Lala Bears Witness To The Horrors Of The Michigan Child Welfare System - Here Is Her Story - She Wants Her Children Back - Happy Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution Month

This is Lala.

Michigan stole her as a little girl and put her in the foster care system.

Michigan used her as a lab rat.

Michigan kicked her out at 18 years of spending most of her life in a residential institution.

Michigan stole her Social Supplemental Income and left her homeless.

Michigan stole guardianship over her children on forged documents.

Michigan terminated her parental rights.

Listen to Lala.

Lala is an original source, an expert on the Michigan Child Welfare System.

Lala does not bear false witness in the public record, but Michigan does.

Lala tells how Michigan has profits from children placed in foreign, corporate guardianship.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ Coordinates With Kansas To Protect The Legacies Of Children

The U.S. Department of Justice is in full force, implementing its agenda, which seems to be systematically dismantling layers upon layers of social fraud schemes against the people.

This historic act is a financial protection in the best interests of the elder.

What may be extrapolated from this operation are charity solicitation fraud schemes through child welfare NGOs, which will always target the elderly.

It is quite interesting that the Kansas Attorney General is an enthusiastic participant in these activities considering the fact that the Kansas Legislature has introduced asset forfeiture legislation of the elderly and disabled (code for children) under the care of the state in guardianship, "to counter the increased costs of care" or so they say.

Kansas has no Auditor General so someone has to make sure the elder population is not getting ripped off by unscrupulous operations within the state government, too.

I believe I would be secure in proffering a passionate panegyric that the next phase of Jeff Session's Office's agenda is going to be protecting the best interests of children, the legacies.

Justice Department Coordinates Nationwide Elder Fraud Sweep of More Than 250 Defendants

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and law enforcement partners announced today the largest coordinated sweep of elder fraud cases in history.   The cases involve more than two hundred and fifty defendants from around the globe who victimized more than a million Americans, most of whom were elderly.  The cases include criminal, civil, and forfeiture actions across more than 50 federal districts.  Of the defendants, 200 were charged criminally.  In each case, offenders engaged in financial schemes that targeted or largely affected seniors.  In total, the charged elder fraud schemes caused losses of more than half a billion dollars.  The Department coordinated its announcement with the FTC and state Attorneys General, who independently filed numerous cases targeting elder frauds within the sweep period.

Attorney General Sessions was joined in the announcement by FBI Acting Deputy Director David Bowdich; Chief Postal Inspector Guy Cottrell; FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen; and Kansas Attorney General and President of the National Association of Attorneys General Derek Schmidt.

“The Justice Department and its partners are taking unprecedented, coordinated action to protect elderly Americans from financial threats, both foreign and domestic,” said Attorney General Sessions.  “Today’s actions send a clear message:  we will hold perpetrators of elder fraud schemes accountable wherever they are.  When criminals steal the hard-earned life savings of older Americans, we will respond with all the tools at the Department’s disposal – criminal prosecutions to punish offenders, civil injunctions to shut the schemes down, and asset forfeiture to take back ill-gotten gains.  Today is only the beginning.  I have directed Department prosecutors to coordinate with both domestic law enforcement partners and foreign counterparts to stop these criminals from exploiting our seniors.”

The actions charged a variety of fraud schemes, ranging from mass mailing, telemarketing and investment frauds to individual incidences of identity theft and theft by guardians.  A number of cases involved transnational criminal organizations that defrauded hundreds of thousands of elderly victims, while others involved a single relative or fiduciary who took advantage of an individual victim.  The schemes charged in these cases caused losses to more than a million victims.

"Winners. That’s what so many of the people who received these solicitations in the mail thought they were. But they’re not. They are victims(link is external) of scams that Postal Inspectors have seen and investigated for decades. In fact, some of the same operators we encountered 20 years ago are back. But so are we. Yesterday, Postal Inspectors around the country executed search warrants on 12 locations that some of these same operators used to run their scams. We’re letting the American public know – and especially our vulnerable older Americans – that Postal Inspectors are working hard to protect them and ensure their confidence in the U.S. Mail,” said Chief Postal Inspector Cottrell.

