Are Forms That You Will Need To File With The Court: Fill & Download for Free

This is a good question if you don’t know anything about how lawsuits work, which I assume is a lot of people.Civ Pro 101Every lawsuit has two “sides”: the plaintiff(s), who is/are bringing the suit, and the defendant(s), who is/are on the receiving end. The plaintiff must state some valid legal claim against the defendant. I could sue you for being mean to me on Quora, but that isn’t a valid legal claim (there is no statutory or common law “you’re being mean” cause of action) so it would get dismissed.Standing is about who gets to bring a particular legal claim on the plaintiff side, and when. If you get hit by a drunk driver, you probably have a valid legal claim. I can’t bring it though; you have to. The idea is that there needs to be some level of connection between the party bringing the suit and the legal claim, because in the adversarial system want to make sure parties are actually trying address the claim, since court decisions are binding.In the American legal system, there are three elements of standing. The first is that you have to have a “concrete injury-in-fact.” That essentially means that you have to actually have suffered some real harm. In an election context, if the claim I am making is that a county negligently double-counted a single ballot but I lost the election by 1m votes, I don’t have an injury – I lose the election either way.The second is that there needs to be causation. The person I’m suing needs to be responsible for the harm. Even if I can prove that some voting machine error caused me harm, I can’t sue Diebold for that harm if the machines were made by Dominion.Finally, my harm needs to be redressable: that is, the court needs to be able to fix it some way. You can almost always get around this if you are trying to get money damages, but if your claim is “I needed X to happen before Y” and Y has already happened, the court can’t help you, so they aren’t going to take a suit. This is where something like immunity might come in: I could have both actual harm and causation, but if my proposed defendant has some statutory or common law immunity from suit, the court can’t help me, so I don’t have standing.So when a court says a party doesn’t have standing, what the court is saying is that that particular party is missing at least one of those three elements: they haven’t been harmed, the person they are suing hasn’t caused the harm, and/or for some reason the court doesn’t think it can do anything to help you with your problem.Trump, Standing?So the threshold question in all of these cases is who is the plaintiff, and what is the legal claim? The plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case Trump is complaining about in the link isn’t Donald Trump - it was a Republican elected official there and some Republican voters who were trying to get rid of the Pennsylvania mail voting law that the Republicans in the state legislature passed unanimously last year. The court essentially said “you had all year to bring this suit, you can’t just wait and see how the election goes before you do it.” But Trump wasn’t actually a party to this suit, nor is he personally a party to almost any of these suits. Hard to have standing if you don’t actually bother to sue.Even if Trump does actually personally sue, the next question is whether he was injured-in-fact. If we assume something like the Maricopa County claim was 100% accurate — which it isn’t — it changes a couple hundred votes. He lost by a couple thousand, so the defendant’s conduct as stated doesn’t actually harm him except by marginally reducing his vote total. The lawsuits Trump’s folks are bringing almost universally don’t allege anything that would change the result, so harm is actually hard to do here. The harms being alleged also frequently don’t have anything to do with Trump himself: these are suits claiming that voters in particular states were harmed because of…reasons. If the injury isn’t to Trump, he generally can’t have standing.Then there is the issue of causation. Let’s take the Pennsylvania lawsuit about mail-in voting. If the claim is that mail-in voting is unconstitutional (that’s actually the claim!) alleges harm stating that Trump lost Pennsylvania, how do we prove the mail-in voting law led to the harm? It’s true that Biden won mail votes commandingly, but if there wasn’t mail-in voting that doesn’t mean that Democrats just wouldn’t vote, it means some number of them would vote in person. For the suit to work you need to be able to prove that the mail-in voting directly caused the claimed harm, and it’s really unclear.Finally, almost all of these suits have serious redressability issues. Whether or not Maricopa County should have used different pens, the relief being asked in a lot of these cases is something along the lines of “throw out the whole election” or “subtract some arbitrary number of votes from Biden,” and it’s not clear that courts can actually do this, especially now that results have been certified. I could sue James Madison for not writing the Constitution clearly enough, and I might have both harm and causation, but a district court can’t make him redo it back in 1787, so I’m out of luck.TL;DRDonald Trump doesn’t have standing because he’s not actually a party on any of these suits and the claims being made don’t meet the standing doctrine that everyone learns in law school.

