Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Pro se legal representation in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moved from main talk page

Lex Did you delete this response? "The WSJ law blog had an article on pro se litigation and I asked there if anyone had ever heard of a pro se winning and not one was posted. I did read that David Boises lost a jury trial to a pro se. One of the erased quotations was from the D of Colorado discussing the fact that no pro se had ever won there, that they could remember. That was addressed to a pro se who was a Yale grad and an m.d. Her filings were probably pretty "well polished". Most non prisoner pro ses file 1983 and employment discrimination cases. Those are considered to be complex litigation apparently because there is an immunity defense. Criminal cases often involve scientific evidence. The U.S. judicial conference has manuals for them which lawyers often know about but pro ses are not told about. It is hard even to find the federal judiciary conference web site. ^[1] ^[2]

I filed a complaint for malicious prosecution and asserted that that a criminal complaint was filed and processed without a warrant, arrest or affidavit of probable cause. The clerk's office emailed to me that the file contains none of those. I asserted that the d.a. altered the dismissal forms when she dismissed the case after I refused to plea bargain to say that there was both probable cause and a victim but that a trial was too expensive and that she refused a written request to provide the probable cause. That's what she told the press. They claimed "immunity" for that. I quoted two supreme court cases, one from U.S., one from N.M., about prosecutorial immunity ending when case terminated, and another one about duty to provide exculpatory evidence. The d.a.'s lawyer sent me his bills, which Judge Nottingham ordered me to pay even though he didn't even file a rule 11 motion or send a safe harbor letter. The bills showed that Lloyds of London paid the legal bills, even though Lloyds is not authorized to sell professional liability insurance in Col. In the bills, reference was made to a discussion and a fax sent by Lloyds to the lawyer about case assignment issues. After that my case was transferred from Judge Matsch, who did not recuse himself, not for reassignment by the clerk, but directly to Judge Nottingham. The chief judge did not sign the form.

I filed for partial summary judgment and the magistrate struck my summary judgment motion and ordered Judge Nottingham and the defense counsel not to respond to it. The judge adopted the disputed magistrate's report without a hearing or making findings. The magistrate's report was issued without a hearing. When I asked the judge why he dismissed the case he said it was because of res judicata. When I pointed out that the case he claimed was res judicata was not served and had no responsive pleadings, he told me to be quiet and sit down.

What "rules" did I violate and what "special treatment" did I get? When I filed lawsuits complaining about the publications saying that my neighbor was my victim, I was ridiculed and put in jail for filing them and for filing motions and my complaints were dismissed on the sole basis that I was pro se. Go ahead and post "your" references about complaints that pro ses might get special treatment. kay sieverding (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay: First, I refuse to comment on the particulars of your case. I have no idea if there was some special treatment you got, didn't get, should have got, or should not have got. Do not ask me to do so.

Second, I think you have misunderstood me. I don't think pro se litigants receive special treatment (there are a few exceptions, for which I have previously posted references, but you removed from the later drafts of the article, but that's neither here nor there). I have said that what YOU are using this page to advocate for is special treatment. The "reference" is in what you just wrote, and a number of other things you write. You keep talking about how pro se litigants don't have the same informational resources as the government or professional counsel, as though that is an unfair disadvantage. It's a disadvantage, but it's not unfair. Any possible way of rectifying it handicaps pro se litigants. This article is not going to turn into legal advocacy. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sieverding's editing was consistent with Arthur Rubin's talk page

":It's complicated. It appears that the right to self-representation is not a fundamental right (as defined elsewhere in case law) (and as sourced to an Supreme Court opinion), but is a right based on the Constitution and incorporated to the States."

Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC )

Corfield v. Coryell is a frequently cited decision ^[3] specifically recognized a common law right to self-representation based on the privileges and immunities clause. "Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government must justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus ; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State." kay sieverding (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Corfield is a case about discrimination on the basis of state citizenship. The part you are quoting is obiter dicta. It is also nearly 200 years old, and not from the Supreme Court. There are NUMEROUS SCOTUS cases on the extent to which "access to the court" is, or isn't a Constitutionally-protected right. In fact, I have directed to you to where you can learn about those cases, in plain and non-technical language. You have ignored my suggestion while continuing to re-introduce the same inaccurate and unverifiable content into the article. Despite my desire to WP:AGF, from your actions, it looks like you are not interested in learning anything that might be inconsistent with your pre-existing beliefs. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court cited Corfield v. Coryell in decisions in the last 100 years, and quoted that particular passage too. I do realize that one of the big problems before the Civil War was the conflict about slavery. Recognition of the right could have led to slaves arguing in court that slavery was a violation of fundamental rights and resulted in slavery becoming illegal earlier and without a war. I don't remember you "directing" me to Supreme Court cases saying that"Access to Court" is not "constitutionally protected". Examples please?.... kay sieverding (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Also, old decisions and references do matter. For instance, Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida is a case concerning common law which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1996. It cites North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 30 (1890), ^[4], Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) , Chisholm v. Georgia,2 U.S. 419 U.S. Supreme Court 1793, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 337 (1816), Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 (1834), and many other old texts and states "the colonists were referring "not to the corpus of English case-law doctrine but to undly valued common law procedures as trial by jury and the subjection of governmental power to what John Locke had called the `standing laws,'" such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights of 1689, and the Act of Settlement of 1701. Jones 110; see also Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two, 133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1231, 1256 (1985) (Jay II) (noting that "Antifederalists used the term common law to mean the great rights associated with due process"). The cardinal principles of this common-law vision were parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law, conceived as the axiom that "all members of society, government officials as well as private persons, are equally responsible to the law and . . . `equally amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals.' kay sieverding (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are the laws and practices of the Mass Bay Colony in the 17th Century and statements by Thomas Paine and President Thomas Jefferson about self-representation in court relevant to the subject of 'pro se legal representation in the United States?

References to a law journal article describing the litigation practices in Massachusetts before the U.S. revolution and the Lauues and Libertyes of Massachusetts, 1648, were deleted. Thomas Paine spoke about the subject and his statements were quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court but the S.C. quote of Paine's statement was deleted. After completing his term as U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter about the subject in 1816: "“We of the United States think experience has proved that it is safer for the mass of individuals composing society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent. Hence, with us, people being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors. I believe that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves is the essence of a Republic.” (Thomas Jefferson, Letters to Pierre S. Dupont, April 4, 1816) ^[5] That was also deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk •contribs) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC) kay sieverding (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As most of your comments, it doesn't appear to be related to the subject of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson said that U.S. citizens should rely on themselves when they can. kay sieverding (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are arguments unrelated to the accuracy of sources on this talk page

It appears to be an effort to cover up discussion of the references. The talk page is not supposed to be used to discuss the subject itself 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

Kay, almost everything appearing on the talk page right now is a response to something you posted here, or a discussion necessitated by your actions. I don't know what you are complaining about. Do you have specific diffs? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is not supposed to be a consensus as to what an article's POV should be. If you wouldn't delete references then there wouldn't be any need to discuss why there were deleted. We could just discuss the location of references.

You may think that you can change the law by deleting references and asking to have me barred for posting links to valid references. However, I will just put up a web site showing how Wiki editors deleted valid references. It will just make Wikipedia look bad. Since you have a POV that pro ses should be discouraged from using the courts, why don't you just find sources that support your POV instead of posting unsupported statements, deleting requests for references, and deleting references? kay sieverding (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't added any references⁽¹⁾. What you call "references" are almost all completely unacceptable in a Wikipedia article.

There is consensus on what the article's subject is supposed to be. It's just not one you agree with. There's not supposed to be consensus about the POV, but most of your edits are off topic or original research, as Wikipedia defines it.

As for your web site, considering your unenviable record in court, may I suggest that you hire a lawyer to check on libel laws? I've caught you in two lies just in the posts you made over the past hour, one of which might be libel per se. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your attempt to change the subject. Your "sources" may be accurate, but they may be irrelevant, or their relevance might only be apparent from combining their content with that of other sources, which we may not do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And just what are you claiming I wrote that is inaccurate? If you want to email to me, I will be glad to tell you about my non Wikipedia life. As far as libel goes, I have an email from the state court saying that they have no record of any affidavit of probable cause, warrant, or arrest before I was prosecuted. kay sieverding (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Why are court cases about the sufficiency of writing of pro se litigants, and attorney pro se litigants, and the judicial canons related to " “A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law" irrelevant to the subject of self-represented litigation? And why do you and Non Curat Lex believe that pro ses aren't included as citizens or every person? Do you think we come from Mars? I would just really appreciate it if you and Non Curat Lex and Famspear would explain why you deleted the references. To start, you can just explain the references that were deleted today. And why did you three delete requests for source?. Just for the record, what do you think the article is about? kay sieverding (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to know about your off-wiki life. Your off-wiki life is not relevant here. Neither is mine.

What do I think this article is about? This article is about explaining, in a way appropriate for an encyclopedia, the topic of pro se status in as much detail as necessary to enable someone with little prior understanding to have a generaly accurate understanding of what the term describes. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin brought up my "off Wiki" life so I was responding to him. Why don't you delete your status as a 26 year old lawyer living in Southern California from your user page?

The topic of the article is not "pro se status in as much detail as necessary to enable someone with little prior understanding to have a generaly accurate understanding of what the term describes". The topic of the article is "pro se legal representation in the United States". That includes procedure used in pro se representation, judicial canons related to pro se representation, reasons for pro se representation, frequency of pro se representation, success of pro se representation etc. laws related to pro se representation, and history of pro se representation. If Wikipedia in general involved "as much detail as necessary to enable someone with little prior understanding to have a generaly accurate understanding of what the term describes" then the article about Madison WI would state that Madison is a city in Wisconsin and the article about engines would state that they are a device that makes something go. Wikipedia could be geared to 3rd graders who have "little prior understanding". According to your definition, famous pro se litigants should be deleted, pro se attorneys should be deleted, history, "legal rules", "public concerns", and the whole article could consist of one sentence "Sometimes people are accused of a crime or file in court for various reasons and instead of having a lawyer, speak and write for themselves." Someone with little prior understanding would definitely not be interested in attorney fees or ability of individuals to represent corporations. kay sieverding (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay: I don't make my off-wiki status the focal point of my edits. My talk page does not violate guidelines.

As for the topic of this article, your concept here is the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a middle ground - a lot of it - between being a law review article, and being fit only for third graders. But wikipedia articles are not primary source dumps, and must take care to prevent information overload. Every other g.f. editor who has worked on this page has agreed that you are overloading it - thus doing more harm than good - and not by a little bit, by a lot. Instead of trying to prove to everyone how right you are, you need to slow down and pay attention. You've been asked nicely several times, and been blocked, and you're still not getting it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at these Wikipedia articles and you will see that they aren't dummied down and don't try to withhold information: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cancer http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Solar_power http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abortion http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Olympic_Games http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/George_W._Bush http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/General_Motors Why don't we rely on this to make our sourcing decisions: http://www.smso.net/Wikipedia:Verifiability ??? Why reinvent the wheel when sourcing issues have already been worked out in the context of other controversial subjects? Why don't we stick closely to all the Wikipedia policies including use of talk page to discuss references and nothing else? The top of the article talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it." It does NOT say "This is an article for stupid people who might consider self-representation and need to be discouraged from it". kay sieverding (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That policy does not justify your edits to the article. You are loading it up with stuff that is barely tied in to the topic. There really is no controversy though; it's almost as though you're trying to paper up an issue that isn't in dispute. There is no serious dispute anywhere in U.S. law that anyone can go to court, in person, or through counsel. It doesn't need reams of citations. It also doesn't require serious dispute that the right is subject to reasonable regulation. This article is not being dummed down; it's being kept long enough to cover the topic, short enough to keep it interesting. When every editor but you thinks that you're committing information overload, it's not every other editor who must change. You like the civil law, so, here's a chestnut of civilian rule for you: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: At the expense of sounding like a broken record, I have to agree with editor Non Curat Lex:

"There really is no controversy though; it's almost as though you're trying to paper up an issue that isn't in dispute."

Generally, the rule here is: Comment on the material, not on the editor. Kay, I am adding my thoughts here now, however, (A) because you have injected yourself and your own legal problems into the mix, (B) because of the tenor of your editing and your talk page comments, and (C) because I see a disturbing, chronic pattern of editing and commentary with very little hopeful sign that it will abate.

In viewing your edits over the weeks, it does appear to me (1) that you hold the mistaken belief that the very existence of the right to represent oneself in court in the United States is very controversial, and (2) that you feel it should now be your mission to use Wikipedia to push the point of view that the existence of this right should be "absolute" (to use your own term). My sense is that you mistakenly view the edits (and talk page comments) of other Wikipedia editors as having, as their very purpose, the object of preventing you from getting the truth out to Wikipedia readers.

You are wrong on all these counts, Kay.

As I and others have already stated, there is most certainly a legal right in the United States to engage in pro se litigation. But it is not an absolute right. This means that like most legal rights, this right can be legally taken away from you under certain circumstances, as happened to you. And it appears that because of your own past legal problems, you are using what is essentially a single-purpose Wikipedia account to try to add mountains of materials. Many of these materials have, at best, only an attenuated relationship to the topic.

Kay, the trouble you encountered with the legal system -- which you yourself have mentioned before in the Wikipedia talk pages, and which is documented on the internet for those wishing to investigate it for background -- did not primarily relate (at least initially) to the fact that you were a pro se litigant. You were involved in litigation, and a court of law reached formal conclusions about the merits of your case. Because the court apparently concluded that you failed or refused to comply with a court ruling (or rulings), the court terminated your right to proceed on a pro se basis.

Kay, my sense is that the reason your edits have included so many texts that are only tangentially related to the topic of pro se litigation is that you have been scouring various publications for any verbiage that you can find that would support your belief that you were wronged when the court terminated your right to proceed pro se. My sense is that you have been trying to use Wikipedia to "right" that "wrong."

Kay, based on the tenor of your edits and comments over the weeks, I conclude that you have a conflict of interest or such a strong feeling about this subject that this situation has prevented you from editing the article as effectively as you might otherwise have done. It appears, based on your comments, that your feelings have tainted your views about the motivations of other editors.

