Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 5
 | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
References
- Please keep this section at the bottom of the talk page, and copy it to archive pages if references are moved.
Moved from article: Canda
- Christina McCullock-Finney won Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36 against the Quebec Bar Association before the Supreme Court of Canada.[1]
Self-representation quote
I haven't checked the archives, but the only sign on Google of that quote are Wikipedia mirrors, and one medical site. It didn't make Wikiquote under Johnson. I know it's an aphorism, but that isn't it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That quote is well-known. Of course, that isn't proof - and it doesn't prove that Johnson said it.97.88.249.158 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
hopeless
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
No one should waste any time writing on this article. Anything that is useful to pro se litigants will be deleted. No one should sue pro se in federal court. You will never be allowed a jury trial or any sort of evidentiary hearing. The powers that be will not only make sure that you lose, they will punish you for filing a lawsuit. They will destroy your reputation and your finances. It costs over $100,000 to file a lawsuit in federal court. If you don't have $100,000 you should either commit suicide or kill the people that hurt you. Hopeless2011 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I was imprisoned by the USMS for filing truthful pro se papers. I wasn't accused of a crime. I wasn't arraigned and there wasn't a bail hearing. There wasn't a government prosecutor. There weren't any Rule 11(c)(6) orders or orders to impeach my testimony. I was accused of not having a lawyer.Former pro se (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please cite pro se success stories. Former pro se 2 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I posted city council minutes, 10th Circuit opinions and third party reports about the imprisonment of pro se litigants for violation of so called filing restrictions against pro se litigation. Arthur Rubin deleted them. Former pro se 2 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I agree with hopeless that Arthur Rubin will not allow useful information for pro se litigants to be posted here. The article as written is misleading because it does not acknowledge the risks that pro se litigants face in federal court -- that they will be fined and jailed without criminal charges or findings of fraud. Former pro se 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The references didn't show that the pro se litigant who was jailed for engaging in pro se litigation was 'abusive'. If you have references showing that, you should add them to the story. What makes you think that a policy of jailing pro se litigants without a criminal charge or criminal procedure is a "minor incident" as opposed to a systemic risk of filing a lawsuit in federal court, if one can't afford $100 K for an attorney? It should also be noted that the supervising judge was Edward Nottingham who resigned after allegations related to his involvement with prostitutes as discussed in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABA law journal and other national publications. Former pro se 2 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have a different way to write about no pro se orders and imprisonment of pro se litigants for violation of so called filing restrictions then you should write it but the article as written is very misleading since it does not include the risks to pro se litigants of being 'enjoined from filing additional lawsuits'. You have not provided any references indicating that what you claim is normal is in fact "normal". Do you have a citation to the Code of Federal Regulations or Federal Register or U.S code supporting your statement? What about the offense codes listed on the FBI web site -- do any of them support your statement or are Wikipedia readers just supposed to take your word without support? Former pro se 2 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Can you find any citations in the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or local rules of any federal court supporting your statements about the incidence of persons being declared vexatious litigants, imposition of pro se filing restrictions, or imprisonment of pro se litigants as a way to enforce no pro se filing restrictions? Former pro se 2 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if you would extract information re U.S. courts from the vexatious litigant article and put it into pro se legal representation in the U.S. The Church of Scientoloy was not pro se, obviously and it appears there is only one reference to a U.S citizen -- a convicted felon. I did read somewhere that Australia found someone to be vexatious because they sued a tobacco company and it was agreed that tobacco use cannot cause cancer but I don't have the citation handy. Former pro se 2 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you should put it into the article but be very specific about the law and the court. There should probably be a separate section for California since it appears to be the only U.S. legal entity that has enacted legislation. I'm not sure what law you are talking about for disbarring lawyers. Former pro se 2 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't see your reference. All that appears in the U.S. section is "California". Nothing about federal courts, nothing about other state courts, nothing about disbarring lawyers. Nor do I see any reference to vexatious litigants in any of the federal court guides. Whatever, you should put it in this article because I was under the impression that federal courts were supposed to be a safe place to work out disputes -- totally safe as long as you don't break any laws. Former pro se 2 (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added a warning for pro se regarding defendant's attorney fees in Federal Courts. Hope this helps. Innab (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Since the consensus is that pro se litigants always lose, should be charged attorney fees without any need for them to have criminal intent or file fraudulently, and should be imprisoned without criminal charges, the only logical strategy seems to be to avoid court at all costs, buy a gun, and use it. Newbee22 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Newbee22 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I know a pro se who was told to pay over $100,000 in what was called Rule 11 fees but there weren't any rule 11(c)(6) orders and there wasn't an opinion. That made it really hard to appeal in the Court of Appeals. In