Now after I had my appeal send back to me, the next thing that I had to do was file for permission to take my appeal as a poor person. The reason for this, was that I could not afford to proceed otherwise.
When you’re granted permission to proceed as a poor person, you don’t have to send as many copies of your filings to the court and also, other costs are eliminated as well. This was something that I needed, because otherwise I could not afford to proceed. The reason that I had filed all my papers without requesting for poor person relief beforehand, was that I would have had to wait for the approval of the request, and I didn’t want to wait for that extra month or so before filing something that could get my son back into my life.
As for the following order posted below; the “merit of the contentions”, were themselves described quite vividly in my briefs and stipulated record on appeal. So, I have a really hard time trying to understand how this denial, which characterizes the merits of my contentions as being unavailable to the court, to be substantiated by anything other than considerations which are exclusively academic. I had sent them my case. Mailing it back to me does not mean that they never received the contentions of an appeal that was sitting on their bench.
When the ‘appellate fourth’ denied my motion to proceed as a poor person, they denied both that I was poor and, that my cases had merit. This is because when a motion to proceed as a poor person is heard by a court, it is also required that the merit of the contentions of the movant be considered as well. This is because, allowing a party to proceed without filing fees and the otherwise required filing copies, would allow a party to advance a proceeding without nearly any financial burden, and thereby allowing the possibly for a party, to burden another party, with a frivolous proceeding. This is why discretion needs to be taken when a party asks to proceed as a poor person, it isn’t simply a matter of if they are in fact unable to pay for the costs associated with a proceeding.
Luckily for me, I had been fighting for my right to due process for the past year or so, and had not gotten around to getting a job and had instead been learning the law. From this same lack of income, it was impossible for a court not to find that I qualified to proceed with the court fees waved; from this same lack of income alone.
By denying my motion to proceed as a poor person, I could use that dismissal to take subsequent appeal from, as it spoke to a denial of the merits of my contentions and not the denial of my represented inability to pay filing fees.
Without this facet of law, I would not have had anything to take subsequent appeal with, as the ‘appellate fourth’ was both refusing to hear my case, and also failing to issue a decision stating that.
I am very doubtful that this is the nature in which an attorney would have applied the law if I had hired one… They would have likely said “well you’ll have to pay me”, which I would have been unable to do; and then the case would have been dead.