# Philip Gray, pro se extraordinaire **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 15, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326 "2012-07-15T18:35:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/1 "2012-07-15T18:35:55Z")
> [@Success rate for pro se litigants](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/success-rate-for-pro-se-litigants/499597/40): > > It is criminal the way Pro Se Litigants are treated by the courts. The claim to support Pro Se Litigants, but that is nothing more than double talk. I will be taking this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, on the grounds that the way Pro Se Litigants are treated is a violation of their Constitutional Rights. > > Phillip Gray Phil, you’re one of those pro se litigants who likes to spend time tying up the judicial system, and blaming your losses on the system. You’re one of those pro se litigants who tries to weasel out of paying child support for his child, then goes down in flames at trial, only to appeal and go down in flames again. You’re one of those pro se litigants who claims reverse discrimination when no one will hire you, despite other men having no difficulty in finding work as bartenders. Stop shitting on the judicial system for your losses, look in the mirror, and recognize yourself for what you are: a bitter, self-deluded hobbiest who wastes the taxpayer’s dollar using the courts as your playpen. Oh, and welcome to the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/2 "2012-07-15T18:47:11Z")
What? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/3 "2012-07-15T19:17:36Z")
_shrug_ If it’s true that the other party’s motions were granted without him having an opportunity to respond, he’s certainly been denied due process. The “if it’s true” bit might be problematic, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/4 "2012-07-15T19:57:11Z")
Linky? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/5 "2012-07-15T20:00:13Z")
Click the icon by his name at the top of the quote. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/6 "2012-07-15T20:37:50Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Click the icon by his name at the top of the quote. Got it. Didn’t see it on my phone. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/7 "2012-07-15T20:45:50Z")
Huh. Having read his post in full, **if he’s describing the situation accurately** , then it sounds as though he has some legitimate beefs. Can any of our lawyers talk about his claims of judicial malfeasance in the specific? ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/8 "2012-07-16T18:51:42Z")
[Link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15267404&postcount=40) for the lazy. I agree with **Left Hand of Dorkness** that, if he’s describing the situation accurately, he has some legitimate beefs. But his first paragraph in that post, saying stuff like “every so-called Justice” and that he’s written to 300 judges, sets off my loony-detector. It’s the sort of thing I heard all the time from pro se litigants before, albeit in criminal court, where all the pro ses are crazy (since the public defender removes the “I can’t afford a lawyer” aspect from the equation). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/9 "2012-07-16T18:53:20Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Huh. Having read his post in full, **if he’s describing the situation accurately** , then it sounds as though he has some legitimate beefs. Can any of our lawyers talk about his claims of judicial malfeasance in the specific? No, they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/10 "2012-07-16T19:44:17Z")
This is not legal advice. Discriminstion suits typically have fairly stringent requirements like exhausting all administrative remedies etc. before you can sue as well as tight deadlines. They’re one of the stricter claims where being pro se is nearly completely untenable. Mr. Gray may very well feel that his rights as a pro se litigant are being denied, but this is one side of a story. IMHO, as mentioned, courts do everything they can to educate pro se litigants, grant extensions and use discretionary rules to try to allow them their best day in court. It’s infuriating sometimes as such luxuries are not readily dispensed to attorneys. It would be interesting to hear what kinds of defense motions are being granted and the pro se motions being ignored. Summary judgments by pro se litigants being ignored? Welcome to the world of legal practice. Any contempt orders or findings Mr. Gray has been deemed a vexatious litigant? Are these things filed outside the time contemplated in a scheduling order? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philip-gray-pro-se-extraordinaire/628326/11 "2012-07-17T02:56:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Can any of our lawyers talk about his claims of judicial malfeasance in the specific? Mr. Gray would do well to read and understand the rules of civil procedure in his jurisdiction. Depending on the matter, the rules may give him X days to respond, or Y days to respond, or possibly Z days to respond. Which it is, can depend on the subject of the matter. Additionally, judges dare not break the rules of civil procedure–their days on the bench would be numbered if they tried. There are reasons why the judges in Mr. Gray’s matter did what they did; I have no knowledge of Mr. Gray’s matter, but I’d be willing to bet that the judges’ decisions lie in the rules of civil procedure in Mr. Gray’s jurisdiction. I also have to wonder what Mr. Gray means by _ex parte_. As a lawyer, I understand what it is and why it might be necessary, but I also know that if a party has been properly served (even substitutionally) and given enough notice but chooses not to show up, then the matter is not considered to be _ex parte_. Mr. Gray, are you aware that simply not being there after being given proper notice does not make the matter _ex parte_?