“Over the last year, the FBI has initiated more than 200 financial crimes cases involving elderly victims who were devastated financially, emotionally, mentally and physically. Picking up the pieces of these fraud schemes can be equally as traumatizing for the caregivers of these elderly victims,” said Acting Deputy Director Bowdich.  “The FBI reminds seniors and their caregivers to be vigilant. If any person believes they are the victim of, or have knowledge of fraud involving an elderly person, regardless of the loss amount, they should report it to the FBI.”


Actions against mass-mailing fraud industry

As part of the initiative, the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and others, brought numerous cases this past week in a coordinated strike against more than 43 mass-mailing fraud operators, including criminal charges against six individuals.  In addition, law enforcement agents executed 14 premises search warrants from Las Vegas to south Florida, served numerous asset seizure warrants, and coordinated with the Vancouver Police in Canada, who executed over 20 warrants, including search warrants on business premises.

“The defendants targeted elderly and vulnerable consumers both in the United States and abroad, using U.S. addresses and the U.S. mails to try to legitimize their fraudulent schemes,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Richard P. Donoghue.  “They sold false promises of life-changing prizes that never came true.  We will pursue the perpetrators of these mail schemes wherever they are located, and hold them accountable.”

These recently filed cases particularly targeted transnational criminal actors who collectively defrauded at least a million victims out of hundreds of millions of dollars.  Indeed, just one of the schemes prosecuted criminally by the Consumer Protection Branch operated from 14 foreign countries to cost American victims more than $30 million.  Click here for map showing a transnational, single fraud scheme.

Mass-mailing fraud inflicts hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to elderly U.S. victims each year.  Department prosecutors and U.S. Postal Inspectors have taken a comprehensive approach to combatting this fraud, disrupting and prosecuting individuals who manage the schemes, artists who draft the fraudulent solicitations, list brokers who supply victim lists, and individuals who collect victim payments. Click here for fact-sheet with cases on mass-mailing fraud.


Actions against other elder fraud schemes

Prosecutors across the country from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, the Consumer Protection Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices have heeded the call to focus resources on elder fraud cases.  Over 50 U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department Components filed elder fraud cases in the last year.  A list of Elder Fraud cases is provided on this interactive map. 

Some examples of the elder financial exploitation prosecuted by the Department include:

• “Lottery phone scams,” in which callers convince seniors that a large fee or taxes must be paid before one can receive lottery winnings;
• “Grandparent scams,” which convince seniors that their grandchildren have been arrested and need bail money;
• “Romance scams,” which lull victims to believe that their online paramour needs funds for a U.S. visit or some other purpose;
• “IRS imposter schemes,” which defraud victims by posing as IRS agents and claiming that victims owe back taxes;
• “Guardianship schemes,” which siphon seniors’ financial resources into the bank accounts of deceitful relatives or guardians.

Many of these cases illustrate how an elderly American can lose his or her life savings to a duplicitous relative, guardian, or stranger who gains the victim’s trust.  The devastating effects these cases have on victims and their families, both financially and psychologically, make prosecuting elder fraud a key Department priority.


Public education

The Department has partnered with Senior Corps, a national service program administered by the federal agency the Corporation for National and Community Service, to educate seniors and prevent further victimization. The Senior Corps program engages more than 245,000 older adults in intensive service each year, who in turn, serve more than 840,000 additional seniors, including 332,000 veterans.

Using its vast network operating in more than 30,000 locations, Senior Corps volunteers will communicate about elder fraud to potential victims across the country and will use their skills, knowledge and experience to educate their peers and caregivers about the most prolific types of schemes and how to avoid them. Click here for information on Senior Corps’ efforts to reduce elder fraud.


Coordination with state officials

Kansas Attorney General Schmidt highlighted the cases filed by state Attorneys General targeting elder frauds within in the sweep period, and he emphasized efforts at the state level to combat elder abuse and protect seniors from fraud and exploitation.  He encouraged all of the state Attorneys General to devote enforcement and public education resources to preventing financial exploitation of senior citizens.


