This morning it came to me that the court must appoint a translator if the defendant speaks another language. Well, if legalese is spoken in the courtroom then why not ask for a translator? You can refuse appointed counsel, but they are required to appoint a translator according to the judge I listened too this morning. Any thoughts on this? I do not think anyone has approached this argument in this manner. Would be interesting to have a certified translator who knows legal definitions that would have to explain in plain English what the true meanings were on the record. Let your minds dwell on that for awhile and there is a defense there, is there not?
