hbgold (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} hbgold) wrote,@ 2007-03-10 12:21:00 |
|
Racist Thoughts From a Legal Mind
I am a lawyer. Apparently I am also a racist. On this particular subject, I am ok with that. In our state Judges are elected. Last November, in virtually every contested judicial race in our County, a Democrat was elected, displacing a Republican who had long held the job. I don't care whether a judge is Democrat or Republican. I am more concerned that the Judge know the law and know what needs to be done in managing the docket.
In yesterdays Dallas Morning News there was an article that a newly elected Judge had set aside a Motion that had been filed by the Plaintiff, Citibank. This is a credit card debt case. A not infrequent type of case. Here, the Defendant, the credit card customer, was in default of his obligation to the tune of about $15,000.00. The Defendant, who claims that he does not speak English, did not have an attorney. He had filed an Answer, in English. The Plaintiff, Citibank, had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In this Motion, the movant demonstrates that there is no geniune issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, there is no question about the facts and one side or another is entitled to judgment without a trial. The Defendant did not file a response, and the Motion was granted. The Defendant then showed up and said, hey, that's not right, I didn't know that I needed to file a response, and Citibank should have translated the pleadings into Spanish so that I could understand them. The Judge agreed.
This is outrageous for more than one reason. First, putting the Motion into Spanish still wouldn't have told the Defendant what needed to be done. To know what to do, you need to review the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant didn't know what to do because (a) he is not a lawyer and (b) he did not undertake the effort to understand the rules, which the law requires if you are going to represent yourself. This had nothing to do with Spanish; it had everything to do with not following the rules. There are lots of people who choose to represent themselves, who speak only English, who don't read the rules and they don't get a special break. So this obviously had nothing to do with not understanding and following the rules. BUT, more importantly, there is no requirement that one party translate documents for another. Rather, under the rules it is the responsibility of the party who uses another language to get an interpreter. This too the Defendant did not do. Finally, there is no requirement in my state that Court proceedings be conducted in a language other than English, nor should there be. I am tired, particularly of the Hispanic community, saying that we need to change the rules for them. I went to school and studied law. I do not want to go to school to study Spanish (which, though my public school instilled in me from grades 3 through 12, with 4 more semesters in College and 2 stints in Berlitz I still cannot speak fluently). My client does not have to incur the expense to learn Spanish or to translate public documents into Spanish because you entered into an agreement to pay a debt, and then breached the agreement. If this country presents opportunities that draw others here, then you need to take the opportunity on the terms on which it is available - including the obligation to speak English. I am not interested in a society fractured by language and culture. We have Iraq for that (or Canada if you like a cooler climate).
People have been coming to American for over 200 years and have been able to maintain their culture while adopting the language for common purposes. We don't need a bilingual court system. If that makes me a racist, I proudly wear that badge.
I am a lawyer. Apparently I am also a racist. On this particular subject, I am ok with that. In our state Judges are elected. Last November, in virtually every contested judicial race in our County, a Democrat was elected, displacing a Republican who had long held the job. I don't care whether a judge is Democrat or Republican. I am more concerned that the Judge know the law and know what needs to be done in managing the docket.
In yesterdays Dallas Morning News there was an article that a newly elected Judge had set aside a Motion that had been filed by the Plaintiff, Citibank. This is a credit card debt case. A not infrequent type of case. Here, the Defendant, the credit card customer, was in default of his obligation to the tune of about $15,000.00. The Defendant, who claims that he does not speak English, did not have an attorney. He had filed an Answer, in English. The Plaintiff, Citibank, had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In this Motion, the movant demonstrates that there is no geniune issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, there is no question about the facts and one side or another is entitled to judgment without a trial. The Defendant did not file a response, and the Motion was granted. The Defendant then showed up and said, hey, that's not right, I didn't know that I needed to file a response, and Citibank should have translated the pleadings into Spanish so that I could understand them. The Judge agreed.
This is outrageous for more than one reason. First, putting the Motion into Spanish still wouldn't have told the Defendant what needed to be done. To know what to do, you need to review the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant didn't know what to do because (a) he is not a lawyer and (b) he did not undertake the effort to understand the rules, which the law requires if you are going to represent yourself. This had nothing to do with Spanish; it had everything to do with not following the rules. There are lots of people who choose to represent themselves, who speak only English, who don't read the rules and they don't get a special break. So this obviously had nothing to do with not understanding and following the rules. BUT, more importantly, there is no requirement that one party translate documents for another. Rather, under the rules it is the responsibility of the party who uses another language to get an interpreter. This too the Defendant did not do. Finally, there is no requirement in my state that Court proceedings be conducted in a language other than English, nor should there be. I am tired, particularly of the Hispanic community, saying that we need to change the rules for them. I went to school and studied law. I do not want to go to school to study Spanish (which, though my public school instilled in me from grades 3 through 12, with 4 more semesters in College and 2 stints in Berlitz I still cannot speak fluently). My client does not have to incur the expense to learn Spanish or to translate public documents into Spanish because you entered into an agreement to pay a debt, and then breached the agreement. If this country presents opportunities that draw others here, then you need to take the opportunity on the terms on which it is available - including the obligation to speak English. I am not interested in a society fractured by language and culture. We have Iraq for that (or Canada if you like a cooler climate).
People have been coming to American for over 200 years and have been able to maintain their culture while adopting the language for common purposes. We don't need a bilingual court system. If that makes me a racist, I proudly wear that badge.