Coordination with foreign law enforcement

Exceptional assistance from foreign law enforcement partners amplified the effectiveness of the Department’s initiative.  The sweep announced today benefited greatly from the work of the International Mass-Marketing Fraud Working Group (IMMFWG), a network of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Europol, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.  The IMMFWG is co-chaired by the U.S. Department of Justice and FTC, and law enforcement in the United Kingdom, and serves as a model for international cooperation against specific threats that endanger the financial well-being of each member country’s residents.  Attorney General Sessions expressed gratitude for the outstanding efforts of the working group, including law enforcement action taken as part of the sweep by the Vancouver Police Department in Canada to halt mass mailing schemes that defrauded hundreds of thousands of elderly victims worldwide.

Elder fraud complaints

Elder fraud complaints may be filed with the FTC at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or at 877-FTC-HELP.  The Department of Justice provides a variety of resources relating to elder fraud victimization through its Office of Victims of Crime, which can be reached at www.ovc.gov.

Are those "Other Special Grants" a trust fund of forfeited assets of the old and young of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) in the State of Kansas?

Schaun Sullivan, the State Budget Director, used to be the Secretary for the Department for Aging and Disability Services, just saying.

I wonder if any of these "Other Special Grants" funds are going through political campaigns?

But hey, what do I know?

KANSAS MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Fee-for-Service Provider Manual by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

My 2 Cents: Michigan Reinstatement Of Parental Rights

It seems Michigan is about to introduce in the next Legislative session, another Bill to reinstate parental rights.

Rumor has it Senator Rick Jones and Senator Judy Emmons will have the honor.

In 2010, the first reinstatement of parental rights bill was introduced by then Senator Martha Scott.  I spoke with her on the Bill and she had no clue on what it was.  Typical.

But then I was anonymously challenged on the legitimacy of my statement that this was the first reinstatement of parental rights state legislation.

Swiftly responding, I had to clarify by examining specific language of the 2010 Bill.

"(4) THE COURT SHALL TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MCI AND REINSTATE A PARENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS..."

This language is omitted from the 2015 Senate Bill.

For those who claim to be so concerned about the "best interests of the child" yet, either knowingly or willingly, have miserably failed to even make a puerile attempt to grasp a rudimentary understanding the legal genesis of child welfare, and child welfare in Michigan, here are my 2 cents:

To begin, there is no legal standard of "fitness".  If a parent is determined to be "unfit" this is when the child is placed under the auspices of the state.  This issue of "fitness"  has previously been addressed in past legislation, devoid of support from the Michigan State Bar.

Then, why is MCI, once again, reinvigorated with its artificial ultra vires powers?  For those who are not familiar with this nefarious organization, deeply ensconced within the muddled quagmire of child welfare law and policy of Michigan, allow me to proudly present to you, the man, the myth, the legend, the legal guardian to more than 10,000 children, held to no legal standard, accountable to no one, ever, the Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bill Johnson, with his successor being Bruce Hoffman.

So, how can the legal parent function in an arena with such a conflict of interest to make a recommendation to reinstate parental rights when they were the ones who fought, successfully I might add, under the Cotton rule which means that one must prove the decision to grant approval or withhold the grant of approval for adoption by the MCI Superintendent was "arbitrary and capricious", not that the denial was based upon false, non-factual evidence, or even fraud.  Seriously.

Is this not a conflict of interest considering the fact that this Bill lacks any reference to the termination of the MCI parental rights, first.

Now, I immediately have identified the major flaw of this Bill as it is referred to the Senate Committee on Families, Seniors and Human Services and not Judiciary.  Termination and Reinstatement of parental rights is a judicial determination, one which has traditionally been functioning under the legal doctrine of child welfare, "guilty until proven innocent".

Remember, there are no civil rights in child welfare.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is the only qualified venue to address the legal matters of child welfare.  Reinstatement captures issues within immigration, interstate and due process because parallel jurisprudence does not exist in dependency courts nor do civil rights in the administrative process.