Kay, we are not here to debate the wisdom or rightfulness of what happened to you. There is little or nothing you (or I) can do, merely by adding verbiage to Wikipedia articles, to change what happened to you. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to continue this battle in the manner in which you have done so. I strongly urge you to try to put your personal feelings about the subject aside. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Famspear's summary, per wp:spade. The POV, COI, Soapbox, NOR problems, consistently dominating these edits are obvious. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires you to assume my good faith. I have not been citing my personal experiences in the article and do not wish to discuss them on the talk page. The representations you made above are false and are not part of the article. All that I am asking for is an article that is developed in accordance with Wikipedia procedures. This requires using the talk page to discuss references and nothing else. The article is defined as a legal article on the subject of pro se legal representation in the United States. If you are aware of any law or procedure that allows termination of the right to represent yourself,as you allege above, then you should cite it in the article. If you don't have a reference, then you should not be making unsupported statements in the article or in the talk page. kay sieverding (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Kay, that's not what I said. My representations are true. You have been citing your personal experiences about your legal problems here on this talk page. For example, here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Therefore, your statement -- that you do not wish to discuss your personal experiences on this talk page -- is misleading. And of course, I am indeed aware of a legal procedure that allows the termination of the right to represent yourself in court; the procedure was used in your own court case. Do you want us to add the case citation for your own case to the article? Regarding supposedly unsupported statements made by me, let's distinguish between statements of personal opinion and statements of fact. To the extent I am stating my personal opinions, the statements are, well, my opinions. By contrast, if you can identify what you believe is an unsupported statement of fact made by me, then you are free to try do so. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not discuss my personal experiences in the article and have been trying to bring the talk page back to exclusive discussion of sources. I was not the one who started using the talk page to discuss things other than references. If you want to cite my miserable experiences as an example of how the U.S. courts treat people, go ahead. It can't be any worse than the lies that are already published about me. It might be good for people to know that in the U.S. courts citizens may not get an evidentiary hearing before their case is dismissed, they are fined, and they are put in jail. Just make sure that what you write is accurate. Since you claim to be a lawyer, can you identify the procedure and the law by which self-representation rights are removed and people are put in jail for non fraudulent petitioning of the courts?

As far as what you wrote versus what Arthur Rubin wrote and what Non Curat Lex wrote I would have to sort them out.kay sieverding (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of responding to your specific question, Kay, I will simply quote from the text of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in your case:

Ms. Sieverding, her husband, and two sons filed a complaint in the District of Colorado in October 2002. The complaint was 106 pages long and set forth claims against thirty-six individuals or entities. The underlying issue in the case related to the alleged violation of the Sieverdings' rights with regard to zoning decisions that affected them and their former neighbors. During the pendency of the case, the Sieverdings filed more than 100 motions. In October 2003, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a sixty-one page recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice; that the Sieverdings be required to pay defendants' costs and fees; and that they be enjoined from commencing further litigation in the District of Colorado regarding these events without first obtaining counsel [ . . . ]

In late 2004 and 2005, the Sieverdings continued filing actions relating to the subject matter of their previous lawsuit. They filed five new civil actions in the federal district courts in Minnesota, Northern Illinois, and the District of Columbia; one new civil action in the state court in Denver County, Colorado; and one appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the summer of 2005, the defendants filed a motion requesting a show cause order as to why the Sieverdings should not be sanctioned for violating the filing restrictions portion of the March 2004 order. On September 2, the district court held a hearing and found the Sieverdings to be in contempt of court for violating the March 2004 order. The district court gave both of the Sieverdings the option of dismissing the lawsuits that remained pending in the District of Columbia and Colorado state court or going to jail. Ms. Sieverding refused to dismiss the lawsuits and was sent to jail. Mr. Sieverding withdrew his name from the pending cases.

[ . . . ]

"[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious." Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted) (per curiam). Federal courts have the inherent power "to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances." Id. at 352 (quoting Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902-03 (10th Cir. 1986)). We [the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit] agree with the district court that filing restrictions [against Kay Sieverding] were appropriate in this case.

--Kay Sieverding, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Colorado Bar Ass'n, et al., Defendants-Appellees, 469 F.3d 1340, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 06-1038 (Nov. 14, 2006).

I would also point out that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court's restrictions on your right to file pro se lawsuits were too expansive. The Appeals Court did modify the restrictions.

Kay, the point I am making is that because of your past legal problems -- which you yourself have mentioned on this talk page -- and based on the tenor of your comments on this talk page and your edits to the article, it is my personal opinion that you may have some sort of conflict of interest in editing the article. I again respectfully suggest that you consider whether you should put your personal feelings aside when editing the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about 3 people disabling the Wikipedia software abilities

I copied the article as it existed earlier today before the unexplained deletion of the common rights and access to courts sections into the "other space", so that I could work on the article using the Wikipedia software. However, the ability to edit the deleted portions by referring to the undeleted version has been destroyed. The reference links don't work and there is no ability to integrate the references to the case law with the statutory references. There is no way to move blocks of text around and the facilities to renumber the footnotes don't work. kay sieverding (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that Wikipedia ever offered "the ability to edit the deleted portions by referring to the undeleted version". You have to go into the article history to find the deleted portion, but you can't do that from an edit page for the article itself. And I don't know what you mean by "ability to integrate the references to the case law with the statutory references". Also, Footnote numbering should be an automatic function of the template. We don't have "facilities" for that. bd2412 T 05:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you did. Aside from probably being a GFDL violation, you copied the displayed page, rather than the editable page. I'm willing to "fix" it, but it's still probably a GFDL violation unless you also include the (full) list of all editors of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you create a section called "history of article" and include a list contributions to the article other than Kay Sieverding and who you wanted listed as authors and then restore the software editing capacity. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I wish to be able to write and edit a version of the article including all the deleted material and references as if the deletion of 90% of the references had never happened. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please find someone who hasn't been editing this article for help on restoring information from previous revisions of an article. It's not difficult, but adding material removed by multiple editors for stated reasons may be considered a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that if an "editor" wants to remove material from an article, they are supposed to explain their reasoning on the discussion page. The primary reason that material should be removed is that the reference is inaccurate. In this article, references were removed without discussion on the talk page. kay sieverding (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The conduct of the involved editors on this page (such as Arthur Rubin and me, Non Curat Lex) has been entirely proper. Material can be removed for a number of reasons. Verifiability is the MOST important criterion, but not the only one. Material can be patently inappropriate for a number of reasons beyond just verifiability. Talk page discussion prior to any edit that removes content compared to a previous version is GENERALLY advisiable when consensus is unclear. However, it is not required when it is pursuant to a clear consensus. Here, removal of some or many of the things that you have objected to being removed were consistent with a pre-existing consensus, and were discussed, at least in general, on the talk page. I am not really sure what you are complaining about. I don't think there is any misconduct here. I think you have a content dispute and it may be impossible for us to see eye to eye on EVERYTHING, but we're all dedicated to the same goal: making the article better. Let's not forget that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What I am objecting to are verifiable third party references directly addressing the subject being removed. Apparently, this is because certain lawyers think that their income might be adversely affected if citizens can use the courts, as many many do, without paying them. The stated reason for the removal is that the article should be less than 20% of the length of articles about certain individuals. kay sieverding (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay the only people editing here are Wikipedia editors. Some of us happen to be lawyers. Please refrain from making statements such as the one you made to the effect that edits are being made here "because certain lawyers think that their income might be adversely affected if citizens can use the courts". Aside from being laughable, these kinds of statements border on personal attacks, which violate Wikipedia rules. Statements like these are further damaging your credibility here. Famspear (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Statistics question

The section on statistics was deleted. There were statistics as to the numbers of self-represented litigants in various state courts. These references were deleted. There are also statistics as to the numbers,or percentages of self-represented litigants in federal court. An observation as to the success of self-representation in civil matters in federal court made by a U.S. judge was also deleted.kay sieverding (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References were not deleted for the sake of deleting them, or to censor anything. They were removed as part of removing material that is not on point. Present, here for discussion, a tight, well written, well referenced paragraph that is clearly germane to the article topic, and fits into the structure, and I'll add it myself. But your rambling additions make the article worse, not better. Sorry, but that's just what the consensus here is. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start:

In 2007, in the federal court system, approximately 27% of actions filed were self-represented. Over 92% of prisoner petitions were self-represented. Over 10% of non prisoner petitions were self-represented. ^[6]kay sieverding (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's more federal stats:

Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases. ^[7]

In 1998, federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in 76% of all cases in which dissent was filed. In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%. ^[8] kay sieverding (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's significantly better than what you've done before, thanks! Where do these statistics fit within the context of the article? Remember, synthesising conclusions is original research... but if you can find sources that reference these stats and draw conclusions of their own, they can be cited. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I started one of the RfCs (see the lightbulb below)... It looks like three others are requested as well... What is the consensus here? Shall I start RfCs on the other statements as well? Or can we combine them into a single RfC somehow? --El on ka 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a single Rfc is fine, because this is basically one big content dispute involving a clash between one editor's view of how the article should look, and that of every other editor who has stopped by or been involved (and the efforts of the majority of editors to accomodate and incorporate as much of the minority editor's contributions as practicable). So as long as the heading of the rfc is sufficiently global to give notice of the multitude of issues, I think one is enough.`Thank you. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Further statistics questions

I thought editors weren't supposed to delete a RfC or other people's comments unless they are libelous

I posted a RfC about statistics but it was deleted. Lar responded offering to that if I posted "here for discussion, a tight, well written, well referenced paragraph that is clearly germane to the article topic, and fits into the structure, and I'll add it myself"

I posted these two sentences with references

Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases. ^[9]

In 1998, federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in 76% of all cases in which dissent was filed. In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%. ^[10] Lar asked where in the article they should go. He was concerned that I would draw conclusions. However, there are no conclusions in these two sentences.

Why don't we just have a statistics section that would be similar in style to

NOTE: Removing material that violates to GFDL

Just like in the diabetes and insurance articles we can discuss trends and types. Those sections didn't appear all from one user in one setting. They are the result of cumulative editions.

Do you have any statistics on the subject ? (I am moving this to the bottom of the page, where I think it is supposed to be)

kay sieverding (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No comment on RfC deletion policies, but I don't appreciate cluttering a talk page that's already hard to archive, harder to follow, with block quotations from... I don't know, is that from other articles? I think there's a GFDL violation here, Kay. That too could get your so-called RfC deleted.

But look I liked what you wrote about statistics for self-representation earlier today - the stuff Lar said was good. I think that should be added to the article. Question: why don't you always write like that? Or why can't you write like that more often? It was so readable... Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I see that there's some disagreement about how quickly (or slowly) to archive this talkpage. The relevant guideline here is WP:SIZE. Some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. Which doesn't mean that we need to immediately archive at 33K, but when a page starts getting over 100K, it's usually time to start archiving. If there are ongoing discussions, then we can just provide a link to the place in archive which has the first part of the discussion... There's usually no need to keep the entire thing on the live page. --El on ka 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the right thing to do is not driven by WP:SIZE it's driven by the needs of the page. In my view 14 days is the right amount, and conversations that have new contributions should be left. But in any case, it's probably not a good approach to remove things added today as you just did. It might be best to leave archiving to the bots, and.or to those folk actively and substantively participating at this page. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ms. D: I don't think there's any serious disagreement. Archive away. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is. Removing things done today is not a good approach. Leave this to the bots. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuff was added today?? I missed it. OK, time to go back and look at the edit history. Sorry, Lar. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was careful not to remove a single thing that was dated in October.[4] --El on ka 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I stand corrected, evidently while I was editing, some October posts did get removed from the page, which was definitely not my intention. I archive pages routinely, so I'm not sure what caused the glitch. I'll go ahead and fix. --El on ka 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

<--unindent) There's been quite a lot of activity in the article in the last few days, probably better to hold off in archiving until all of these posts have been sorted. Some of them may well be archived out of order depending on what they are, but in the interim it's probably best to leave it to the bot. Risker (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker: -- fine with me. I'm also okay with "anything 14 days old" but I don't mind "anything 10 days old." Thank you, Ms. D., for archiving though. This page sure has been high-traffic lately. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got things straightened out to the best of my ability, at least as is possible on such a fast-moving page. There may still be a couple duplicate or "out of synch" sections. When in doubt, I restored both sections, and I'll let someone else make the call on which one to keep or how to get them merged together.

