An example of what can happen when non-experts get involved in litigation – particularly when they are hazy about what is and what is not legal – emerged from the US legal site Above the Law on 16 February. Minnesota resident Aaron Olsen attempted to sue his own uncle for harassment after he had posted embarrassing family photos of his nephew of Facebook. The photos included portraits of Olsen as a child in front of a Christmas tree.

Not surprisingly, the district court in Minnesota threw the case out, so Olsen took it to the state’s Court of Appeals, which also ‘tossed’ it, as the report described it.

“To constitute harassment,” Judge Natalie Hudson said in her opinion, “words must have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another. Comments that are mean and disrespectful, coupled with innocuous family photos, do not affect a person’s safety, security, or privacy – and certainly not substantially so. The district court did not err by determining that the evidence submitted by appellant did not satisfy the statutory definition of harassment.”

Nothing surprising, there, except that the opinion seems to give undue gravitas to the case and the appellant, who represented himself. Part of the reason for the appeal was that the District Court judge had been biased against him. Judge Hudson disagreed.

She said: “In any event, the district court is afforded broad discretion in controlling the courtroom as part of its duty to proceed efficiently…. And our review of the record reveals that the district court, in fact, assisted appellant multiple times regarding how to approach a witness with an exhibit, how to enter an exhibit into evidence, and how to properly question a witness. The record further demonstrates that any pressure appellant faced to finish his examinations or testimony came from the district court’s instruction and attempts to control the proceeding in an efficient manner. The district court judge was not biased and appellant received a fair hearing.”

If Mr Olsen had engaged his own expert witness beforehand – there has to be an American version of the Expert Witness Directory – they would have informed him of the futility of his case. Maybe a lawyer already had done so, which why he represented himself.