It is only through judicial determination that certain funding streams are opened in child welfare.

This is Michigan's way of addressing its perversive issues with human trafficking.  The majority of individuals who are victims of human trafficking hail from the child welfare system, where the issue has been adopted by the Attorney General, another reason why the proper venue is the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Senate Committee on Families, Seniors and Human Services has historically failed, with breathtaking incompetence, to ever, address the legal deficiencies of child welfare.  Besides, the members, to my knowledge, do not have legal backgrounds and demonstrate inherent conflicts of interests, which, of course, is never publicly disclosed.

But this is the funniest part, how can you have a parent get a Central Registry Clearance when there is a jack-legged administrative review process which takes, possibly, years.  See, if there were civil rights, more intuitively, due process, in child welfare, then the sponsors of this Bill should know that an individual who is denied expungement has the constitutional right to challenge any administrative decision in a traditional court of law.

Will there be training for the judges and attorneys and if so, who is going to pay for it?

Will there be funding for court appointed attorneys representing the parents to appeal decisions if reinstatement of parental rights is not ordered or will it be back to business as usual.

Unfortunately, equal justice under the law costs lots of money.  So where are the funding mechanisms?

Medicaid.  Yes, that is correct and I am quite sure there are those who salivate at the opportunity to expand privatized child welfare services which have no oversight, whatsoever.

Why is it there is a 3 year waiting period before there is a reinstatement review?  That is just draconian and an obvious opportunity to generate cost reimbursements to these privatized organizations to keep the child in care for as long as they can be milked.  This also does not provide incentive for any agency to approve or recommend reinstatement of parental rights.

Maine has a 90 day dispositional review period.  Unfortunately, Maine has not done very much implementing the new policies.

Continuing on the money aspect, I propose every child returned to their original source, (as I like to refer) should automatically have advocacy set in place so they are eligible for SSI.  California has a program because 9 times out of 10, parental rights were terminated due to some ill of poverty.

Lastly, as I end another one of my two penny pontifications on Michigan child welfare, I would like to ask a simple question:  What is a parent?  The Bill needs to be much more specific as a "parent" may not be the original guardian of the child prior to removal.

Michigan Senate Bill for Reinstatement of Parental Rights by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Reinstatement of Parental Rights Policy- Maine by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS Asked To Consider Foster Kids Civil Rights

In a nutshell the Children's Advocacy Institute filed a question to SCOTUS on the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on why foster kids have no civil rights in federal court.

This may put a damper on future Children's Rights court cases.

There is so much conflict of interest surrounding state judicial activism in child welfare, there is no possible way for a foster child to seek relief in a state court.  It would be like snitching on your buddies because it was a state judicial determination on placement which is the authorization for the release of federal funds to reimburse the costs related to the care of the court ward.

SCOTUS must take on the question of abstention for the simple fact that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of a Child comes into multi-jurisdictional play making the venue proper.

Then we have the issue of the State Attorney General.  The Attorney General is the one who is charged with the prosecutorial duty to conduct a child abuse case, yet, the Attorney General advocates for its contractual arms of the individuals who are committing the harms for which the foster child has approached federal jurisdiction for relief.  Lest not ignore the Attorney General's contemporaneous advisement function.

This particular writ focuses on representation of children.  I would like to know who is going to hold the state responsible for not doing what it agreed to do.

How is it this substantial conflict of interest is allowed to thrive?  It was never intended to be this way.  Who would every question the execution of a state's top law enforcement officer?  I guess CAI will.

CAI Submits Writ of Certiorari Petition to US Supreme Court

Posted on July 13, 2012 by johnerriehl | Leave a comment

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 the Children’s Advocacy Institute, together with co-counsel Winston & Strawn, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to rule on a foster child’s ability to seek relief in federal court.    The petition, known as a Writ of Certiorari, urges the Supreme Court to decide whether it was appropriate for a federal court to refuse to hear a case brought by foster children.