Please accept my apologies for the confusion. My guess is that when I started the archive, I was inadvertently working from an "old" version of the page, which is why the newer threads seemed to vanish. I'm still scratching my head over it, as normally I would have seen the big red "You are editing an old revision" banner... Ah well, I'll just have to pay closer attention in the future! --El on ka 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening it out. In future I suggest leaving this page to be archived by the bot. That will avoid mishaps like this, and will be a better use of everyone's time, including yours. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the talkpage is currently over 100K, which presents a hardship for some people who are trying to review the discussions. Using bot archiving is fine, but it has to be at a threshold which keeps the page size at a readable level. I am not understanding why some editors here want to insist on a 14-day cutoff, rather than just linking to previous discussions in archives? --El on ka 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any other complaints on the subject of archiving, so I think we're OK for 14 days. I originally selected 7 days when I set up the archivebot, but I don't think its really necessary to remove items from the talkpage before 14 days unless things really get out of hand. At the moment, everyone seems to be coping with the length and I wouldn't want to be unnecessarily antagonistic in removing what is mostly Kay's comments. Avruch^T 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As Kay still doesn't seem to understand archiving (or the RfC process), I don't think we should automatically archive her comments rapidly. (Although, I have no objection to manually archiving comments which duplicate previous comments.) As she also doesn't seem to understand signatures (at least, many of her recent comments, apparently signed, were also autosigned), it's possible the bot might falsely recognize an single comment as being replied to, so being subject to autoarchiving. We definately do not want her comments to be autoarchived before being read. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right - well, with a 14 day threshold, that won't happen will it? Avruch^T 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me take off my "archiver" hat and put on my "admin" hat, since there seems to be a larger problem here. If I'm understanding things correctly, there are concerns that Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs) is being disruptive? I have no familiarity with the article content, but I'm curious what the other editors on this page think. Is there a consensus that Sieverding's participation here is not helpful, and that she should be removed from the article, or Wikipedia? Or are folks still willing to try another step or two in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --El on ka 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in helping, and I'm sure the others do as well, but I actually think that Risker has it well in hand at the moment (or as well as can be expected). I'm not 100% sure that involving another admin at this point would be helpful, but you might ask Risker her thoughts. I'll note that Arthur Rubin and Lar are acting as editors on this page, but have been involved in counselling Kay on her actions and the relevant policies. Avruch^T 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, Kay is a new editor who (like almost everyone who has joined our community) has started her editing career with a focus on a particular subject. She has done extensive research on this subject and has tried to contribute a lot of information; however, despite her good faith, the method in which she started off has not been in the usual "Wikipedia way". That has certainly caused some frustration and concern, but I have been working with her from the administrative perspective (with assistance from Lar and other editors of this article) to help her develop her "Wikipedia editing" skills to extract the most relevant nuggets of information from her voluminous store of information to include into this article. There have been some bumps in the road, but Kay's efforts to comply resulted last night in a concise paragraph that would probably be a good fit for this article. Dispute resolution was actually working in the way it was intended, and it seems to have been heading in the right direction. The good faith but ultimately unhelpful archiving of last night, combined with the good faith but unhelpful reverting of a very reasonable talk page comment by Kay, may have a demoralising effect on the effort Kay has made to embrace the Five Pillars and to come to understand the collaborative editing process. As things were already progressing well, if somewhat slowly, I am inclined to think that consistency of approach is more likely to achieve success than trying to change paths when progress is already being made. Risker (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree... sometimes it is best not to jump in midstream even if one is convinced one is trying to help. This is most obviously true when others are telling one "Hey, that didn't help". I know you mean well Elonka but really... perhaps let Risker handle this one, as she has very capably been doing? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree- Lar, Avruch and Risker have summed it up accurately. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I complained only about references being erased and about threatening statements. I didn't delete anyone else's references and I didn't threaten anyone. Some people conceive this as an anti-lawyer article, although I do not. I don't believe that Risker is unbiased and I would appreciate a wider range of people being included in the discussion. As I understand it, the whole purpose of a RfC is to involve more people. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, you're forgetting to log in again. Kay, a lot of content you added to the article no longer appears in the current version, because a consensus of editors agreed that the content you aded did not improve the article for various reasons. None of them have been deleted. I don't know what "threats" you are referring to, unless you ar referring to warnings and other actions taken consistent with WP policies. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with editor Non Curat Lex on this. I have not seen any "threats" against Kay Sieverding (or against anyone else) here. And warnings and cautions regarding adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are entirely proper.

I disagree with Kay's implication that editor Risker is biased. Several people have already been involved in the discussion. The problem for Kay is that she has been the member of a "minority of one" with respect to her viewpoints and the discussions about how to edit the article, etc. I am hopeful that this article will slowly grow better with her involvement and the involvement of other editors.

Also, I'm not sure what Kay means by the statement that some people "conceive this as an anti-lawyer article". Famspear (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Famspear. I agree that there is no evidence of Risker's bias. A non-biased admin who weighs the issues and makes a decision does not become a biased admin because he has made a judgment. The issue is if his judgment was impaired by a previous connection to involved editors or the disputed content. Risker had neither.

In fairness to both you and Kay, I think she might be referring to something I said. At least a couple of times I have accused her of introducing an anti-lawyer bias into the article. Some of her remarks even appeared to suggest this was intentionally so. However, Kay has officially denied this, so, I guess its up to the community to judge -- or would have been, I think it's moot now because we have a decent procedure for controlling what was the runaway editing of the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My perception is that Risker is biased. For instance she posted on my talk page "The information you add to the article must be specifically relevant to the article; it must actually mention pro se representation, not just allude to representation in general. " even though many legal references such as the U.S. Code Title 28 Section 1654 (which authorizes self-representation) ',,)" style="background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; color: rgb(112, 112, 255); text-decoration: none; background-position: initial initial; ">^[11] do not use the words "pro se" and without discussion on the talk page Risker "erased" quotations taken from articles in which the term "pro se" was used in the title. I want to be clear with you that I am not at all convinced that I should allow my name to be further associated with this article because of the "erased" references, blockages, insults, and stated biases of the other editors.

My perception is that Risker is biased. For instance she posted on my talk page "The information you add to the article must be specifically relevant to the article; it must actually mention pro se representation, not just allude to representation in general. " even though many legal references such as the U.S. Code Title 28 Section 1654 (which authorizes self-representation) ^[12] do not use the words "pro se" and without discussion on the talk page Risker "erased" quotations taken from articles in which the term "pro se" was used in the title. I want to be clear with you that I am not at all convinced that I should allow my name to be further associated with this article because of the "erased" references, blockages, insults, and stated biases of the other editors.

Lex, as I stated to you previously, I have had both good and bad experiences with lawyers. I was prosecuted without probable cause and I was repeatedly jailed without citation of an Act of Congress or an evidentiary hearing. I was fined $102,000 without a rule 11 or a rule 38 order and without a criminal trial. So that was "bad". However, my husband got 5 patents and we made over $1 million on them, so that was "good". When I was in grad school, I dated a law student. His father spent 5 years in Auschwitz. That greatly influenced my thinking about law. kay sieverding (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(The discussion about the Anti-Injunction Act, which is clearly off-topic, has been moved to Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/AIA. Risker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Supreme Court statements and Civil Rights Act of 1866

I would like the following to be a "request for comment". Are these Supreme Court statements and The Civil Rights Act of 1866 relevant to the subject of pro se litigation in the United States?

“It is not necessary to fully enumerate the privileges and immunities secured against hostile discrimination by the constitutional provision in question. All agree that among such privileges and immunities are those, which, under our institutions, are fundamental in their nature… Among the particular privileges and immunities, which are clearly to be deemed fundamental, the court in that case specifies the right 'to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state.'…In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418-430, 20 L. ed. 449-452, the court, after referring to Corfield v. Coryell, above cited, and speaking by Mr. Justice Clifford, stated that the right 'to maintain actions in the courts of the state' was fundamental…The final judgment in this case therefore denies a fundamental right inherent in citizenship, and protected by 2 of article 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it would not be supreme if any right given by it could be overridden either by state enactment or by judicial decision.” CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907)

“The word "privileges" must be confined to those privileges which are fundamental; and includes the right to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State…. The right is not "merely procedural."…. Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142…. leaves it undisputed that the right to maintain actions in the courts is one of the fundamental privileges guaranteed and protected by the Constitution” CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN, 40 S. Ct. 402, 252 U.S. 553 (U.S. 04/19/1920)

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866)

If you would help set that up as a proper RfC, I would really appreciate it. kay sieverding (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Got any authority AFTER 1976 saying that the right to self-representation isn't subject to reasonable regulation? (Hint: it doesn't exist). Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lex

All litigation is already supposed to be regulated whether the communications are by lawyers or by self-represented litigants. As you know, many kinds of court room conduct are illegal. In most courts the length of motions is limited.

The U.S.Judiciary and the Judicial Conference have searchable websites. There are no reports in there of self-represented litigants violating Rule 11 or threatening witnesses.

There was the one case of the pro se litigant who murdered the judge's relatives. I looked up his file on Pacer and was able to read his last pleading. He had sued a county hospital for negligence and claimed that in their earlier pleadings the doctors committed perjury. It sounded like what he was really looking for was medical care.

In my opinion, the biggest problem that pro se litigants face is their problem getting a hearing on rule 11 motions because of the restrictions on non lawyers receiving fees. That leaves them without an easy mechanism to get a hearing on lawyer's misrepresentations. kay sieverding (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, Kay, without getting into a whole big discussion Rule 11, I think you might be making the mistake of thinking that Rule 11 is the ONLY vehicle a District Court (or state court following Fed R. Civ. P. analogs) has for imposing sanctions. It does not. Except in very strange judiciaries (strange enough that I've never seen one) the Court has contempt of court powers as well. Rule 11 created additional means, and safeguards, on sanctions, but it did not eliminate the judge's contempt powers. You can be sanctioned, jailed, etc., for violation of a court order, without a Rule 11 hearing. Were you aware of that? Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have read extensively on the subject of contempt law. Litigants can be sanctioned Under Rule 38 for violation of a discovery order. The Anti Injunction Act limits the "inherent powers" of the court. Judges are not supposed to be dictators. The Supreme Court said in YOUNG v. UNITED STATES EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A. ET AL., 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 05/26/1987) that indirect contempt prosecutions require criminal procedure and an independent prosecutor.^[13] ^[14] The only time that summary procedure can be legally used is if you commit contempt in the presence of the court, which is defined as something the court can hear, see or smell. The Clayton Act limited the court's injunction powers. ^[15] The U.S. Code Title 18 § 402. Contempts Constituting Crimes authorizes fines and imprisonment for contempts that are crimes but "This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law." "Whatever writs we issue that are necessary for the exercise of our jurisdiction must be agreeable to the principles and usages of law." Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 U.S. Supreme Court 1793. The Chisholm case was the main reference cited in Seminole Tribe v. Florida 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 03/27/1996) Here is a link to the U.S. attorneys' web site on contempt. ^[16] In Germany's post Holocaust constitution, it is absolutely forbidden to use contempt powers to imprison except for acts recognized internationally as crimes. That is also forbidden by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ^[17] but as previously discussed, the U.S. government adopted the UN covenant but excepted court actions from it. So unless the other case law and U.S. code, Anti-Injunction Act of 1793 ^[18], Limits to Detention Title 18 section 4001 ^[19] etc. are found to be controlling, U.S. judges could order us all imprisoned or executed for contempt of court. As the U.N. noted ^[20] , American citizens are denied the full protections of the U.N. covenant. kay sieverding (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored comment of kay sieverding

Actually I had added two RfC and they were both deleted, although I think Arthur Rubin was involved. kay sieverding (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had to delete it - it was in the middle of a URL. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I though Elonka had archived them, and you were restoring them. (If they were in the middle of a URL, that would explain it, though.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to subject of statistics

I don't see where the RfC were in the middle of anything. They were set off with the symbols. Anyway,

Lex I'm glad you liked those sentences. I find it difficult to write when people are deleting sentences that I just wrote. That rattles me and makes organization more difficult. I think it is pretty clear from the context that I brought them from other articles as an example of a use of statistics. Here are three good federal statistics with links

A.) "In 2007, in the federal court system, approximately 27% of actions filed were self-represented. Over 92% of prisoner petitions were self-represented. Over 10% of non prisoner petitions were self-represented." (Can anyone find the deleted source? I wrote this just today and it was deleted quickly)

B.) Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases. ^[21]

C.) In 1998, federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in 76% of all cases in which dissent was filed. In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%. ^[22]

I propose we have one section called "incidence of pro se litigation in district courts" which would include sentence A plus additional sentences from other sources. Another section could be "pro se appeals". The second two sentences are based on an on-line U.S. judiciary report that looks like it has other interesting facts about pro se appeals in it. kay sieverding (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, A few things:

Before anyone noticed what you were doing to this article, you had plenty of time to write without interruption, and you wrote word salad. Other people are not to blame for your woes. That argument has no credibility.
As we've been trying to tell you, content that disappears is not deleted. (Lar, et al., have been trying to tell you this for weeks.) Only admins can delete things, and deletion is extraordinary. Otherwise, everything can be found by looking at edit histories.
I'll put A and B in the article tomorrow if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Not C. Check the numbers. They don't add up. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1998, federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in 76% of all cases in which dissent was filed. In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%. Lex says these numbers don't add up. But they are different numbers. In cases in which a dissent was filed, both pro se and non pro se, the court of appeals issued a written opinion 76% of the time. The biggest problem with these numbers is that they are 10 years old. How about: "In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions in federal appellate courts in 1998 was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%."

with a flag requesting updated statistics. ????kay sieverding (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Well, I'm not sure how important this is to the pro se subject. What does it go to show? I know what it goes to show - a lot of pro se appellants are making frivolous appeals which are submitted without argument, or dismissed. However, that's based on my own personal knowledge, not based upon a reliable sources. The meaning of these statistics, and their relevance to the article, does not speak for itself, so I am uncomfortable including it based upon a justification that requires my OR. We need to find a reliable source explaining the meaning of these statistics, or do without. Non Curat Lex (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles have sentences such as "For at least 20 years, diabetes rates in North America have been increasing substantially." that don't explain why diabetes rates have increased other than possible greater screening. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/CaseMan1.pdf/$file/CaseMan1.pdf discusses the fact that pro se appeals are handled much differently than counseled appeals. I suspect that the insurance companies keep lists of court personnel that can be bribed and blackmailed and simply make arrangements for non prisoner pro se cases to be dismissed. I think that prisoner pro se cases are dismissed due to hatred and prejudice. I have spent years reading about this subject and have never read any other reason. One of the edited out references was a New York Times article about a pro se prisoner who appealed the eye witness identification procedure in his case for 18 years until finally the Innocence Project made the exact same arguments that he had been making. The NYT's article included a comment by his lawyer about pro se appeals not being heard.

If we just put the known verifiable information out there, maybe some other user will find some other related references. kay sieverding (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Statitistcs cannot always be explained" - that is a lame rejoinder. I don't know why I need to explain this, but I guess I do. The difference is that was an article about diabetes. The importance of diabetes rate statistics to the article, or to any article about public health, is self-evidence. The importance of these statistics to this article is not self-explanitory. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lex, I see that you deleted my comment from the talk page and say that you are "sick of this". Why don't you just go play golf? As per my deleted point, all the developed Wikipedia articles contain measurements and statistics. Your POV is apparently that pro se litigation isn't important and that it is only engaged in by deviant weirdos. The references showing that pro se litigation in California alone in one year alone involves 4.3 million actions (more than the population of Los Angeles) and that in federal court, non prisoner pro ses account for 10% of all civil filings. I also referenced survey data. kay sieverding (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, that's just IMPOSSIBLE. I haven't deleted anything. I CANNOT delete anything from wikipedia. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(But thanks for the gratuitous attack on the class of legal profession. Cute. Not WP:Civil, but cute.) Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, use the word "remove" instead of "delete". You removed many many references. How did I "attack the legal profession" in an "uncivil" manner? kay sieverding (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC's

You realize, of course, that none of the "RfC"s are properly tagged to be processed as RfC's. In any case, your case law dumps have no place in the article. Sourced statistics can have a place in the article, but not one referring to the number of people in Los Angeles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And I do apologize for removing the faulty RfCs. I thought Elonka removed them as being duplicates of threads already archived (which they, in fact, are), rather than as an accidental deletion due to them being created while she produced the archive section list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How were the RfC's improperly tagged? I put them on the RfC page.