the Court of Appeals the opinions in pro se cases are usually / often / or always written by the clerk of court. Same person every time, so therefore easier to bribe. And of course who would believe a pro se about a point of law no matter how many citations they provide. Then when no oral arguments are allowed, there is no solution. This is particularly a problem when the parties being sued are local government actors because the immunity pleading is so complicated. Some courts just say government = immunity no matter what. I've heard of government employees bulldozing the houses of people they had a dispute with and then getting "immunity". It is strange that one of the branches of law which has many pro se plaintiffs is classified as complex litigation. That must be why more and more groups are advocating violence and don't even seem to recognize court as having any potential upside at al. What is really strange are the insurance companies that insure government actors. It seems plausible that they pay protection to the courts, probably to the clerks, who make sure the cases are assigned to judges who will rule for "immunity". It also sounds like some judges know they can get paid to rule "immunity". In some states there are limits on damages that are really low too and in those states there aren't as many plaintiffs' lawyers so it is harder for a plaintiff to get a lawyer to sue some local government crook. Sometimes it sounds like the plaintiffs' lawyers get paid off too. This just leaves the plaintiffs in a bad position. Some people thinks that local government corruption is just inevitable. Sometimes the pain is spread out and just increases taxes but sometimes the local government officials are straight out psychopaths and sadists. It really is surprising that there aren't more murders since so many local government actors can basically break laws every day for years. They really can damage one family -- their home, their kids, their business. And the feds do almost nothing not like when they actually prosecuted RICO. Studentwhostudies (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. Look at the media shows such as "Boss" and "BoardWalk Emperor". Fiction but based on popular perceptions of how local government actors act. They wouldn't be making shows like these if the plot lines weren't somewhat plausible. So then imagine yourself as a victim of one of these criminals in local government. Just what is one supposed to do when the court options are so terrible? Really bad for society because there are no easy answers when the Courts are bribed, super expensive, and/ or anti pro se. And of course this affects real estate. Why buy when you can be victimized by local government criminals? Since murder is so dangerous and hard to accomplish and court is so dangerous and the procedure used is unpublished, what is the solution for the average person? Studentwhostudies (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Rules of Evidence allow one to take a federal docket, save it as a pdf, and search on orders or Rule 11. The problem is that when a pro se litigant says they searched on a pdf file for a term the Courts sometimes say they won't believe them and will not duplicate the search or allow an oral hearing to search together. In this particular situation, the federal Court of Appeals acknowledged that there weren't any Rule 11 (c)(6) orders so the idea of unwritten orders is irrelevant. But the U.S. Judicial Conference should know about the concept of unwritten orders. What we have in the U.S. these days is a legal system that is often only third world quality.Studentwhostudies (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well payments were ordered without any Rule 11 motions, but the payments weren't to the Court so Rule 11(c)(3) is irrelevant. Did you know that one of the clauses of the Witness Retaliation Act makes it criminal to cause financial problems as retaliation for participation in court?Studentwhostudies (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It had to be some kind of order that told Plaintiff to pay the attorney fees, otherwise defendant would not be able to collect them. So plaintiff should of appeal that order. I have added a new sentence about possibility of appeal, to be more clear. I really fill sorry for the pro se in this situation, but representing yourself in Federal Court does presents some risk, and should only be taken when you absolutely sure that you have a winning case. Innab (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
|
SPI case has been filed to hopefully end this. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Accuracy re prohibition on corporations?
That a corporation cannot defend Pro se seems absurd, particularly when modern internet-related lawsuits *average* out at $1.7M in costs, even though ~80%[2] of them fail. Prohibition on "Pro se" means that a corporation has 2 options:
1) Loose $1.7M to lawyers. 2) Loose the lawsuit through default judgement.
Where is the rule that says a small buisness owner must suffer a default judgement against him (even though 4 out of 5 times on average, he would never loose the case if it went to court), or must hire an expensive lawyer, and is not granted any other option?120.151.160.158 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the question is more concisely stated as: "Where does it say that a corporation cannot litigate a case pro se?".
- When a corporation's owner is not an attorney, and the owner is trying to represent the corporation in court, the owner is essentially trying to practice law without a license. The whole point of creating a corporation is that the corporation is treated as a separate "person" from the owner. The owner cannot have it both ways; if he wants the benefits of having a corporation (such as limiting his personal liability), then he must take the burdens that go with it.
- And where is the rule that a corporation cannot represent itself in court? In lots of places, including United States Supreme Court cases such as Rowland v. California Men's Colony in 1993. Here's an example from a decision in the year 2001 by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio (quoting):
- Individuals who are parties to federal proceedings have the right to represent themselves personally without a lawyer. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. That right does not extend to permit them to represent other people or entities because by doing so they would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The general rule is that corporations, which are artificial entities, may only appear in court through an attorney. Again, a non-lawyer representing a corporation in court is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law under the vast majority of the case law.
