We are excited to publish the first edition of I Am Not A Lawyer, the Courtroom5 podcast. Joining us is the inimitable Brian Vukadinovich, author of Motion For Justice: I Rest My Case. The book chronicles his long fight with the justice system – both criminal and civil – culminating in a federal wrongful discrimination lawsuit in which Brian represented himself and won. Here is Brian’s story.
Find Brian Vukadinovich on Facebook and on Twitter.
More Like This:
If You're A Pro Se Plaintiff, This Manual Is For You
31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them
Best Blog Posts For Pro Se Litigants — The 2019 Edition
Are You Prepared For Court? Take The Quiz
#BlackLivesMatter = #DefundThePolice
When You Understand Motions And Pleadings You Can…
How To Analyze A Civil Case And Craft A Litigation…
Did You Come To Appease Or To Conquer? The 5 Types…
Jean lower says
Brian is a very intelligent man,I am very proud that he is finally being recognized for his many years of hard work that it took for him to prove,that corruption was involved against him,and prove to everyone,that you can win your battle against corruption,if you put your mind to it,and fight hard enough!!!!Jean
Brian Vukadinovich says
Thanks Jean. You are too kind! And you are right, you can win your battle against corruption if you put your mind to it and fight hard enough! Well said on your part!
Brian
RENE MCINTYRE says
WHAT DOES THE “last “ stand for? some kind of test for testing attorneys.
ToniaT says
Loved his book! Gave me the extra boost of confidence I needed at just the right time. Thanks Brian!
Brian Vukadinovich says
Thanks Tonia! I’m glad that my book was able to give you an extra boost of confidence as I know how tough and unfair the system is making it for pro se’s to get justice. I’m very pleased that you liked my book. I wish you the best in your case and I have my fingers crossed that you will win! It’s hard to get justice, but it’s very important to fight for it!
Brian
Brian Vukadinovich says
I would like to say that I am very humbled that Courtroom5 would ask me to be its first guest on its new podcast show. It was a pleasure doing the interview with Sonja. I have the highest regard for Courtroom5 and what it is doing to help the pro se’s out there who are in need of some help with their cases for such a nominal price for the excellent resources. People without lawyers are entitled to justice in their cases just the same as if they had a lawyer but unfortunately are being discriminated against at every turn. Receiving justice in our court cases is very important and we must fight for it!
Sonja Ebron says
Distinct honor to interview you, Brian, and a pleasure. As these comments demonstrate, you are a great advocate for pro se litigants. Thanks for all you do!
Brian Vukadinovich says
The pleasure was mine Sonja. I always like working with great people who are trying to help people!
ToniaT says
As a Pro Se Plaintiff, there is finally light at the end of the tunnel for my 5 year discrimination and retaliation battle. Federal Trial date is set for August 2020. As I prepare, I’m seeking language advice (Brian and Sonja), for depositions or at the actual trial. Specifically, as a Pro Se, I will be acting as attorney on my behalf, but also as someone who will take the stand as the Plaintiff. When questioning the Defendant’s witness(es) about circumstances relating to me and/or my prior workplace, how shall I refer to myself? For example, “Mr. Employee Relations Officer: What was your response to ______ (Me?/thePlaintiff?/or Ms. My-LastName?), when I/she first came to you with the complaint?”
Any advice or helpful reference material you can share? Thanks.
Brian Vukadinovich says
Hi Tonia,
That is an excellent question. You should refer to yourself in the first person in narrative form. At my federal trial when I represented myself I told the judge that I would like to testify in narrative fashion when I put myself on the witness stand, and the judge approved it. It is actually silly to get on the stand and ask yourself questions and answer back as though somebody else is asking the question. You want to testify in narrative fashion referring to yourself as “I” or “me”, i.e., examples: “What did I tell you?” NOT “What did Ms. Tonia tell you”; or “what did you expect me to do?” NOT “What did you expect Plaintiff Tonia to do?” Some courts even have this built into their local rules so be sure to go over all of your court’s particular rules. At your pretrial conference be sure to tell the judge that you would like to testify in narrative fashion, if the judge doesn’t bring it up to you be sure to bring it up to the judge. And good luck, I wish you the best in your quest for justice! You sound ready! Hold your ground and don’t let them run all over you as they like to do with the pro se’s.
Brian
Joseph Lamar Anglin says
Sir, we have communicated before : since then I have been ‘screwed’ by a US Magistrate. It was obvious at the time that he had been working toward that from the moment that he took control of the “discovery phase” over a year ago. Without going into detail, he has basically ‘thrown the case’ to the defendants. He gave them favorable action in discovery motions (giving them the information they needed while denying my needed) and then ‘stayed’ the Federal proceedings in deference to State proceedings.
Now, there are NO state proceedings to defer to; any State actions require a whole new case filing.
I am at great disadvantage in the State Court because I must be personally present at the hearings and must know the laws as if I were an attorney (In U.S. Court the hearings are by document, allowing me to study the relevant laws for a couple weeks and write up proper filings – I reside in a different State). Now i MUST hire a biased local attorney ( I cannot afford them ).
The ruling to Stay is against all rules and precedence- it was a complete blindside. I have the evidence in hand to nail the opposing law firm on fraud and the other defendants on the claims submitted.
What do I do ?