I don't know what you are calling my "case law dumps". The only cases I cited were Supreme Court cases. Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) is a S.C. case that someone else cited.

One thing I don't understand is why the section on attorney pro ses cites the district cases about pro se attorneys getting fees in class action suits. That seems to me to be not settled law; that another court might rule differently. Is that what you mean by "case law dumps"? Should those references me deleted or modified? I didn't write them. kay sieverding (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article RfC's are generated by putting the appropriate template in the talk page, and they're included by a bot on the RfC page. See the instructions on the RfC page. And the section titles are much too long, so the autogenerated edit summary is more than the allowed 256 characters. Please shorten them. As I don't see any sensible content, I might misrepresent them if I tried to summarize.

Even if all the cases you cited were SCOTUS cases (which wasn't true, in the past), they're not all relevant to this article. They containing wording or are about subjects you think are relevant to this article, and you're also misquoting them — particually about "fundamental rights". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Requests for comment are generated by placing a certain technical template on the page, with a one or two line description of the request. I can help with the template, if someone can tell me what the short description is. For an example of other currently active RfCs, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. --El on ka 15:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to Elonka in this request, as Kay has misunderstood what I thought was clear advice on how to do some other editing within Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

sentence c

In 1998, federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in 76% of all cases in which dissent was filed. In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%. Lex says these numbers don't add up. But they are different numbers. In cases in which a dissent was filed, both pro se and non pro se, the court of appeals issued a written opinion 76% of the time. The biggest problem with these numbers is that they are 10 years old. How about: "In pro se cases, the percentage of written opinions in federal appellate courts in 1998 was 4% and in counseled cases overall, 38%."

with a flag requesting updated statistics. ????kay sieverding (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please reply in the appropriate section, and use stand-alone section names. Your failure to meet talk page guidelines for replying to comments makes your comments appear more like gibberish than they really are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem

The article currently says: "The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically allow court mediation services to be provided to self-represented litigants: 'Rule 33. Appeal Conferences The court may direct the attorneys—and, when appropriate, the parties—to participate in one or more conferences to address any matter that may aid in disposing of the proceedings, including simplifying the issues and discussing settlement.'"

That is true although the program is voluntary. The direction to participate only occurs after Forms A and B are filed by both the appellant and the appellee indicating their agreement to participate in mediation.

I had a sentence in there to the effect that these mediation services are sometimes denied to pro ses. That was removed by an editor. Yesterday, I was going thru an online report on appellate procedures by the U.S. Judiciary, http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf. It has a section for each circuit. Inside those sections are special procedures for pro se litigants. I didn't have time to read the whole report but it refers to some of the circuits denying mediation services to pro se litigants. So the sentence needs to be modified to indicate that participation in appellate mediation is voluntary, that it is generally considered useful and cost effective, that it is a program provided by the government totally free, and that some of the circuits do not allow self-represented litigants to participate.

The reference also shows that there are many procedural differences at the appellate court level between the procedures provided to pro ses and those provided to lawyers. These include oral presentations, motion handling, and the writing of a draft opinion by a staff attorney instead of by the panel judge. How can we do this in a time efficient manner avoiding conflicts? kay sieverding (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too technical. wp:not#howto. Have you read wp:not#howto? I don't see how you can have read it, and still want to include stuff like this. Non Curat Lex (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference isn't a how to for pro ses. The reference compares the motions procedures used in pro se cases with attorney cases and discusses when an opinion is written by a judge and when it is written by a staff attorney or a pro se clerk. I think the intended audience of the book is the U.S. judiciary. I couldn't convert it to a how to for pro ses if I wanted to. What I was thinking of would be less technical than the Wikipedia article on the Internal Combustion Engine. kay sieverding (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to a third opinion, but I think it's too technical. Does someone reading an encylcopedia about this really need to know that there are Pro Se Clerks in the District Court? Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who will be reading this article? Judges, lawyers, pro ses, potential pro ses, relatives of pro ses, politicians? I think that most lawyers already know about "Rambo" litigation techniques. For anyone else interested or affected by self-represented litigation is important to know that appellate procedure for pro ses has been much different from appellate procedure for lawyers. kay sieverding (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope that people are not reading wikipedia to get legal advice. Your comment (now archived) that you thought you had been discriminated against by judicial officers because they might have learned from wikipedia that you didn't have a right to represent yourself is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. On the other hand, I'm sure plenty of lay people will come to this page to learn the basic concept. I am quite positive that those people do need to know about something that detail.

I would also like to point up that comparisons to other articles are not persuasive. It is a case-by-case, common-sense-driven, community assessment. What somebody else did somewhere else does not matter. An article about steam engines or neutron guns provides a level of detail appropriate to the content and subject matter of the article. Job titles of civil servants and quibbly readings of the Fed.R.App.P. ar enot a level of detail appropriate to the subject matter of this article. Maybe that's just my opinion, but it seems to be the consensus. You can continue to try to advocate for a different consensus if you would like. That is your perogative (as long as you are not disruptive in the process). Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that pro ses don't get due process in appellate courts, after they don't get due process in district courts is not "quibbly". People really suffer. Like the guy who spent 17 years in jail because they wouldn't read his pro se habeas petitions. I do believe that what Wikipedia published and didn't publish may have caused the denial of due process in my cases too. That really really hurt me and my whole family. I would rather have had cancer than gone thru what I have gone thru and am still going thru. One reason for the detail is to make sure that the main points are correct. kay sieverding (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay - I believe that there are problems with the pro se process, but I don't think lack of success equates to lack of due process. With exceptions here and there, courts are supposed to, and do, treat everyone equally - and you get from the courts what you earn. If I file half-assed work I usually get a bad result. If I file well-polished work, I usually get a better result. Pro se litigants without legal training are probably going to have a hard time understanding how to analyze and apply the law. You also forgo the professional judgment of a trained attorney. That's often a disadvantage, but it's not a failure of due process. If you exercise the right to self representation/waive the right to counsel, you take your case into your own hands, and have to take responsibility for your choice, and you may have to take the bad with the good. There are some rules rewritten to accomodate pro ses, but for the most part, it's a uniform set of standards by which work product filed with a court is judged. Why should a pro se litigant get special, or better treatment or be handicapped? That would be a violation of the substantive rights of the other party. You don't remedy one injustice by creating another. And anyhow, I still don't buy that it is injustice to treat both parties by the same set of rules. Yes, it may be harder for one guy to follow those rules, but that's his or her own responsibility. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consider ^[23] kay sieverding (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) [Personal story and response archived]

Some additions to the article:

After discussion by Kay, Lar, and myself, I think it is safe to include some of the new additions proposed by Kay - there were three paragraphs, and I have added two of them to the article. I am concerned about the third, for reasons given above, and haven't heard any 3-0 on it yet. I hope someone will chime in. I think this is just a start - the tip of the iceberg, of how can we turn this article into at least a genuine B-class, with Kay's help. [Thank you for catching my typo, Kay.]

One of my personal priorities - I wasn't lying when I said I would take this on - is to include a section or subsection on PRLA, which, if I understand correctly, makes some significant clarifications and changes in the law concerning a very important group of litigants who often represent themselves: prisoners. Prison litigation is notable, and there is no mainspace article on the subject; if we can get some good information here, maybe it would be suitable to add a redirect. That's my hope. In any case, I haven't had time to do research on it yet, and I may not get around to it until later in the month -- but I do want to help expand the article (in a sensible way).Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another reference on prisoner litigation. ^[24]

It is important to understand that prisoners don't get a price break on filing. They pay the same filing fees as a big corporation. The only concession they get is that their payment can be deferred. When a prisoner files a complaint, 100% of the funds from any work they do for twenty cents an hour, and any monies that are sent them from outside, are used to pay the filing fees until they are entirely paid. Most prisoners have to pay for medical exams, underwear, dental floss, aspirin, vitamins, antacid, pens, paper, envelopes etc. Phone calls are about $5 per 3 minute call. All that indigent prisoners get is one or two 3 inch pencils and two pieces of paper per week and many prisoners have no opportunity to work for pay. So for a prisoner to agree to pay $350 to file and $450 for appeal probably means that they won't be able to get any medicine, vitamins, dental floss, or underwear for years. Why would they do that if they believe that what they are filing is frivolous? kay sieverding (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a persuasive position. Whether they believe it is frivolous or not does not matter; it is or is it isn't. Anyhow, some people will do or say anything to avoid going to/staying in prison. However, none of this is germane to the article talk page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well of course people try to stay out of jail, usually by keeping their conduct within legal limits. You're entitled to stay out of jail if you don't break the law. If you do break the law and then you stay out of jail thru witness intimidation or obstruction of justice, then you've committed even more crimes. Prisoners only file three types of actions: 1.) Those claiming that they are innocent and were wrongfully found guilty thru procedural violations or omitted evidence--trying to get out of jail because they are innocent or should be presumed innocent 2.) Those claiming that their sentence was too long due to procedural violations and 3.) Those claiming that the conditions in which they are kept are somehow inhumane and should be better. If you think you are going to write about prisoner litigation you need to understand what is involved. kay sieverding (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that my previous statement was incomplete. Those are the categories of litigation actions directly concerning their imprisonment that a prisoner might engage in. However, most litigation that people outside of prison can typically engaged in a prisoner can at least want to engage in. They can get married and divorced. They could probably file a pre nupt. They have children and parents and all sorts of paperwork related to them. Some of them have property and can have all sorts of actions related to buying, renting, and selling. They could be involved in a class action lawsuit. They could be involved in a voter's rights action. They might file for a patent or a copyright or assert a patent or copyright violation. They could donate their organs or perhaps transplant to a relative.

There were some reports about the Justice Department indicting, I think it was 200, lawyers last month related to sub prime mortgage mess. Think about Dicky Scruggs.

What kind of prisoner litigation would he engage in? What about Martha Stewart--I didn't hear that she engaged in prisoner litigation but she might have.

I can't remember ever reading anywhere any kind of statistics regarding types of prisoner litigation. kay sieverding (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dicky Scruggs? Martha Stewart? What in heck are you talking about? You're speculating about things where you don't even know what happened. None of what you are writing makes sense. Just because someone THINKS they are actually innocent, or CLAIMS they are actually innocent, does not mean they are. Everyone in prison who is claimg he or she is actually innocent is only there after having chosen to plead guilty, or having been tried. Maybe there was an error, but we have a pretty good system, so understandbly, the law presumes the validity of the trial, and puts the burden on the prisoner to prove that it was bogus. You may not like that system, but this article is going to reflect the law as it IS, or WAS, not as you wish it to be.

You claim you are asking me to "understand" the topic, but what you're really asking me to do is join you in making wild assumptions, unsupported by credible evidence, about both the state of the law, and about a whole class of litigants and cases. The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that Dickie Scruggs or Martha Stewart could engage in litigation while they were in prison. If Martha Stewart were filing papers related to her corporation or her money while she was in jail, that would be prisoner litigation, as defined. If so, she probably was one of the 8% of prisoners who was represented. Dickie Scruggs, on the other hand, is probably more likely to want to do his own papers, if he were getting divorced. The evidence does show that there are white collar criminals in jail.

In the case of Moon, he was innocent. Just because someone pleads guilty doesn't mean they are guilty. Look at the kids who pled guilty to the Central Park Jogger Rapes. Plus, people are forced to plea bargain.

There are lots of people doing extended time who have not been convicted of anything. Some people are held for up to 6 months without conviction. I'm not talking violent criminals either.

We are talking about the highest rate of imprisonment almost anywhere at almost anytime. Not all of them are guilty and the ones that are guilty are not all totally worthless beings that should be tortured.

What about DUI convictions? I met a really sweet educated white middle class woman who had killed someone on New Year's Eve.

It is not even so clear what the definition of a prisoner is. Some people do their time on weekends. Some are in mental facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/ABA info

Discussion page for proposed additions by User:Kay Sieverding - please comment on that page as to whether or not her proposals have potential for addition to the article. Risker (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deconstructing this talk page

In order to bring this talk page into some degree of usefulness, I am creating subpages for some of the topics that have been raised here, and will retitle some sections to improve accessibility. Risker (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

modifications to discussion of unbundled services and legal ghost writing

It seems to me that the so-called problem of attorneys ghost writing for non attorneys is solved simply by requiring disclosure. That is frequently mandated. I don't believe that legal ghost writing is common at all so I deleted that sentence. I included a link to ABA advertisements for legal ghost writing. There are only 4 vendors listed, two of which are not attorneys. There is an ABA application to be considered an "expert" and having a law degree is not required. If legal ghost writing was common, there would be a lot more than 4 vendors.

Why don't you break the section into descriptions of publications and programs advocating or allowing unbundled services and one of regulatory issues related to unbundled services? It could just be that the rules of professional conduct need to be updated to conform to the use of unbundled services.

