessing the capabilities of their brethren lawyers, allowing them to effect their secret arts and incantations without the moral trappings of ethics or care; these creatures are nothing less than living, breathing weapons, to be borne by those offering the most gold; beware them.   Yet some Lawyers have held back the madness, and have maintained that which makes them human all despite their daring dealings with the nefarious and the corrupt.  They, and only they may be able to help you. 

Upon finding your courtroom, the smell of fear and desperation will strike your senses unheeded.  Quickly find a place to take your seat, as additional sentinels who are more highly armed, and less inclined to pity you, shall be keeping careful and critical eyes over you and the other zombies.  Often Lawyers will gather beyond the bar separating those who practice the mysterious arts of "law", and the commonfolk.  They are inexplicably immune to the fear and desperation that succumbs all others perhaps due to their experience and knowledge of the dark arts of procedural practice and legal precedence.  

Ah-hem....  The judge/magistrate will walk in, your name will be called.... If it's civil, you will be offered the choice of having a hearing or paying a fine.   If it's criminal, you will be offered legal assistance should you not be able to afford it, and or asked how you'd like to plea.

Oh, and yeah, dress nicely.  That's about it.

rainemaker

Former criminal defense trial lawyer here.  I can't give legal advice, but you **must** appear at the time and place you were summoned.

This is most likely a fine for a toll road or something, right?  So it probably isn't criminal, just assessing a fine.  I don't know for sure, so check to see if this is a violation or a crime, like a misdemeanor or felony.  If it is a crime, you can ask for a public defender at the arraignment.  You will have to meet income guidelines, though.  But if there is a criminal charge, be sure to get a lawyer.  Do not handle it yourself.

If this is just a violation, you should be able to schedule a trial or hearing to contest it.  You'll also have the option of pleading guilty/no contest and paying a fine.

But be sure to appear.  An FTA (failure to appear) almost always means a bench warrant to arrest you and a misdemeanor FTA *criminal* charge.  You do not want that.

Uncle_Erik

Helpful, persuasive addendum... don't think because you're in NYC that your little NJ summons isn't going to travel across the Hudson to find you.

Show up as required. You do not want to be arrested on a Friday on an outstanding warrant, and locked up until the following Monday.

if you sign an affidavit/declaration knowing its contents to be false, you have committed perjury. if a lawyer knowingly submits false evidence to a court or discovers after the fact that evidence they have submitted is false and they do not correct it, then the lawyer can face disciplinary proceedings, with punishments ranging from reprimand to mandatory remedial legal education to suspension to permanent disbarment.

anotveryseriousman

There’s no way to prove the lawyers knew something like that. I’m 99% sure that the lawyers arranged for someone to fill in the form on the website to make it look like a gay couple wanted a wedding website. Maybe all 9 justices are 99% sure as well. It seems like way too big of a coincidence that someone falsified this form and it happened to achieve exactly what the litigants needed, but somehow they weren’t involved. 

However, none of that matters at all. My guess is that neither the plaintiffs, nor the lawyers ever certified that they had direct knowledge that there existed some couple who wanted a wedding website. They probably certified that the website received an inquiry, which is true. They probably had no reason to tell the court that they knew the couple was real, so they had no occasion to lie about it. I’m pretty sure the lawyers have already released a statement saying they never followed up on the inquiry to see if it was authentic. And they would have no obligation to do that anyway

g11235p

Actually doesn’t matter in this case because the actual suit filed was peremptory and the 10th circuit agreed that she could reasonably expect Colorado to find her in violation. Makes a cute news story now but was ignored at the appeals level.

GolfArgh

I am fairly certain that in this case the plaintiffs made quite clear in their brief that there was no gay couple, yet. Their argument (which I disagree with for the record) was that they want to get into wedding websites, but doing so would force them to violate alleged closely-held religious beliefs. They made no secret that this wasn’t an actual case yet, but that it was peremptory for the future.

LordGingy

Please provide more background: whom or what was falsified?

arcxjo

The email in 303 had no impact. A district court heard it and said it was unclear if the couple (based on names) was gay. At all other stages, including in the Supreme Court, standing was based on pre-enforcement challenges - the Supreme Court never heard about the email.

goodcleanchristianfu

The question before the court is whether, in cases arising under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms on some defendants who have committed three violent felonies or serious drug offenses on separate occasions, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court holds that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

HeathrJarrod

6-3, but not like normal. Gorsuch wrote for the Court, in which Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett joined. Roberts wrote a concurrence. Thomas wrote a concurrence. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in which Alito joined and in which Jackson joined in part. Jackson wrote a dissent.

Luck1492

I feel like the majority's constant reiteration (excerpts below) of the importance of a **unanimous** jury is written with an eye on the Trump NY case, wherein the jury was instructed that it did not need to be unanimous as to the "unlawful means" of the offense. (Jury instruction: "Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.") Unanimity was not an issue in Erlinger, yet the opinion restates the unanimity requirement repeatedly. The dissent doesn't mention unanimity so making the point wasn't necessary to the majority. I predict we will see Erlinger front and center in trump's challenge to his convictions. 

&gt;



&gt;



&gt;



&gt;

Greelys

Will this affect Trump’s conviction where the jury was instructed it need not be unanimous as to the precise “means”?

