Lady Justice And Money Notes PDF

**[Lady Justice and money]** **[Cartoon on Lady Justice and money]** We can see Lady Justice who is wearing a blindfold. She is corrupt. She's taking off her blindfold to look at the money. She seems interested in money. She looks greedy. What is the symbolical meaning of taking off your blind...

**[Lady Justice and money]** **[Cartoon on Lady Justice and money]** We can see Lady Justice who is wearing a blindfold. She is corrupt. She's taking off her blindfold to look at the money. She seems interested in money. She looks greedy. What is the symbolical meaning of taking off your blindfold when you are Lady Justice? → It means that justice is not objective (or equal or impartial anymore). She's holding the pair of scales with only one finger. She's ready / about to let go of it. The scale is about to fall down. What else do you know about money and justice? \- in America, if you don't have a lot of money, you can't subpoena witnesses and you can't add evidence to your file, because you have to pay (justice in America is expensive for the citizens). \- Rich people usually have access to the best lawyers. The richer you are, the better is your attorney. It raises a question of fairness. **[Script Listening practice pro se defendants]** More than a hundred people charged in the January 6 **riot** at the U.S. Capitol have pleaded guilty. Others are promising to take their cases to trial, including some who are planning to act as their own attorney - what\'s called going pro se. In Latin that means for oneself. As NPR\'s Tom Dreisbach reports, that can raise some complicated legal questions. TOM DREISBACH, BY LINE: Back in the 1980s, Laurie Levenson was a federal prosecutor. In one case, the defendant decided to go pro se - represent himself. When it came time for the guy to testify, the judge decided the defendant cannot just give a speech. As awkward as it sounds, he actually had to ask questions of himself. LAURIE LEVENSON: The defendant asks himself the question, goes up on the witness stand and then says, can you repeat the question? I mean (laughter)\... DREISBACH: Did that actually happen? LEVENSON: It did happen. DREISBACH: Levenson\'s now a professor at Loyola Law School. And she often teaches that story in class - not just \'cause her students get a laugh, but also \'cause it shows how pro se cases have a tendency to create a spectacle. LEVENSON: The system\'s not really built for people to represent themselves pro se in **felony**-type cases. It certainly complicates things for everyone. DREISBACH: From the Capitol riot cases, at least five defendants have decided to go down that complicated path. And you might think prosecutors would like to face off against someone with zero legal experience, but they generally hate it. It\'s unpredictable and can take you down all sorts of distracting **rabbit holes**. Judges dislike it, too, because they have to watch the defense extra carefully, make sure that defense follows the rules, protects their own rights. But like it or not, judges don\'t have much of a choice. Translation A- Before your hearing, you need to have these / those documents notarized / certified / authenticated. B- I was subpoenaed as a witness. I must go (I have to go / I will have to go) to court tommorrow. C- The witness took the stand this morning. He testified against the defendant. D- I would like to sue my neighbour and get damages. E- The accused / defendant has taken an oath and has sworn to tell the whole truth. F- Are you ready to find an agreement / a settlement to avoid a costly trial? G- During her cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer has presented (some) evidence.