Personally, if I were purchasing unbundled services. I would purchase editorial services long distance over the internet, help with discovery from a vendor in the local area of the party, and help with an actual trial from a vendor in the local area with the oral and fast response skills helpful in litigation. It is not at all clear that the skills involved with writing and the skills involved with litigation are the same. If I were to settle, I would consult a contract lawyer. I personally think there is a huge market for unbundled services related to patent applications. kay sieverding (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay - abide by instructions and leave the article mainpage alone. I will provide sources. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And just whose instructions are those that only you can edit the article main page and only your sources can be used? You already wrote that ghost writing by attorneys for proses is "common" with no references to support it. From my reading, I believe that is totally wrong. kay sieverding (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the advice from at least 3 editors including 2 admins is that you should not edit the article main page at all; that your "sources"⁽²⁾ are so badly formatted and "sourced"⁽¹⁾ that they shouldn't even been on this talk page, but on a subpage; and that those "sources"⁽²⁾ are not sources⁽¹⁾ . I wouldn't say it's risen to the level "instructions". No one has been saying that only Non Curat Lex is permitted to provide sources⁽⁰⁾. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For the purpose of this last parargraph, ⁽¹⁾ means Wikipedia definitions and ⁽²⁾ means Kay's definitions, which have little to do with one another. (A superscript 0 means I have no idea which definition applies.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I like your notations. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[What appears to be a personal message to another user, unrelated to this particular article, has been moved to the editor's talk page[5] ]

Note re: Talk Pages

Kay, Could you please take care not to write over/into the middle of what other people have already written on the talk page? Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lex, I didn't intentionally delete anything that anyone else wrote. Your statement was deleted along with my response. I thought that was intentional (by someone else) but I am also having some computer problems. kay sieverding (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay - in response to this statement and your previous accusation that I deleted your response, let me show that in fact 'you overwrote both my text and your own here; I had nothing to do with it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lex, Well I'm glad to know that you are no longer deleting my comments. I had a problem w it loading slow so I had two windows open at the same time. Maybe that was it. Then maybe it locked up. Meanwhile I was doing other things on the same computer and talking on the phone. kay sieverding (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Correction, not deleting permanently, deleting temporarily. Someone else Farnspear I think it was temporarily "archived" comments directed to me today before I even read them. kay sieverding (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, try very hard not to edit the same page in two windows simultaneously; it does often result in someone's edits being deleted. Thanks. Going to catch up on this page this evening. Risker (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, your above statement that you are "glad to know that [Non Curat Lex is] no longer deleting my comments" implies that I once was. I have not overwritten any comment you've put on the talk page (except for possible elimination of interleaving/preserving the integrity of properly-formatted comments), so that is wrong.

Sorry, I missed that accusation. Kay, I cannot see any of your edits having been reverted or overwritten except for the one a couple of nights ago, when a recent-changes patroller reverted to you as noted above. Perhaps I am missing something, but one should not accuse fellow editors without having some pretty firm evidence. I suggest you retract that comment.

This page, however, is far too long, and I am going to manually archive any threads that have had no posts in October; depending how far that gets us, I may need to do more or set up some transclusions to reduce the page load. Risker (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot should archive a chunk of the page before too much longer, so that will help. Avruch^T 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Farnspear just minutes ago deleted this from the talk page right after I posted it.

"Also, old decisions and references do matter. For instance, Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida is a case concerning common law which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1996. It cites North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 30 (1890), ^[25], Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) , Chisholm v. Georgia,2 U.S. 419 U.S. Supreme Court 1793, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 337 (1816), Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 (1834), and many other old texts and states "the colonists were referring "not to the corpus of English case-law doctrine but to undly valued common law procedures as trial by jury and the subjection of governmental power to what John Locke had called the `standing laws,'" such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights of 1689, and the Act of Settlement of 1701. Jones 110; see also Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two, 133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1231, 1256 (1985) (Jay II) (noting that "Antifederalists used the term common law to mean the great rights associated with due process"). The cardinal principles of this common-law vision were parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law, conceived as the axiom that "all members of society, government officials as well as private persons, are equally responsible to the law and . . . `equally amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals.' " kay sieverding (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Joriki deleted this from "requests for expansion"

"=pro se represented litigation==

self-representation in Jacksonian U.S.A.

North v South self-representation during time of slavery

recent trends self-representation federal court (2006 non prisoner civil plaintiffs = 10%)

pro se w jury trial

recent stats state court, family, civil,

bankruptcy

criminal defense

pro se procedures in federal appellate court.

reasons for self-representation kay sieverding (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"

These and many other references were deleted from the article: NOTE: Proposed additions by User:Kay Sieverding have been moved to Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Proposed additions for further discussion. Risker (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This really is frustrating. kay sieverding (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: The name is "Famspear." And I have not deleted anything that you have posted. Not only are you frustrated, but you are also confused and mistaken. Famspear (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, I also noticed that you refer to a user called "Joriki" who (you say) supposedly deleted something you posted. I just checked, and there is a user called "Joriki" -- but I don't see an edit by "Joriki" deleting something you posted. What are you referring to here?

Deletions to Wikipedia articles and talk pages are reflected in the edit histories. Famspear (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Kay, contrary to a statement you made earlier, I have not been involved in the archiving process on this talk page. Also, the editor "Joriki" to whom you refer last edited in Wikipedia on September 26th -- and based on a quick review I found no edits by "Joriki" on this talk page or in the related article. Famspear (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: I also notice that you are still posting lots of stuff on this talk page about the right of "access to the courts." That is not what the article is about. The article is about pro se representation. The right of access to the courts is not the same as the right of pro se representation. This is another example of confusion of two separate legal concepts, just like the confusion over the concept of "contempt" and the concept of "injunction" and the "Anti-Injunction Act." Famspear (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Famspear it is

The subject was whether self-represented persons have due process rights to access courts. The right of pro se representation is a subject of the right of access to courts.

(cur) (last) 14:47, 10 October 2008 Famspear (Talk | contribs) (114,471 bytes) (→Archiving: comment) (undo) involved "archiving" a comment I had just written.

That is not the first time my comments on the talk page were "archived" the same day I wrote them.

see for instance

12:53, 8 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States ‎ (→Archiving: conversation w Lex)

04:09, 6 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States ‎ (→Archiving: update) (That was "archived" 3 minutes after I wrote it)

Joriki "rollbacked" my "request for expansion" kay sieverding (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Kay, here is the edit I made: [6]. That's not me "archiving" one of your comments. That's me making my own comments. You're mis-reading the heading. The heading for the section is "archiving", and the comment that I added was the word "comment" -- meaning that I was adding my own comment to the talk page. Look at the edit. Nothing in your material was "deleted" when I made that edit. I was simply adding my own comment to the talk page.

Kay, regarding user "Joriki", you still have not shown where "Joriki" has rolled back your "request for expansion." As far as I can see, user Joriki has not even made edits to this article or to this talk page, so I can't figure out what you're talking about. Where is this edit by "Joriki"? Famspear (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: Same this with this edit: 12:53, 8 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States ‎ (→Archiving: conversation w Lex)

Here is the actual edit to which you are referring: [7]. You are incorrectly claiming that this is an archiving of comments. You are simply not paying attention to what you are reading. This edit is an ADDITION of material. You are misreading the material. The word "Archiving" is displayed on the page by the software as being the heading for the section of the talk page where the edit was made. The words "conversation w Lex" are the explanation by the person making the entry. Look at the entry. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Kay, that last entry shows you ADDING the material. Here it is again: [8]. The text is shown, shaded in green on the right hand side of the screen. This is your own addition of material to the talk page -- NOT a DELETION or ARCHIVING of your material. Famspear (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: Same thing here: (cur) (last) 14:47, 10 October 2008 Famspear (Talk | contribs) (114,471 bytes) (→Archiving: comment) (undo). You, Kay, are saying that this edit involved "archiving" a comment you had just written. Wrong. Look at the edit: [9]

This edit was me, Famspear, adding my own comments to the talk page, not me deleting something that you wrote. In Wikipedia, we read left to right. The left hand side is the material BEFORE the edit and the right hand side is the material AFTER the edit. Famspear (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay, OK, I found what you are talking about with respect to editor "Joriki". It's here: [10]. Do you see the mistake you made? Editor "Joriki" had nothing to do with that entry. That was YOUR entry, not Joriki's entry. That was you yourself, adding your own comments to a project page in Wikipedia. Again, you are not reading correctly. "Joriki" has never even been involved in this process. Please pay closer attention to what you are reading. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will check this out in more detail soon. Thank you kay sieverding (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read two sections suggested by Risker and I now understand the program better. I do agree that the talk page is too long and therefore confusing and I think we should remove everything about our conflicts from it and assume good faith. I am going to clean up my talk page too so that there will be a clean start. Risker can look on the history to see my response to her recent postings.

I think that the various references under discussion should be the only thing on the page and that they should not be removed without a written understanding as to why they are removed. Why don't we move all the known references not currently in the article to the talk page so that they can be sorted out. I think we should only delete the references from the talk page if they are inaccurate. Otherwise I think we should just leave them on the talk page if they are not in the article. Isn't that how the talk page is supposed to be used?

I don't understand what the red "vandal" means. That was assigned automatically to one of my recent edits which involved correcting a spelling mistake, deleting an un sourced sentence which I believe is incorrect, and adding two references showing why I believe the deleted un sourced sentence (that legal ghostwriting is common) is incorrect. I looked on the talk page of one of the other people involved with this article and found many red "vandal"s there.

I don't understand what happened with my requests to expand the article. The earlier statistics I cited about frequency of self-representation in state courts were from 2004 or earlier. I think the numbers are probably higher now. The federal numbers I found are for 2007. There must be state numbers out there. Maybe there are also numbers for frequency of use of unbundled resources and participation in court programs for pro ses.

Would it be technically possible and in agreement with Wikipedia policy to use the published federal numbers to create a graph showing trends in pro se representation? kay sieverding (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If it follows WP:CITE, I think it would be okay, but I am not sure. There may be a policy on this of which I am not aware. Arthur, care to chime in? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can combine the same reliable source for different years without violating WP:SYN. If they're different sources, it's not usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the federal stats so they should be consistent. kay sieverding (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

why were these references deleted

I believe it was Arthur Rubin who deleted these Supreme Court cases, Pickering v. Pennsylvania, Federal Rule 17, and all the references to the state and federal judicial canons. I left a note on his talk page asking him why he deleted them but when I went to check, he had deleted my note asking why he deleted these references. Why were these references deleted? I don't believe there is any Wikipedia policy that allows deletions of valid references even when parties don't agree with them. I see some discussion on his talk page that he wants to have me banned from the article so that these references will not be public. That does not seem in keeping with WIki policy since he didn't challenge the accuracy of the references.

Decisions on Access to Courts

The federal court in the U.S. Capital rule in 1985 in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Meese: "One of the basic principles, one of the glories, of the American system of justice is that the courthouse door is open to everyone--the humblest citizen, the indigent, the convicted felon, the illegal alien...That principle of access to the courts consists not merely of the right to file a complaint but it includes the right to file other papers, including motions apprising the court of possible changes in the facts, the law, or the position of the litigant."[9]

The U.S. Supreme Court rule in 1907 in CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE:“It is not necessary to fully enumerate the privileges and immunities secured against hostile discrimination by the constitutional provision in question. All agree that among such privileges and immunities are those, which, under our institutions, are fundamental in their nature… Among the particular privileges and immunities, which are clearly to be deemed fundamental, the court in that case specifies the right 'to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state.'… In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418-430, 20 L. ed. 449-452, the court, after referring to Corfield v. Coryell, above cited, and speaking by Mr. Justice Clifford, stated that the right 'to maintain actions in the courts of the state' was fundamental…The final judgment in this case therefore denies a fundamental right inherent in citizenship, and protected by 2 of article 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it would not be supreme if any right given by it could be overridden either by state enactment or by judicial decision[10]

However, some people think that the terms "humblest citizen, the indigent, the convicted felon, the illegal alien" do not apply to unrepresented litigants and that the fundamental privilege of the "right to institute and maintain actions of any kind" also does not apply to unrepresented litigants. citation needed

The U.S. Supreme Court rule in 1920 in CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN: “The word "privileges" must be confined to those privileges which are fundamental; and includes the right to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State…. The right is not "merely procedural."…. Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142…. leaves it undisputed that the right to maintain actions in the courts is one of the fundamental privileges guaranteed and protected by the Constitution[11]

However, even though in the U.S. there is no right to a lawyer in a civil matter, some people think that self-representation is merely a procedural right. These people think that access to court without a lawyer is not a fundamental right. citation needed

The United States Supreme Court ruled "[n]o technical forms of pleading or motions are required,” and Rule 8(f) provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Given the Federal Rules’ simplified standard for pleading, “[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding. Moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56. The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.^[26] However, some people think that these decisions should not apply to writings by self-represented litigants. citation needed

Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 08/28/1945)^[27]involved a civil rights complaint alleging malicious prosecution and due process violations. Picking was a pro se attorney. Her 150 page complaint was also “long and hard to understand” but the 3rd Circuit remanded it for regular proceedings anyway. (151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 08/28/1945). That case was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in MONROE ET AL. v. PAPE ET AL., 81 S. Ct. 473, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 02/20/1961). >^[28]

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the rights of the self-represented litigant in Rule 17 "The court must appoint a guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action"[5]

Self Help Website (not my posting)

http://www.representyourselfincourt.org

With a free e-book, links to online resources by state, and also motions, briefs, pleadings and other helpful documents available for you to view, download, and edit, this may be a very helpful resource.

This website touches on lawsuits, divorce and custody, criminal, civil, and estate issues, and may help those who can't afford an attorney and are forced to represent themselves in court.

he wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama, ^[29] Idaho,^[30] Indiana,^[31] Kentucky, ^[32] New Jersey,^[33] , Nevada^[34] Wisconsin ^[35]Pennyslvania, ^[36] Virgina, ^[37] Rhode Island, ^[38] Washington State,^[39] West Virginia^[40]Utah, ^[41] kay sieverding (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, you're lying. I moved the comment to the end of my talk page, per WP:TALK, although it's clearly allowed to delete talk page comments made in an inappropriate location. Consider that part of the rules of Wikipedia, similar to the rules of court.

I say again, though, you've been asked not to edit the page, except for correcting typos and possibly tagging incorrect or unsourced information. (Tagging is done with {{citation needed}}, not [[citation needed]]. The latter can and should be deleted on sight.)

Also, your "references" in the last section are hopelessly broken, in addition to being probably irrelevant.