[https://www.scotusblog.com/](https://www.scotusblog.com/)

Blue4thewin

First, special thank you for asking a perfect sub-appropriate question!

In addition to the superb SCOTUS Blog mentioned above, there are a few good podcasts if you have trouble falling asleep. I personally really like More Perfect by Radiolab. There’s also Strict Scrutiny and 5-4, and a ton more, including a few more mentioned here: https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/c.php?g=1241833&amp;p=9087917.

NotYourLawyer2001

There were some good resources posted by others. However, in my opinion, it's impossible to write about the law "in a neutral way" if you are at all trained in it. Everybody has an opinion as to how the law should work. It's not like the sciences, where there are correct answers and incorrect answers.

LucidLeviathan



#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.

Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.

***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Maybe it's good they've gone so far. Reforming the court is now a no-brainer. Don't call it stacking, call it unstacking the court.

Comprehensive-Tea121

I hope someone figures out a way to reform SCOTUS, so far they seem untouchable. They appear to go further and further off the rails with no consequences.

Targut

The problem is this court will not listen to any calls for reform. There will be no switch in time. Thomas made it clear 20 years ago in response to the "evolving" article. They will have to be forced.

TopRevenue2

The Republicans occupying the court are politicians.  They don’t care what reforms are enacted, they care about political outcomes.  

So hit them where it hurts.

Vote for Democrats, Vote for America.

NewMidwest

My wife works for the feds and can’t accept any thing over $10 and must disclose anything that could compromise her role.

Thomas says nah and gets 2 million in gifts

rustyshackleford7879

People need to get in the streets and shut down the economy until the traitors Trump installed to excuse his crimes are removed.  This needs to happen *before* the election because they are 100% going to declare Trump the winner after the electoral college ignores the popular vote.

Listen to Strict Scrutiny term wrap up today

Own-Opinion-2494

Does anyone honestly believe that a constitutional amendment is possible? Because that's what it's going to require to undue the damage this court has unleashed. 

I have no hope left.

Parkyguy

Reform... You mean a constitutional amendment? Seems like I read there's a process for that somewhere.

momowagon

Basic reform? I think it needs some radical reform. 

They’ve granted the president monarch-like powers, legalized bribery, tossed out case law used for regulators with the Chevron case, and criminalized homelessness. And that’s just recently. 

None of the above even addresses the actions of the judges. 

We have a Justice openly taking bribes for his vote on important cases, another that seems to think the previous election was stolen, and a Chief Justice that won’t hold any of the justices to some ethical standard.

SmoothConfection1115

One suggestion as long as we have 2 party system 
There should be a requirement on equal amount of judges to represent both sides.  Also 15 yrs term limits.

Strict-Square456

On the positive side, the immunity ruling may have cost trump the election. Now trump is allowed to do illegal things, like most of project 2025, many fear what he will do. More are motivated to vote who otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

TopLingonberry4346

triggered need for reform is a bit mild form of it. It's like saying terminal cancer is a setback in your health.

ShoppingDismal3864

Not at all. The smarter move is always to gain control of the law from within and then modify it to do what you want it do to do. In this manner you not only get to claim legitimacy, you also have the organs of the state constituted by law to defend you and to forcefully enact what you want. That’s not in any way an abandonment of the rule of law, a CORRUPTION of the law certainly but it’s just what the right wing always does historically when it isn’t forcibly interrupted in those plans. The SCOTUS has the protection of the agents of the state, many of whom are Capitol police that probably-going-to-be-again President Trump would happily allow to be sacrificed to his insurrectionist mob if it kept him in power. It’s literally always the smarter move to take over the system from within and then functionally shut out the opposition from ever practically being able to do anything about it, especially if there’s an (implausible or practically impossible) method for them to “win” if they just work hard enough that you get to dangle in front of them while you enjoy the fruits of your real power in the now. I’m so amazed by these posts, I’m practically a leftist and I’ve understood this about Republicans for almost three decades now, where has everyone been?

silverum

What rule of law did they abandon ?

Please tell me as if I'm a 5 year old

Fibocrypto

There is no recourse to electing dems and enlarging the Court. Now would be nice. Jan 21,2025 would be acceptable. But it is the only option open to us for many years to come.

wereallbozos

I'd love to hear some constitutional amendments people would propose to fix whatever problem they think is happening. Let's hear it.

turlockmike

Who could have foreseen that a conservative-dominated SCOTUS would oversee the demise of and expose the hypocrisy of originalism?

FrankieRoo

Dazzling_Pink9751

What SCOTUS wants:

Google the Iran Islamic Revolution of 1979 if you would like a preview of Project 2025, the Evangelical Christian version.

gulfpapa99

It is not just the SC. It is the entire Republican Party.

mdcbldr

This. OMFG this. We need to be looking at the current constitutional crisis not as a track to negotiate but as conclusive proof that the judicial system is broken (deliberately, by fucking assholes) and it needs to be fixed. The SCOTUS just passed a ruling that controverts the constitution. That's all we should really need.

Ladderjack

The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case regarding the summons issued by investigative agencies to lawyers for their legal opinions. The court will explore whether legal professionals can be summoned for advice provided to their clients, addressing concerns about the implications for attorney-client privilege.

Supreme Court Case on Lawyers' Legal Advice Summons

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want