This kind of selfhelp legal system should be a regular part of the court system. It should be a state mandated service available and only to legal citizens of Utah. In past experience the justice system of Utah discourages citizens from using their own knowledge of cases and situations and evidence and wanting to have a clear and defined defense. There are too many "Rules of Law" and "Rules of Order" that prevent justice from working. Lawyers and Judges are too often buddies and don't want to make waves or offend any friendships among themselves so they ignore and offend clients instead. Then going to a city, county or state court house for information they are told we cannot tell you anything. Then many times the courts attach fees and expenses to non lawyers to discourage a self defense, in effect making a defense very difficult. Citizens should not be bound by the same laws and rules of evicence that law enforcement, prosecutors, and lawyers are required to follow. Evidence is evidence regardless of how it is accuired by citizens and should be allowed in courts. "Sting" evidence should also never be allowed, it preys on human emotions and greed.

Bob: you think that different laws should apply to law enforcement and lawyers as opposed to "citizens." Lawyers and police are citizens. Should the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th ammendments only apply to certain people as well?

As far as evidence is concerned, the rules of evidence are designed to ensure that only evidence that is relevant, reliable, and fair is heard in the court. When evidence is used to determine whether somebody goes to jail, loses their house, or has to be deported, everybody wants the evidence to be reliable.

The rules of civil procecdure are designed to ensure that all litigants are treated equally, smae with the rules of criminal procedure.

Yes there are many "rules of law," and many of them are complicated and hard to understand. But we live in a complicated world with millions of people trying to do millions of things all at the same time. It is foolish to think a simple set of rules can govern all of that.

Is it a good idea to allow a person to defend/represent himself when his inexperience causes trouble for others? Is it right to let somebody defend/represent himself when the consequences are profound?

My son is in Utah, poor and about to start divorce proceedings. We are not well off, and self-representation seems to possibly be his only option.
I pray the courts will allow him leniency to plead his case in a fair and equitable manner. He is well read and very intelligent, though not well versed in law.

The divorce/mediation will most probably be contentious from his wife's side. She is the daughter of a man who is the right-hand man of a Mormon bishop. Though my son is also Mormon, we are concerned the legal help in a small town my be prejudiced under the circumstances. Is this a valid concern?

Any other tips, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks so much.

P.S. WHo chooses the mediator? Judge, wife, husband?