I decline to comment on your references⁽²⁾ at this time, except to note most of them do not qualify as references⁽¹⁾. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are arguments unrelated to the accuracy of sources on this talk page

I have moved Kay's most recent writings about her personal experiences to User:Kay Sieverding/Personal notes, and have archived the remainder of this section. While I appreciate that Kay's personal experiences may be driving her participation here, discussing her case with her on this page is not helpful in keeping the focus of this page on the general subject of pro se representation. If any of the editors wish to pursue a discussion with Kay about her personal experiences, I'd suggest her talk page would be a better forum. Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I didn't bring up the subject of my personal experiences. Famspear did based on his independent research. kay sieverding (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Kay, you did bring up the subject of your personal experiences. The person who brought up your own personal experiences for the very first time on this talk page was you yourself, on 10 September 2008, at [11]. I do not see any discussion of that on this talk page made prior to that date by any other editor. You also talked about this several times later, bringing this up again on this page on October 9, here [12] and here [13] and here [14]. While editor Risker's point -- that discussing your case on this talk page may not be helpful in keeping the focus on the general subject of the article -- is well taken, I want to keep the record straight. Famspear (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that what happened is that when I first set up the Wikipedia account I used a tag line about pro se access to court being essential for democracy (which I totally believe) and I explained what happened to me. That goes back to August. Then people said I shouldn't have a tag line and I changed that. When I entered the user account, it didn't say what you were supposed to talk about or not talk about. Wikipedia really should make that clear on the user page so people don't have to hunt all over the web site to know what the rules are. I thought it was better to own my past (which I can't really hide from anyway). It's weird because people say what they do for a living and then they write about what they know. kay sieverding (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)So then when I first posted people started hassling me about the talk page and that's how it came up. And pro se litigation is what I had been researching and what is a real crisis in my life. When I was younger I was a lot more interested in other things. I could have gone to law school when I was younger, and actually considered it, but I didn't really want to. My boyfriend didn't really like law school and went back into physics after he finished law school. I really didn't have the grades to get into Harvard Law and I was making decent money and enjoying myself without a law degree.kay sieverding (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So what?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing about what you know, and writing about personal experiences. There isn't a rule against editing subjects you are familiar with; in fact, in theory, it's encouraged. People familiar with a subject may have ready access to useful, citable resources. But that encouragement doesn't give you permission to turn articles into soapboxing, or original research. So, I don't go and edit the article about fraud to include stories about cases I've won or lost. I don't edit the ADA article to argue what I think the ideal law of disability discrimination would be.

There's a line you cannot cross. That line is defined by the rules that content has to be objectively reasonable and "verifiable." It also has to be an appropriate for an encylcopedia. Your stories are not. They only serve to make it clear that your conduct is a "single purpose account" (see wp:spa), dedicated to turning this article into a personal soapbox, trying to prove a "point" that doesn't need proving, in a way that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Here's what I want to know, Kay. You have been informed, asked, told, demanded, threatened, and blocked, over your disrupting the article. And yet, you do not stop. You just charge boldly forward, ignoring everyone who has written to you, and everything you've been told. Why? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My experiences came up on the talk page but once I understood Wikipedia I didn't post anything on the article related to my personal experiences. That was like the 2nd day almost two months ago.

All of my references are verifiable.There's nothing in the article about my law suit or my being put in jail for engaging in pro se litigation. I didn't put my experiences in the Judge Edward Nottingham article either although he was my judge.

I went out of my way to search for references expressing all the various sides of the issue. For instance, I wrote to the ABA and asked for their input, and in fact, asked them to work on the article. I also posted about issues involved with mediation and settlement with pro ses, citing references from a lawyers point of view. Those references were deleted by someone, I can't remember who and don't know why. At this point, the only reference that I posted that is soft at all is a blog quoting a transcript quoting a former federal judge and I know for sure that is a valid transcript. The guy who runs the blog is a 3rd year law student and has a business selling data services exclusively to lawyers. Even the stuff that was deleted about pro se frustration I had references for. I read in the Wikipedia discussion of sources that blogs can be used in some contexts.

I don't believe that I did any original research. All I did is search the Internet for references for the article. I really didn't know about unbundled attorney services or the amount of pro se litigation before I started working on this article. I had already been thinking about forms based filing but I started thinking about that anyway because of my experiences with ECF, which date back to 2004. Also, when I was younger I worked as a systems analyst.

I did get the info on the Laws and Liberties of MA years ago, but Wikipedia already had an article on that and it probably would have come up anyway. Same as the U.N. covenant--can't really hide that. I didn't add a and b together to prove a point, at least not consciously. Like today, I was reviewing appellate procedures and it seemed that the 5th Circuit had a more pro se friendly tone, which I think is because of Judge Learned Hand, who was in the fifth circuit. And the only reason I know about that is that one time I went in every federal circuit and searched on the words "pro se" in the 40s because I was trying to see if there was a history of putting pro ses in jail for being pro se (No, there was not). What I found in the 40s was that some circuits denied all the pro se appeals without even saying why but Judge Learned Hand seemed pro se friendly.

I believe that your posting things about pro se litigants getting an unfair advantage is "soap boxing". I do understand your wanting to win thru competition though and about law as a business. I've been an entrepreneur.

I didn't know about the Federal Judicial Center until I started working on this article. That book on appellate procedure I found looking for references for this article. The manual on complex litigation I found looking for references for this article.

Arguing with you helps me to clarify the issues for myself. One thing I started thinking about a lot in the past few weeks is slavery and how that affected the history of pro se litigation. I ordered the book Slave Nation at the library but I haven't got it yet. But now when I look at pro se law in the different states I think free state, slave state, border state. Also, there were issues related to Indians in some of the western states. The labor union movement had a lot to do with it too, I think. So did the history of workmen's comp, which is of course related to unions.kay sieverding (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should consider getting a blog, Kay. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, I'm sure "arguing" with us helps you to clarify the issue, but that's not what a wikipedia mainspace article is here for. You do the community a major disservice by forcing those of us who believe in minimum quality standards to spend hours and hours reacting to your edits which, if they had gone unchecked, would have destroyed and perverted this article. Your description of your unprincipled research methods is telling. I am not surprised that you are bouncing chaotically from place to place cherry-picking citations to works you can barely comprehend. You are engaging in ADVOCACY, not INFORMATION. It is most certainly OR, and not even competent OR.

As for your claiming that I have said "pro se litigants get an unfair advantage," I don't know where you're even coming up with that. I have never said anything of the kind. I have said that the system that for which you are advocating would require giving pro se litigants some kind of advantage. That is a completely different arument. I don't know the basis for your putting words in my mouth - I will assume it is incompetence and not malice.

Of course there is no history of putting pro se people in jail exclusively for pro se status. Is this news?? ????

On the other hand, there is history for putting people in jail who think the rules don't apply to them and who can't conform themselves to them.

Finally, the adversarial system that has been a defining feature of the common law for centuries is something I believe in as part of justice, not because it's a good business opportunity for trained lawyers. I am an etrepeneur too, but to deride the practice of law as mere entrepeneurialism denigrates all of us who have a passion for justice. I tire of your insults.

Note -that Judge Hand - both Learned and his son Augustus, served on the 2nd Circuit, not the "lawless fifth." Also, blogs are NOT allowed as a source for anything except evidence of their own content. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lex, Thanks for your clarification of Judge Learned Hand. I guess I should not trust my memory.

The only times I remember citing blogs were the WSJ--when I cited the article, not the commentary, which was an interview. That was deleted.--and when I used them as evidence of pro se dissatisfaction. I see that you also deleted a quote of a court case that was in a blog. I am positive that that was an accurate quote of a transcript with a statement by a federal judge. I will have to go read up on Wikipedia sources again.

Also I am positive that the quote about the federal district court discouraging pro ses from using their mediation is correct, but I will have to check on the link. Why didn't you just flag the source instead of deleting it?

Please don't insult me. I am not trying to insult you.

Other than my complaints of censorship, please provide three examples of what you claim was my "disruptive" editing. Or do you just want to go on with the article from where we are?

This is an example of an unsupported statement in the article that I don't believe is true: "The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertance by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. While this rule creates a double standard". I think this means "pro se litigants get an unfair advantage". Wasn't it you that wrote that? FYI, I was put in jail for over 4 months solely for engaging in pro se litigation. The only way I could get out was to agree to withdraw all pro se litigation. My husband was threatened w jail for paying for me to file a complaint while I was in jail and paying for a typist. And no, I don't believe there is a a history of "putting people in jail who think the rules don't apply to them and who can't conform themselves to them." To the best of my knowledge, in civilized countries people are only put in jail for committing crimes and as far as summary contempt use of jail is very limited. I saw an article, for instance, about a judge who put a whole courtroom in jail for 2 hours because of an objectionable ringing cell phone. kay sieverding (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, people who can't or won't conform to society's rules often are criminals, because criminal laws reflect shared societal values, reduced to legislation setting minimum standards of conduct. People who think they are immune to those rules and act accordingly are probably doing something criminal, and should end up being sanctioned for it.

If you disrupt a courthouse, or the administration of justice in any way, whether by having a tantrum, creating a disturbance, insulting a judge on the bench or at chambers, or violating a court order, you most certainly run the risk of being jailed. Normal people get that, and are careful how they act. You don't seem to want to come to terms with that, but that isn't my problem, and the article cannot reflect your subjective disbelief, especially when said disbelief arises solely out of your desire to relitigate past wrongs you felt you have suffered.

I did write that the CA rule creates a double standard, because it does. It says one set of rules governs how the court must act when all parties are represented by counsel, and another set applies to pro se litigants. Whether or not it is fair, that is a double standard. There are reasons why it's good, and reasons why it's bad. But I did not ever say it creates an unfair advantage. I think that representing yourself is not usually an advantage. The double standards are pretty minimal, and it doesn't come close to equalizing the deficit, so it's hardly an unfair advantage, and I would never say that it is. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I suggested Kay get a blog, not so that it would be a source of anything usable here, but instead as a place for her to expound her views and relate her experiences in peace, since this (or any other article) talk page is not the place for that sort of activity. I know that's not what you meant but I want to make sure others are clear. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar - I understood what you meant and I agree. Kay should use a blog to blog about her experiences and her problems with the justice system, not a wikipedia article. I was commenting on the un-citability of blogs because I just realized, in reading her comments, something that she had put on the main article that LOOKED okay, turned out to be sourced to a blog, and I was explaining why I removed it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was sourced to a blog, but I think it was reliable. It has been published on the blog for a year and it is sourced to a court transcript. The pro se litigant was a Yale grad. The blog owner is a 3rd year law student and I don't think he would misquote a federal judge. Isn't there a way to use that source, with whatever notations?

My statements of views are merely responding to yours. You write "I did write that the CA rule creates a double standard, because it does. It says one set of rules governs how the court must act when all parties are represented by counsel, and another set applies to pro se litigants.". I don't think that is true. What rule are your referring to? To the best of my knowledge all the written rules are exactly the same in all courts for both pro ses and attorney except for 1.) ECF, which pro ses are frequently not allowed to use, 2.) pro se forms, which pro ses aren't required to use. An attorney could probably use the pro se forms if they wanted. 3.) appellate appendixes -- in pro se cases the entire case file is sent over and there is no provision for joint appendixes, a disadvantage for pro ses. There are also other procedures for pro ses, which are not in the rules--see the appellate procedures which I quoted from the case manuals. As I read the California manual, it seemed merely to instruct the judges to provide more explanation. I don't remember reading anything that seemed to indicate that a pro se paper would be processed but the same paper from an attorney would be dismissed.

Criminal legislation is supposed to be clear. A crime is supposed to be a crime no matter who does it unless they are mentally ill or a child.

If someone is jailed for disrupting a court, the Federal Rules require that the court say what the disruption consists of, so there should not be a question of what it was.

Please give me an example of a court order that you think a person can be jailed for not obeying, other than not paying alimony or child support, or not testifying when subpoened about a crime or not responding to a subpoena by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. kay sieverding (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Any Order to Show Cause for violation of an injunction, particularly one where the judge has, in issuing the injunction, indicated penalty of jail.

As for your theory of criminal justice, it is simplistic and wrong. It is also irrelevant. Jail and crime are not inextricably linked. Civil jailing is less common today than it once was, when civil jailing was automatic, per capias ad respondendum, which has been abolished, along with debtors' prison, but to an extent, it still exists, in conjunction with the court's equitable in personam jurisdiction. So say what you will (incorrectly) about criminal justice, it is inapplicable to civil incarceration.

Finally, It doesn't matter if YOU think a blog is reliable. That's just using OR to vouch for a CITE violation. There is a long-standing CONSENSUS that blogs are irrebutably presumed unreliable sources on wikipedia. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, a blog can be used, in some cases,

If the blogger is an expert, and identifies himself on the blog, and identifies the blog in a reliable source.
To indicate the existence of the blog entery, without noting its reliablity.
As a courtesy copy of a reliable document not othewise available online, provided that a credible editor (which does not include you, Kay) verifies that the copy is legitimate.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Appellate Mediation and Pro Se practice

Kay seems to think it is very important to talk about the fact that some (or many?) Federal courts have a practicing of denying, or recommending against, mediation for pro se parties. I myself wonder what the importance of this fact is to this article? Why does this matter? Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references

What is the consensus on the relevance of biblical history of self-represented litigation? I'm not trying to take a scorched earth approach to Kay's edits, so I left a brief mention in the history section, but, I have a reasonable doubt whether it merits inclusion. Per 30, I'd like to see if there are any comments on this. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that whether the two-thousand-plus-year-old biblical references are somehow technically "relevant" or not, they are extremely tangential, and that they probably do not belong in the article. None of the biblical references that I saw deal in any material way with the specific topic of the article: representing oneself in a court of law in the United States, as opposed to being represented by an attorney. The proposed inclusion of these materials is an example of the result of prohibited original research. It is not for us as Wikipedia editors, on our own, to make the inferential leap from a reading of the text to the idiosyncratic conclusion that the quoted material from the Bible somehow is sending us a message or making a statement about the very specific topic of pro se representation in the United States today.

By contrast, if a previously published, reliable third party source, such as a law professor, were to have written an article wherein he or she argued (for example) that the modern-day right to represent oneself in a U.S. court of law somehow had its genesis in the legal systems of the peoples described in the Bible, etc., etc., then the Wikipedia article on pro se representation could perhaps mention that professor's position, with a proper citation to the author and his or her published work. Here, it is not Wikipedia editors or Wikipedia itself taking the position; it is Wikipedia reporting what the previously published, reliable third party source's position is. Famspear (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Well said, Famspear. I am aware of no article on point invoking biblical authority. Hard to prove a negative, though. I think that it's up to Kay to show justify why this should not be deleted. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the sentence about the biblical references, I merely supplied them. I don't remember who wrote the sentence. However, a federal circuit court, wrote, (one of my deleted references):

The following was excerpted from Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998):

The right to proceed pro se in civil actions in federal courts is guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." Section 1654's guarantee derives directly from the Judiciary Act of 1789.