Brian Vukadinovich says
Hi Joseph,
Yes, you are in a difficult spot, that’s what the unfair system does to people. It’s a big problem in our country. I assume your case is a civil case and not a criminal case. In criminal cases there is a formal mechanism to ask the court for a lawyer for indigency reasons, but in civil cases that is not the case. You’re in between the rock and a hard place on this. It isn’t out of the question to ask the judge in the case if the court would consider appointing a lawyer for you, by law they don’t have to, but their is no law that precludes them from doing so either, and I know there have been cases where judges have appointed lawyers in civil cases, but as I said, while it has happened on occasion, it rarely happens. So unfortunately if the court isn’t willing to appoint a lawyer for you, and you can’t afford one, then you will have to proceed pro se. There really isn’t much anything else you can do in that regard. Something you might consider doing is contacting a law school in your area and asking if their legal clinics might be willing to help you.
Isabel Del Pino Allen says
I was a tenured professor at Miami Dade College in Florida, when I detected that one of the colleagues with whom I had been collaborating on a textbook had plagiarized. I contacted the colleagues and the other contributors to the book, but the colleague took offense and refused to correct the plagiarized information. I took my grievance to the College’s administration which concluded that the plagiarized information was no big deal, I thus went to the media and The Miami Herald and The
Chronicle of Higher Education published articles (the plagiarized information dealt with, ironically, plagiarism). The articles were published on August 14, 2014(the Hera;ld’s article is still up on-line).
When I came back to work I was chastised by the College’s Administration for having gone to the media (although it is my RIGHT) but what is astonishing that, upon the recommendation of an associate provost, I was charged by the plagiarist and another co-author of the plagiarized book with: sexual harassment, harassment based on religion, harassment based on sexual orientation and EEO-related retaliation!
I was astonished by the charges, but nevertheless complied with the charge and demonstrated in writing why the charges were not valid. I went to the faculty union and was more astonished at the fact that the union did not see anything wrong with the College’s accepting fraudulent charges. Surprised at the response, I did a little investigating and learned that the faculty union chief had been receiving a Florida taxpayers-funded “no show job” and State benefits for 15 years while he neither taught at MDC nor managed the union on a full-time basis but instead worked as an attorney in the private sector. It soon became clear to me that the union chief and the college president engaged in a quid pro quo through which the union chief got a $100,000 plus state funded salary in exchange for helping the College get rid of professors who crossed the administration.
There are other incredibly interesting details to all this, but the bottom line is I was fired at the end of the school year by the provost who stated in the dismissal letter that she was basing her decision to terminate my continuing contract on the information stated in the “intent to terminate letter” sent to me. The intent to terminate letter says nothing about the alleged sexual harassment (I believe these charges were initially entered to have me quit in shame) instead the intent to terminate letter lists my transgression as: categorizing plagiarism as a nauseating glitch, having admitted to not being Christian-like, stating that “we are in the business of teaching and not of covering up incompetence.” (BTW, I can provide prove of everything I state, I know all this sounds unbelievable; also the person who wrote the intent to terminate letter signed off on a commendable job performance evaluation three months prior to signing the intent to terminate letter).
I took my grievance to Florida’s Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) who ruled that the College’s having paid the union chief while the latter did not work was indeed a violation, but that PERC had failed to provide the College with “beneficial guidance” in not making clear that paying a union chief who did not manage the union on a full-time basis a State-funded salary was unacceptable (the union chief had stated during a PERC hearing that he did many thing for the union: he attended charities and other functions, recruited members for the union and lobbied for political causes)
I also sued in Court and have been doing this pro se for five years. I even won an appeal before the appellate court when I sued one of the co-authors for defamation for the co-author stating – when I was initially charged with sexual harassment – that I “frequently went topless around the college campus”! Now, there are no pictures to document this, there are no reports to the police of the paddy wagon about this, there are no dates when this allegedly happened, etc. The lower tribunal judge ruled that I could not charge the co-author for defamation since he was a “public official.” The appellate court ruled in my favor in Isabel del Pino Allen v. Juan Santelises, 240 So. 3d 89 (3d DCA. Fla. 2018) https://www.leagle.com/decision/inflco20180221252
But when the court was remanded to the lower tribunal, the judge who had ruled against was taken off the case and another judge assigned who (despite the “law of the case”) ruled that indeed he was a public official.
To make a very, very, very long story short. I am still struggling as a pro se litigant and facing judges who dismiss what I say (the latest judge granted summary judgment (next step is the appellate court again) stating that my having sent two certified letters to the college president and categorized the College’s paying the union chief for a no-show-job was a “gross waste of public funds” and having the College fired me three months after the initial letter did not constitute a violation of Florida’s whistle Blower Act, even though the Act (Statute 112.3187(5)(b)) specifically references “gross waste of public funds” as the acceptable allegations. Therefore, the judge is interjecting her own opinion, even though the Statute does not call for a judge to assess whether what a whistle-blower calls a gross waste of public funds is so in the judge’s opinion. Incidentally, and this publicly acknowledged (it’s on line) prior to being a judge, the woman who ruled that a State agency granting a no-show job is not an offense, per the whistle-blower’s act, passed-on City of Miami contracts for legal work to her live-in attorney boyfriend. While the Ethics Commission was investigating her actions, she went on leave from her City of Miami job and ran for judge and won. The Ethics Commission ruled that she should not have passed-n work to her boyfriend, but since the person whom she favored was her live-in boyfriend and not her husband, there was no nepotism involve.
In summary, my ordeal has been incredible and I am happy to share it and provide more verifiable details to anyone interested.