A man who represents himself in court has fool for a lawyer.
Via Volokh Conspiracy.Tim [Le] argues, “The Petitioner is trying to make my life miserable taking away my rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. She’s basically violating the Iowa Constitution.” Generally, the appellant’s “random mention of an issue, without analysis, argument or supporting authority is insufficient to prompt an appellate court’s consideration.” Moreover, an issue not presented to the district court cannot be decided for the first time on appeal. Tim did not present this issue to the district court. Thus, we find the issue of whether Annie is violating the Iowa Constitution by trying to make Tim’s life miserable is not properly before this court.The Iowa Constitution, like that of many states, begins with a provision that “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”