First introduced in the Senate on June 12, 1789 as part of Senate Bill [S-1], the right to self-representation appeared in section 31 of the Bill. But when the Bill became law, on September 24, 1789, the right was moved to section 35, which reads as follows: "That in all the Courts of the United States the Parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of such Counsel or Attornies at law as by the rules of the said Courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." V Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America 1789-1791 1150, 1165, 1193 (1986). As can be seen, the right to self-representation has remained constant for over 200 years.

The framers of our Constitution thought self-representation in civil suits was a basic right that belongs to a free people. Although the Supreme Court alluded to civil pro se representation in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 812-13 (1975), the Court there focused its discussion on the right to represent oneself as a defendant in a criminal case, id. at 813 et seq., which the Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees.

In a criminal prosecution, a pro se party of course may only appear as a defendant. In a civil case, a person may appear pro se as either a plaintiff or defendant. And, as noted, the right of self-representation in one case is protected by the Constitution, and in the other, simply by statute. Further, in contrast to criminal defendants, civil litigants unable to afford counsel cannot ordinarily obtain appointment of counsel, except in circumstances when there is a risk of loss of liberty, as in mental commitment or juvenile delinquency proceedings. See H.B. Kim,Legal Education For the Pro Se Litigant: A Step Towards a Meaningful Right to Be Heard, 96 Yale L. J. 1641, 1646-47 (1987).

Moreover, the historical origins of self-representation in civil and criminal proceedings are different. In Faretta, the Court discussed the historic requirement of having counsel, going back to the infamous English Star Chamber that forced counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding, and the requirement's gradual reform. This reform was fervently embraced in colonial America for those accused of crime. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 821-26.

Passing from the criminal to the civil context, we . . . observ[e] that a person appearing pro se in federal court can be a mixed blessing because persons appearing pro se lack legal training and may, on occasion, burden the court by filing illogical or incomprehensible pleadings, affidavits and briefs. And sometimes a pro se litigant appears simply for the purpose of using the courtroom to advance a political or social agenda, or to pursue a matter that is legally unredressable. See E.J.R. Nichols, Preserving Pro Se Representation in an Age of Rule 11 Sanctions, 67 Tex. L. Rev. 351, 351 nn.2 & 3 (1988). Yet, even given those potential burdens, there still remains a citizen's right of access to the courts, a strongly held notion stretching back to the beginnings of our Republic. The origins of the right to appear for oneself in civil proceedings derive from a number of sources, all deeply rooted in our history and culture. We undertake to discuss briefly five of those sources, though doubtless there are others:

First, history. Under the English common law with its complicated forms of action and veritable maze of writs and confusing procedures, the right to retain counsel in civil proceedings became a necessity. By the middle of the thirteenth century, lawyers so monopolized the courts in London that the King was forced to decree that, except for a few special causes, litigants were entitled to plead their own cases without lawyers. See The Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, 66 Colum. L. Rev. 1322, 1325 (1966).

Second, mistrust of lawyers made appearance in court without benefit of counsel the preferred course. See A.L. Downey, Note, Fools and Their Ethics: The Professional Responsibility of Pro Se Attorneys, 34 B.C. L. Rev. 529, 533 (1993). Lawyers had no position of honor or place in society in early colonial days. The pioneers who cleared the wilderness looked down upon them. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 expressly permitted every litigant to plead his own cause and provided, if forced to employ counsel, the litigant would pay counsel no fee for his services. See Charles A. & Mary R. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization 100-01 (College ed. 1930).

Third, informality. In early colonial days, the rule of informality was a necessity in court proceedings since most presiding judges were not lawyers. See The Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, supra, at 1328. By the time of the Revolution, legal proceedings had become more technical and reliance on precedent had evolved, both of which required people trained in legal interpretation. As the decades of the 18th century passed, legal questions became more complex and the need for skilled attorneys was recognized. Enough individuals had gone into law so that by the time the First Continental Congress commenced, 24 of the 45 delegates were lawyers, and in the Constitutional Convention, 33 of the 55 members were lawyers. See Beard, supra, at 101. Nonetheless, the number of lawyers although growing was still few, many Judges were still laymen, and the legal process still remained sufficiently simple to permit persons whether rich or poor to plead their own causes. See The Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, supra, at 1329.

Fourth was religion. Colonial peoples' notions of their own individual rights and their reliance on themselves were part of the movement away from religious authority and towards religious freedom. Thus, for example, the Massachusetts Bay Colony spawned Dissenters such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams who, declaring that the colony's leaders had not followed the pilgrims' heritage, left and obtained a charter for Providence, Rhode Island, in 1663, where they preached that every person should be allowed to follow his own conscience in matters of religion. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony which formed the heart of New England Puritanism were part of a religious heritage characterized by a prickly independence and stubborn self reliance. See 1 Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People's History of the American Revolution 22-23 (1976).

Fifth, education and literacy of colonial Americans. During the 1700s most citizens were literate and nearly everyone read a newspaper. There were numerous libraries and bookshops in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York by the time of the Revolution. See Bensen Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution 47-48 (1997). This broad literacy and the people's political involvement in their democratic institutions transformed the average American into a citizen-lawyer. See id.at 49.

From all these various strands and perhaps others as well evolved the notion, perhaps best expressed by Thomas Paine, arguing in 1777 for a Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, who said that to plead one's cause was "a natural right," pleading through counsel was merely an "appendage" to the natural right of self-representation. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 830 n.39. kay sieverding (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reference in this material to anything in the Bible. Famspear (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this 2nd Circuit quote is a reference to Satanism?

"Fourth was religion. Colonial peoples' notions of their own individual rights and their reliance on themselves were part of the movement away from religious authority and towards religious freedom. Thus, for example, the Massachusetts Bay Colony spawned Dissenters such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams who, declaring that the colony's leaders had not followed the pilgrims' heritage, left and obtained a charter for Providence, Rhode Island, in 1663, where they preached that every person should be allowed to follow his own conscience in matters of religion. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony which formed the heart of New England Puritanism were part of a religious heritage characterized by a prickly independence and stubborn self reliance. See 1 Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People's History of the American Revolution 22-23 (1976)." It is impossible to deny that the Bible was a book of significance. See [[ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bible]] and significance in American law see http://www.jstor.org/pss/3310473 and http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=865327 and http://www.answers.com/topic/the-laws-and-liberties-of-massachusetts kay sieverding (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling the Bible "insignificant." But you have failed to buttress its very questionable relevance to THIS topic. The pre-Constitutional and pre-revolutionary law is SOMETIMES relevant, here, it's tough to justify. The concern is that the connection you are drawing still requires an inferrential leap not supported by a reliable source. The source you've given above does give some interesting historical background, but the link to the bible is very attenuated, even if we take the source entirely at its face value. So I have to ask: do you have anything else?

That said, there may be something here to work with. I think this does constitute an interesting fact, and if there is a way to do so within policy, I'd like to find a way to keep it.

Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? The Christian Bible is not a significant source of American law. You might with better reason cite the Germanic tribal codes underlying the common law (...which preceeded the Cristianization of England by a couple of centuries...) and/or Roman legal codes. rewinn (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Canadian attorneys fee award

Under the Self-representation by attorneys section, there is a mention of a $25,000 award for fees for a pro se litigant in a Canadian case. I see a number of problems here:

The $25,000 reference in the case itself is actually an award of moral damages, made before considering fees.
With regard to the award of fees, the actual text of the case itself at para. 48, as opposed to the syllabis, is not so clear"

Given the circumstances of this case, I would award the respondent her costs in this Court on a solicitor and client basis. Costs are awarded on this basis only in exceptional cases, under s. 47 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S‑26 (see Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405, 2002 SCC 13, at paras. 86-87; Roberge v. Bolduc, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374, at pp. 445-46). In this case, the respondent represented herself until the case came before this Court, where a lawyer agreed to represent her. The appellant’s appeal raised issues of general importance concerning the application of the legislation governing the professions in Quebec, the implications of which go beyond her particular case. Given the situation, this Court is justified in awarding the respondent costs on a solicitor and client basis.

Now, I don't know about the cited cases, but the way the above reads leads me to believe the award is for the appeal before the awarding court and that she had a lawyer for that appeal. I admit I may be misreading, hence the the dubious tag instead of outright removing. IMHO (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, because the $25,000 referenced in the article is clearly not an award of "attorney's fees." The quoted text above implies some attorney's fees were awarded, but it isn't clear of the award amount (whatever it is) included anything for the time period when the "client" was unrepresented (I suspect it does not, that the respondent is awarded costs on a client basis suggests that she is awarded nothing for when she was not a client of a solicitor). In any case the purpose of the sentence was to make a comparison to the Canadian legal system, which while useful is not of direct importance in an article about pro-se litigation in the United States. Avruch^T 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse that removal. It definitely misinterpreted the opinion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

I've removed the section "Results of pro-se litigants" from the article for the following reasons:

It appeared to constitute original research, with broad conclusions drawn from specific case citations
The subject implied by the section title is not discussed in the body of the section
The references were generally of low quality (citations directly to cases, not analysis or even specific portions of the case where the noted conclusion was drawn from, etc.)
The prose and structure of the section was awkward and not well suited for an encyclopedic article

If anyone decides to reinsert the section, either to preserve the references or for some other reason, perhaps we can discuss how to rework it here on this page first. Avruch^T 17:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the lead here, Avruch. I had been contemplating asking the editors who had been active in this article if they might consider resuming their work here. It's good to know I wasn't the only one thinking this way. Risker (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I (and others I imagine) took a break from this article towards the end of the downward spiral and for a bit afterwards, but its time to get back to some useful editing. Avruch^T 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the article to eventually say something about the subject, but not something based on OR. Basically, that section reflected some work I had done to take something by Kay which she thought was about "procedure" (but really wasn't) and make it presentable, as an attempt to compromise on the content dispute. A good point is made though - that there is some evidence that pro se litigants seem to not get very far sometimes. If there was a non-OR, non-POV way to present this question of the dangers and advantages of representing yourself, wouldn't the article be better off covering it? Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. It's an issue of sourcing and accurate representation - the section as it was didn't really convey "the pitfalls of pro se litigation" though. It just listed some procedural elements without context or interpretation of their impact - something that I'm sure is out there somewhere, and would be worthy of inclusion. Avruch^T 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As an attorney lurker to this discussion, who has chafed at Kay's thinly-veiled condemnation of the legal profession (from painful recognition that the shoe sometimes is indeed too tight) please indulge me in a post that is perhaps too broad for an article talk page. "The pitfalls of pro se litigation" is a theme that is itself biased, toward the concept of courts controlled by the scholars who operate them. Judicial systems in nations that are democratic and honor the concept of "access to courts" nevertheless frequently demonstrate barriers to such access. Those barriers frequently do not involve any explicit legal prohibition of self-representation, but rather manifest themselves in procedural complexities that virtually require citizens to retain lawyers to represent them. There can be little doubt then, that those citizens would frequently come to resent a system that must rationally appear to them to be biased in favor of its denizens. My hourly billings involve work that will forever be safe from this phenomenon, but I'm not too far removed from our courts to recognize the horrific personal tragedies going on in those dingy hallways. There's a little truth in Kay, and its not about pitfalls of the litigants, but rather the pitfalls of the system. /pov off. The article must, I think, objectively address the procedural complexity of legal systems in a manner that does not push the POV of those of us who make their living from it.71.197.93.206 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree 99.9 with the anon. The 0.01 of doubt is this: how to do that? And how to do that within the strictures of WP:NOT? I mean, this issue can get into some VERY philosophical dealings, no? It has been bogging down my own magnum opus of a law review article for three years... Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The above, is quite frankly, a large hand full. And if it is to be NPOV it's going to have look at the reason why a lot of those rules are put into place- troublesome litigants, both with attorney and pro se- who would otherwise turn the systme on it's head in disregard of trying to maintain a fair system. On the criminal side, I've seen what I call the 'militia defense'. It can involve a local twist, such as a claim of sovereigny by local natives, but it really is a collection of tripe that's been passed around by various groups. Their ideas of proper arguments are along the lines of claiming a court has no jurisdiction because there are tassles on the flag, which makes it a military court and thus unable to proceed on a civilian case. To insist that the complaint should be dismissed because they spell their names John Doe and the complaint uses an all cap format JOHN DOE. They file gibberish memos. One bit I recall pulling from a 20+ page document went into UCC definition of honor (I believe honoring a check, but it wasn't 9 UCC) and then using that to talk about personal honor and how the court lacked. /mypovoff. In short though, what's proposed would have to get into the core issue- certainty/rule of law v. flexibility. And even without going there, the proposal is still too broad. Court access can also be aided by Legal Aid/NGO/government provided attorneys, depending on jurisdiction. To rephrase, a complex society is going to require a complex system. All but the most egotisitcal of attorneys here (and that says something), and possibly even such a person, acknowledges that those who work in the profession must generally specialize. Each lawyer may be permitted to work as a generalist, and some areas can get quite broad, but no attorney really practices all aspects of the law, because it is simply too much to keep track of. If there are non-fringe sources saying that complexity of the system itself is a wrong, then they should be included, but they should be honestly scrutinized first.