In March of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion in the case of E.T. et al., v. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, which basically bars foster children from turning to the federal courts for relief when the state systems designed to protect them from abuse and neglect have failed, often because they are overburdened.

“It is unconscionable” says Robert Fellmeth, Executive Director of the Children’s Advocacy Institute and an attorney on the case.  “It is ridiculous to require foster children to seek redress in the state courts.  Particularly in a case like this where the underlying complaint is that the state courts themselves, and in particular, the State Supreme Court, have let these kids down by not providing them with attorneys who can adequately represent them in their state court proceedings.”

Fellmeth added: “This case represents a categorical abdication – a walkaway from foster kids and their due process and statutory rights. The Ninth Circuit holds, bizarrely, that an action simply to reject 388 kids per attorney as an excessive caseload purportedly cannot even be heard at all, since it represents an ‘intrusion’ into the state court system.”

“But this is why the federal courts exist,” said Fellmeth, “to provide a check when the states engage in egregious, unlawful, unconstitutional state action – including state courts.

Federal courts are often the appropriate forum for seeking redress when systemic failures have harmed foster children, because many aspects of the state systems designed to protect foster children are based on federal requirements.  When state systems are not meeting mandated federal requirements, foster children have in the past been able to turn to federal courts for assistance.

The Ninth Circuit found that because foster children are involved in state court judicial proceedings, a federal court cannot consider any of their claims.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that if the federal court ruled on the claims of the foster children, it would necessarily “intrude upon the state’s administration of its government, and more specifically, its court system.”

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit purported to build upon previous Supreme Court decisions holding that where a state court is handling a matter, a federal court should not issue a decision that would undermine the validity of the state court decision.  This line of reasoning, referred to as the abstention doctrine, has been read narrowly in some jurisdictions but very broadly in the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth Circuits, and now Ninth Circuits.  This decision in the Ninth Circuit, in fact, is one of the broadest interpretations of the abstention doctrine stretching beyond the Supreme Court’s intent and purpose behind the doctrine and closes the federal court doors to foster children.

“This holding applies and elevates ‘abstention’ – the radical doctrine that whatever the facts or the degree of violation, the state may do what it will.” Fellmeth called the decision “one of the most dangerous self-abnegation opinions in recent decades. It represents the strong empathy lines of judges for their colleagues on the state bench, who are here elevated to “above the law” status, rather than for foster kids who are parented by these state courts and have no other redress.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether or not it will hear the case in September of this year.

SCOTUS Foster Child Petition On Civil RightsVoting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Here Are $1,066,477,070.74 Reasons Why Child Abuse Is Such A Problem

I have taken the liberty of converting the currency to U.S. dollars to give my U.S. readers an idea of the levels of fraud, waste and abuse which runs rampant in the child welfare industry.

Remember, it's not a shock, it's an industry.

Lawyers claim £645 million family breakdown legal aid bill

Legal aid lawyers are making £645 million from taxpayers over family breakdowns each year - £28 for every household in England and Wales.

By Rebecca Lefort 8:30AM BST 17 Apr 2011

4 Comments

New figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on legal advice to divorcing couples, helping parents fight child custody battles, or trying to restrain violent partners.

Warring families are also using the civil legal aid system to sue over contested wills, argue between siblings over inheritance and even argue in court about the names of their children after divorces.

Critics said the figures revealed the true cost of "broken Britain", and how lawyers were profiting from family separations.

The cost of family breakdowns has risen dramatically over recent years. Lawyers representing parents in child custody cases against each other or the state now charge £468 million in legal aid fees each year.

In total just over £2.1 billion is paid to lawyers from the legal aid budget, £1.2 billion of it to defend criminals, the rest to advise people on civil cases, which as well as family law include aid for immigrants trying to stay in the country, people suing over alleged mistreatment at the hands of the NHS or the police, and prisoners upset at jail conditions.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Legal aid clampdown will save £300 million 
  13 Nov 2010
• Mother whose children were taken for adoption joins class action 
  19 Jun 2010
• Britain pays child benefit for 50,000 children living abroad 
  31 Oct 2009

Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, has promised to dramatically cut the total amount spent in the teeth of major opposition from lawyers.