I was an assistant district attorney for a small city in Texas in the 1990’s, and we had several “sovereign citizens”. The previous administration had far too much work with prosecuting a multiple defendant capital murder case and had let the antics of the sovereign citizens go while they worked on that case. When we took over after a bitter election, those cases fell to me to resolve. Like they say, crap flows down hill . . .It all started with a $50 traffic ticket. The main antagonist thereafter was repeatedly arrested for failing to register his automobiles. Each car was cheerfully impounded, but because he didn't believe in the fiat monetary system, he wouldn't pay to get them out. We literally had a small section of the impound yard devoted to his cars. We couldn't sell the cars because he filed multiple lawsuits to recover them, even though he didn't respect the court system orders because the courtroom flag had fringes on it, “which renders it a maritime court” without jurisdiction to render judgment on sovereign citizens. The previous administration had just ignored this clown.I didn't. We pressed forward with litigating each of his lawsuits, gaining judgments in the county's favor in each case. We filed liens on his personal and real properties for the unpaid citations and judgments, and then, we executed on those judgments. He had to be restrained from committing violence against the sheriff at each sale, and in one case ended up jailed for several months for battery on a peace officer. He lost almost all his Texas property in this fashion, which was substantial.He had been litigating with the county for so long in state and federal court that they had declared him a vexatious litigant, so he was unable to use the Court system without permission. This left him without remedy when he had a truly reasonable claim for possible personal injury he sustained at the hands of jailers, but the federal court wouldn't give him leave to file. He lost the potential for compensation there.He moved to New Mexico, where he continued filing lawsuits in New Mexico courts against the Texas county, which gave him a backdoor into federal court due to a diversity of citizenship. After a brief number of suits so filed, he was again declared a New Mexico vexatious litigant, and again had to get permission to file lawsuits of any kind. This led him to being unable to file for divorce, but his wife WAS able to file - in Texas - where she continued to reside, and because she didn't have an address at which she could have him served because, of course, sovereign citizens don't need no stinkin' address, she had to serve him via posting in a newspaper. He never answered the suit for divorce, and as a result, she won by default, and the court awarded her ALL the property, including the New Mexico ranch. He lost everything in the divorce, even after appealing the judgment.He had an airplane. He scrubbed off the federal registration and painted on his own registration for his sovereignty. The FAA caught wind of this - likely through the ex-wife who wanted to collect the airplane which the divorce court awarded her - and they aided her in finding the plane, which was then seized and after some litigation, again given to her. In that process, he again assaulted a peace officer, and he was tazed repeatedly, aggravating a heart condition.All in all, had he simply followed the law and submitted to the law of the land, paid his $50 ticket, and not been a so called “sovereign citizen", he would have avoided the loss of millions of dollars in property and the pain of a bad heart. If he is still alive, his life now sucks.

I imagine you are very frustrated and upset. I don’t blame you. Unfortunately, I have no good news for you. For the reason(s) why, I will explain general contract law to you.In the US, you are responsible for reading things before you sign them. I am not criticizing you, most people don’t read every aspect (or sometimes even any part) of contracts they sign. But it is the legal reality of contract law.In addition, when you sign a written contract, that contract acts as the entirety of the agreement. By this I mean that you cannot verbally alter a written contract, unless the contract states such authorizations are possible. Otherwise, they must be altered in writing. Sometimes you can overcome this if you have proof of some kind. You can ask for the security footage of the time you were at the counter. There may be an audio recording. However, the company may refuse to provide it and would only have to do so in response to a subpoena in a lawsuit/arbitration. In addition, it is very hard to defeat the reality that contracts must generally be altered in writing. The contract may well contain language that explains this.When you have a contract dispute, the normal answer would be to file in small claims court. However, your contract may limit you to arbitration. If it does not, you will need to look at the contract to see where you may file suit. And then you will need to decide if it is worth it to you to file suit.I would have made a number of suggestions about what to do practically speaking. But it seems to me that you have already challenged the fee with your credit card, given you write about a case being closed. If you have not, then I suggest you do so.If you have not written higher up to Budget, perhaps the head office, I suggest you write to them and explain the situation.I will make a recommendation to you as well as anyone else. Do not allow people to rush you into signing documents. Make sure you read the entire thing. This is the case regardless of what language you speak. If English is not your first language, you will need to be especially careful to refuse to allow yourself to be pressured until you understand every aspect of the agreement. Especially what kind of responsibility you will have for additional fees and damage to the car.If you want to make a change to a contract, such as removing the insurance, please make certain that the company provides you with a new written contract. Not because I expect people to lie, but because they will forget. Or the person may not even be employed by the company any longer. And of course, the company will likely respond, you signed it, and this is what it contains. So tough. Especially when it comes to insurance on rental cars. Many people try to get out of the insurance fees when they return the car. As a result, such companies are likely to look askance on people who claim, after the fact, that they didn’t want the insurance.