All that said, I did notice something missing that should be discussed in the article. I believe there are a number of jurisdicitions that have a small claims court systems that actively discourages attorneys, if not prohibiting them (I may be off on the prohibition of attorneys, but it is sticking in my mind). Information on such court systems should be included. IMHO (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[-unindent-] Here, let me try to sketch, and I do mean sketch, the Philosophical problem:

The legal system is substantially supposed to be about the rights, duties, or obligations, of the parties as people in whatever circumstances they're in, versus those of the rest of the world, and the other people in it.
The legal system is not supposed to treat lawyers better or worse than nonlawyers.
Nonlawyers, by virtue of being nonlawyers, are less likely to understand how the legal system works; they might have beliefs about their rights and duties - good ones, even, but not know how to properly express themselves.
The legal system contains a lot of rules which are hard to understand to outsiders, perhaps even appearing arbitrary. When it comes to procedural rules, they're meant to put parties on an even footing, and promote fair and efficient access to justice. Lawyers know how these rules work pretty well, although even lawyers make mistakes. Nonlawyers are likely to get lost in them.
As a result of inability of nonlawyer to express himself like a lawyer, or understand procedure like a lawyer, a nonlawyer with a substantively valid claim, but without a lawyer to vindicate it, will probably be at a disadvantage. One would expect statitics to show that notable exceptions notwithstanding, nonlawyers have, overall, fewer victories, smaller recoveries, and more recoveries on dispositions required by procedural error (e.g. defaults, dismissals, and terminating sanctions); fewer will even be heard on the merits.
On the other hand, trying to create a system in which self-represented nonlawyers have an equal chance of getting heard on the merits requires one of two things: (a) turning self-represented into nonlawyers or (b) turning off the rigid formal rules for those nonlawyers.
(a) above is problematic because the state, which provides the courts, does not have those kind of resources, and frankly, it might not even work. Heck, even unaccredited law schools turn out large numbers of lawyers with reasoning skills so defective as to be unable to discern what cases can and cannot be heard, or what kind of arguments should, or should not, be made.
(b) above is problematic for a different reason. Courts generally have some power to dispense or interpret procedural rules to relax them, or stiffen them, for good cause. But when you start going outside that ordinary discretion to something extroardinary, it's almost certainly going to come into conflict with another party's rights.

For example, if party a is in a car accident with car b, and the applicable statute of limitations in each state is 2 years, but party a doesn't hire a lawyer, and doesn't know this, and waits 3 years, his or her case will probably not be heard on the merits. If party a went to a lawyer, a lawyer would tell him or her so, and most lawyers - even lawyers who normally accept contignent fee representation, would refuse to take the case. But we, for purposes of this example, want to give self-represented a greater chance of being heard on the merits, so, because a didn't have a lawyer, we're going to give her a 10% longer time limitations. A can sue B on what would normally be moribund claims, because A isn't a lawyer. Does that seem right? It's great if you're A's friends and family, but what if you're B? You thought, or reasonably should have thought, you had repose rights. But now, someone is suing you on a time barred claim. He or she should normally lose promptly on a demurrer/motion to dismiss/summary judgment/whatever. But we're going to exempt her from all that, because she doesn't have the assistance of counsel. Good for her. Too bad for the other guy.

Every example I seem to think of this morning of trying to dispense with barriers to get more pro se cases heard on the merits almost always leads to the same result: to make things better for the pro se requires taking some kind of a right away from their opponent - even if it is just procedural prejudice. You want to make it a more fair playing field, but how? It seems difficult to me.

I too share the concern that pro se litigants are treated unfairly - but not by the complexity of procedural rules. I don't know what to about it. Bad procedural rules need to be changed, because, bad law is bad for everybody. I'd like to rewrite the whole Code of Civil Procedure in my state. However, these systems, whether good or bad, just do not contemplate, and cannot withstand, piecemeal, dispensations from procedural rules, at least not substantial ones, for one party over another, merely because of whether or not he's a self-represented nonlawyers. We should try to avoid rectifying unfairness with more unfairness.

I would like this article to reflect those difficulties. But it must do so consistently with the five pillars, so we need to expand it cautiously, and in a well-researched way, not just based on our personal inclinations. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"...we're going to give her a 10% longer time limitations..." Is that an actual example? I would like to see an ACTUAL example of loosening the rules for pro se's so that the discussion could be more effectual.

There is another important aspect to the rules: encouraging those who frequent the courts to comport themselves in a way that promotes efficiency. One good, ACTUAL, example is a local rule requiring that an attorney's filing be typed with thus-and-such-sized margins. Such a rule is frequently waived for pro-se's; prisoners in particular lack access to wordprocessors and have to submit handwritten pleadings. In some sense this disadvantages those who hire attorneys, but the overall gain to the court system in having the bulk of pleadings be actually readable is clear enough that I don't see any reason why the disparaty could be objectionable.

Finally, wikipedia is probably not the right forum for this discussion.rewinn (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow - that is a very good example, perhaps a perfect example. I agree that this is a poor forum. The over-discussion was necessary to give a fair shake to a frustrated editor.

I do not support your recent changes to the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Judicial Canons

A user, Non Curat Lex deleted last weeks change to the U.S. judicial canons on the basis that "sources do not show relevance to the subject matter WP:SYN?; and per previous consensus re: identical content)". The subject of the change is clearly related to pro se, since the U.S. Judiciary directly addressed whether a person can be heard as well as their lawyer. It is irrelevant whether the editor approves or not. It is relevant because it is official U.S. Judiciary policy. InternetReader2 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The change makes no difference to pro se litigants, only to those who are represented by counsel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's opinion of the new judicial canons is irrelevant. The reference has a neutral point of view, is verifiable, and does not involve original research. The U.S. Judiciary would not have changed the wording from "or" to "and" without a reason.InternetReader2 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes a difference for represented litigants, not for pro se litigants. It might be relevant to some legal article, just not this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin and Non Curat Lex offer no sources for their scheme to deprive Wikipedia readers of the latest decision from the U.S. Judiciary. The rule clearly affects both long term pro ses and people who are dissatisfied with their lawyer and choose to go pro se. Their deletion of an official U.S. government decision violates Wikipedia guidelines. [[15]] "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED"InternetReader2 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether a few Wikipedia readers disagree with the official policy of the U.S. Judiciary. Their deletions of the U.S. Judiciary reference was vandalism as defined by Wikipedia "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated." InternetReader2 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given up trying to correct your failure to use correct Wikilinks in your comments. However, the question is not whether this section is accurate, but whether it's relevant to the articles you've been inserting it in. It seems clear to most that it is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My quotes of the latest U.S. Judicial canons definitely is relevant because it directly addresses the right to be heard without a lawyer and the subject of the article is "the instance of a person representing himself or herself without a lawyer in a court proceeding". You don't have a right to decide whether others can have the information.InternetReader2 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It has absolutely no relevance to whether a pro se litigant has access; it only has relevance to whether a represented litigant has separate access, not just through his lawyer. Anyone who can read should be able to see that. But you obviously haven't read the Wikipedia guidelines, so I suppose I shouldn't assume you're in that category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I also do not see how the revision "directly addresses" the right to be heard without a lawyer. Clearly the revised provision applies only where the party has an attorney; there would be no need to remind a judge of the duty to hear from an unrepresented party's non-existent attorney, and the revised portion of the rule thus becomes a non sequitur and inapplicable in the case of a party in pro per. The revision by its terms addresses the situation in which a represented party wishes to be heard by the court directly, in addition to that party's attorney (such as perhaps a situation in which the represented party may believe that the attorney has not adequately communicated his/her position to the court). Steveozone (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed on this talk page. Consensus is that there is inadequate authority to tie the judicial guidelines on "being heard" to the content of this article. I see nothing from "internetreader" that would change my perception of that situation. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that the pro se must be heard and cannot be ordered to hire a lawyer instead. The U.S. Courts and Congress are the ones to decide, not you. In order for them to decide people need to know about the wording change so why don't you back off and let Wikipedia be an encyclopedia? Add references to any articles you have about the changes and otherwise let people read and think for themselves.InternetReader2 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no possible reading of the canon which produces that result. Because it violates the rules of English, you would need a published source for your interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a How-To Site

I'm removing the following from the article, for that reason:

Many courts have filled in the blank forms which self-represented litigants have the option of using.

Self-represented litigants have available to them many of the resources that lawyers have. Most courts have web site with on line forms and procedures. Many law libraries are government subsidized and offer free library cards. These libraries include summary books. The U.S. code and the federal civil and criminal procedures are available on line. The Federal Judicial Center has a web site which includes civil litigation, complex litigation, civil rights, prisoner litigation and appellate procedure manuals. Many of those publications are on-line and free printed copies are offered of some of them. Most state laws including civil and criminal procedures are available on line through the state legislature or state attorney web site. Law school textbooks can be purchased from on-line book publishers. Book stores usually have sections devoted to law. Some services answer legal questions over the telephone and charge by the minute. Legal publishers such as Thomson West, BNA, LexisNexis, Moore's, and Wrights have web sites and West offers a service of answering questions. Anyone can set up a PACER account with the U.S. Courts and download any unsealed document filed in any U.S. Court in the last few years for 8 cents a page or $2.40 per document max. This allows someone to download documents from other people's cases. In a few places, there are free Pacer accounts available. There are also special web sites targeting pro se litigants offering books and forms. Some pro se litigants have informal mutual help arrangements. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog and the ABA Law Blog are free online and both have links to legal documents. The Cornell Legal Institute includes congressional notes. The Library of Congress has free publications on subjects such as the insanity defense. Federal circuit courts have on-line opinions with a word search.

These things may be true, but IMHO this section is not really relevant to the topic, nor encyclopedic. If your mileage differs, let's discuss here. Steveozone (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lenny Bruce

I added Lenny Bruce to the list, though I did not put any references. I know that he did represent himself in at least some of the obscenity cases, but based the placement on this external site: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bruce/brucechrono.html

Anyone who knows of a better citation, please put it in. IMHO (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

merge from Pro se legal representation in the United States/temp

This alternative article was never developed, but there seem some good paragraphs there that could be used here DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

^ www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman03.pdf/$file/sciman03.pdf
^ www.uscourts.gov/rules/mcl4.pdf
^ Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation, A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers by Jona Goldschmidt, Barry Mahoney, Harvey Solomon, Joan Green, American Judicature Society
^ J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 67 (1866).
^ http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl243.htm
^ Table S-23. Civil Pro Se And Non-Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2007 /http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2007/tables/S23Sep07.pdf
^ Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10, http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'
^ Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristic http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"
^ Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10,http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'
^ Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristichttp://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"
^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001654----000-.html',,)" style="background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; color: rgb(112, 112, 255); text-decoration: none; background-position: initial initial; ">
^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001654----000-.html
^ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1329/argument/
^ http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/787/case.html
^ ttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000402----000-.html
^ http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/39mcrm.htm'
^ http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
^ http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/anti-injunction-act
^ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22130.pdf
^ http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-covenant/
^ Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10, http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'
^ Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristichttp://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"
^ Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
^ http://www.savecoalition.org/pdfs/save_final_report.pdf
^ J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 67 (1866).
^ SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N.&NBSP;A. (00-1853) 534 U.S. 506 (2002) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1853.ZO.html
^ Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 08/28/1945)
^ MONROE ET AL. v. PAPE ET AL., 81 S. Ct. 473, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 02/20/1961)
^ Canon III a 4 http://www.alalinc.net/jic/docs/cans2006.pdf
^ Canon III a 7 http://www.judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/code.pdf
^ Canon III b 8http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html
^ Canon III a 7 SCR 4.300http://www.sunethics.com/kycodejudconduct.htm
^ Canon III a 6 http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/appendices/app1_jud.htm#P29_2525
^ Canon III b 7 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html
^ SCR 60.4 g http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap60.pdf.
^ Canon III a (4) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/207/chapter33/chap33toc.html
^ Canon III a 7 http://www.courts.state.va.us/jirc/canons_112398.html#canon3
^ Canon III a 7 http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/jtd/code.pdf
^ Canon III a 4 http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Gov_provision/code_canons.htm'
^ Canon III a 7 http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/JIC/Codejc.htm
^ Canon III b 8http://www.law.uh.edu/Libraries/ethics/Judicial/judiccanons/canon3.html

[1] www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman03.pdf/$file/sciman03.pdf

[2] www.uscourts.gov/rules/mcl4.pdf

[3] Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation, A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers by Jona Goldschmidt, Barry Mahoney, Harvey Solomon, Joan Green, American Judicature Society

[4] J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 67 (1866).

[5] ttp://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl243.htm

[6] Table S-23. Civil Pro Se And Non-Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2007 /http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2007/tables/S23Sep07.pdf

[7] Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10, http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'

[8] Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristic http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"

[9] Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10,http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'

[10] Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristichttp://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"

[11] ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001654----000-.html',,)" style="background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; color: rgb(112, 112, 255); text-decoration: none; background-position: initial initial; ">

[12] ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001654----000-.html

[13] ttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1329/argument/

[14] ttp://supreme.justia.com/us/481/787/case.html

[15] ttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000402----000-.html

[16] ttp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/39mcrm.htm'

[17] ttp://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

[18] ttp://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/anti-injunction-act

[19] ttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22130.pdf

[20] ttp://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-covenant/

[21] Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10, http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf'

[22] Table 11: Opinion Publication Percentages in the Regional Courts of Appeals, FY 1998, by Case Characteristichttp://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman1.pdf/$file/caseman1.pdf"

[23] Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

[24] ttp://www.savecoalition.org/pdfs/save_final_report.pdf

[25] J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 67 (1866).

[26] SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N.&NBSP;A. (00-1853) 534 U.S. 506 (2002) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1853.ZO.html

[27] Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 08/28/1945)

[28] MONROE ET AL. v. PAPE ET AL., 81 S. Ct. 473, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 02/20/1961)

[29] Canon III a 4 http://www.alalinc.net/jic/docs/cans2006.pdf

[30] Canon III a 7 http://www.judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/code.pdf

[31] Canon III b 8http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html

[32] Canon III a 7 SCR 4.300http://www.sunethics.com/kycodejudconduct.htm

[33] Canon III a 6 http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/appendices/app1_jud.htm#P29_2525

[34] Canon III b 7 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

[35] SCR 60.4 g http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap60.pdf.

[36] Canon III a (4) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/207/chapter33/chap33toc.html

[37] Canon III a 7 http://www.courts.state.va.us/jirc/canons_112398.html#canon3

[38] Canon III a 7 http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/jtd/code.pdf

[39] Canon III a 4 http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Gov_provision/code_canons.htm'

[40] Canon III a 7 http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/JIC/Codejc.htm

[41] Canon III b 8http://www.law.uh.edu/Libraries/ethics/Judicial/judiccanons/canon3.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]