Many lawyers are almost entirely dependent on legal aid work and a list released by Mr Clarke's department shows that some firms make millions each year from charging the state for their clients.

The ten biggest recipients of legal aid, all of them large law firms, received £45.6 million.

Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister, said: "At more than £2 billion a year, we pay far more per head than most other countries for legal aid.

"The current system encourages lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings, at taxpayers' expense, which do not always ensure the best result for those involved.

"We need to make clear choices to ensure that legal aid will continue to be available in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in society, and the efficient performance of the justice system.

"Our proposals aim to radically reform the system and encourage people to take advantage of the most appropriate sources of help, advice or routes to resolution - which will not always involve the expense of lawyers or courts."

The figures show that in total £645 million was spent on family law - out of a total of £940 million spent on civil cases and advice.

And most of that - £468 million - was spent on custody disputes over children, which can be extremely bitter and lengthy.

The total number of children involved is unknown but there are around 55,000 divorces each year where the couple have children - although not all will mean a state-funded custody dispute.

And the number of custody battles arising from legal separations or cases involving unmarried parents is not known, but is likely to account for a significant part of the £468 million legal bill.

The taxpayer is also paying £25 million for lawyers' fees in divorce cases - and £350,000 for lawyers seeking to have children's names changed in the aftermath of disputes.

Before gaining power Conservative politicians frequently warned that Britain's broken families were putting a strain on public finances and pledged to tackle the problem, including then opposition leader David Cameron.

Mr Cameron said: "Actually we need to have a more pro-family country, we need to get behind marriage and commitment and fatherhood and we need to have much more discipline in our schools and we need to have a revolution in the way that we provide welfare and education that will really mend the broken society."

The Government announced in November that it considered many of the claims to be unreasonable, and drew up plans to cut the civil legal aid bill dramatically.

It promised restrictions on the type of family cases that would receive support, and said couples would be forced to undergo mediation before becoming eligible for legal aid.

The changes will mean child residency disputes between parents, or arguments over money, including divorce settlements, will no longer be funded unless domestic violence is involved.

Cases of children being taken into care, forced marriages, and international child abduction will still be funded, but the rules about who is entitled to legal aid will be tightened, meaning no homeowner will be able to claim support.

Currently to qualify for either civil or criminal legal aid claimants need to provide evidence that they have less than £8,000 in cash and savings.

Even with large cuts the cost of family cases is still expected to reach more than £450 million annually.

One area of expenditure which will raise concern that taxpayers' money is being used to help individuals become wealthier is the more than £2 million spent on inheritance disputes and relatives suing each other over the outcomes of wills.

The plans, which are currently being finalised, will also see all assistance withdrawn in areas including clinical negligence claims, consumer disputes, and arguments about welfare payments.

The figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that as well as family law, £89 million was given to lawyers for immigration and asylum work, virtually all of it to help immigrants stay in the country, £52 million was handed over to sue the NHS and healthcare providers, £60 million to aid tenants arguing over housing, much of it public-sector, and £33 million for fighting against clients' debts, £28 million for disputing welfare payments and £1 million for taking action against police forces and prisons.

Emma Boon, campaign director at the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Our legal aid bill is excessive and needs to be better controlled.

"The gigantic family cases figure reveals the true cost of broken Britain and shows that too many lawyers are profiting at taxpayers' expense."

In the last recorded year Duncan Lewis Solicitors recorded the highest claims for civil legal aid, making £9.9 million.

Adam Makepeace, the firm's practice director, defended the income, saying: "Two million people depend on legal aid for access to justice, a democratic right first enshrined in Magna Carta.

"Whilst undoubtedly savings can be made in the budget, taking certain types of family and children cases out of scope will not necessarily achieve this. Representation in person - without the aid of a lawyer - will add considerably to the courts time and costs."