- As the United States Supreme Court has stated: "[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel." Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (discussing the issue in the context of whether an organization of prison inmates was a "person" entitled to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). See also Doherty v. American Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984) ("The rule of this circuit is that a corporation cannot appear in federal court except through an attorney").
- --from In re ICLNDS Notes Acquisition, LLC, 259 B.R. 289 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2001) (bolding added).
- This case involved a "limited liability company," and the Court applied the rule for corporations to the limited liability company as well. Famspear (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment: I looked up Rowland v. California Men's Colony and even though it is mentioned in List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 506 it is a redlink - meaning no one has written an article about it for Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here is an excerpt:
"Persons" were not always so entitled, for the benefits of § 1915 were once available only to "citizens," a term held, in the only two cases on the issue, to exclude corporations. See Atlantic S. S. Corp. v. Kelley, 79 F. 2d 339, 340 (CA5 1935) (construing the predecessor to § 1915); Quittner v. Motion Picture Producers & Distributors of America, Inc., 70 F. 2d 331, 332 (CA2 1934) (same). In 1959, however, Congress passed a one-sentence provision that "section 1915(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by deleting the word `citizen' and inserting in place thereof the word `person.' " Pub. L. 86-320, 73 Stat. 590. For this amendment, the sole reason cited in the legislative history was to extend the statutory benefits to aliens.[2]
- 199 B
The relevant portion of the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. § 1, provides (as it did in 1959) that
"[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . . .
"the wor[d] `person' . . . include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."
Ottawahitech (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
injunctions against pro se litigation
I thought I saw something about the 4th Circuit and injunctions against pro se litigation but now I can't find it and I have a party to go to. Any help? Practioner (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the injunctions against pro se litigation are enforced? (Practioner (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)).
- Hopefully better than WP:SOCKPUPPET is, since you obviously can't be bothered to follow the rules, Kay. Ravensfire (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Injunctions against pro se litigation are fairly routinely issued against parties who repeatedly file frivolous suits or frivolous motions. They are usually enforced by a fairly simple court order. The judge filing the prohibition sends a notice to the clerk's office, and the clerk then routes further filings from the prohibited party to the circular file. Usually there is some kind of clause allowing the prohibited party to seek leave of the court to file something if they can make a showing of cause. Of course, injunctions against pro se filing never stop someone from just hiring a lawyer and having their lawyer file the suit. bd2412 T 04:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if this can be shown from allowable sources, it should be included in the article, as it is closely related. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you delete my appellate decision? I don't understand what is happening here -- it seems that you want to suppress the opinion of a federal court of appeals. Why don't you just add your sources if you have them? Sammy131 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Court decisions are primary sources and trying to draw conclusions from them is iffy at best. In addition, you really need to do more research when using a court case, which I doubt you are doing. Is it still valid? Was there a later ruling on that issue? What's the scope? All of that usually gets done by a good secondary source.
- And there's the entire sock issue ... Ravensfire (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- More thoughts on this. There's a WP:UNDUE concern, putting that much material for a ruling that affects a single federal district only. Since we've got a primary source, you have to interpret it to determine what that ruling means, the limits, etc, which is getting into WP:SYNTH concerns. The ruling was a while ago, so has it been limited or overturned, how are courts in that federal district applying limits to pro se litigants, what limits are they using, etc. Did you even know that the same case / issue ended up back at the appellate court later? Oddly, I don't think you do. Using court cases as the basis for making conclusions is not a good practice on Wikipedia. There's a reason the article is flagged with the primary source issue. You (and all of your socks) have been pushing your POV about pro se into this article for a while. Some of the material is helpful but most of it isn't. Generalize / summarize more and keep most of the specifics out of it. All time you spend trying to add the narrow limitations based on this or that court ruling would better help Wikipedia by taking longer to find good secondary sources about that scenario and how widespread is it, how others handle it, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The 11th Circuit isn't a single federal district. It is Florida, which is more than one district, Alabama, and Georgia, a huge state. All the legal articles on Wikipedia quote federal circuit opinions. I'm interested in your sources of information..... what do you have? Sammy131 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC) The opinion is also an En Banc opinion so it is significant in that way too. Sammy131 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that an en banc decision of the 11th Circuit, which covers I think nine districts, is significant. The decision would be a primary source for an article about the decision, but court opinions also collect and summarize information about previous decisions and related materials, and are secondary sources for that purpose. bd2412 T 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the problem that AGAIN our "new" editor keeps ignoring. The specific case they are quoting was vacated [4] when they decided to hear it en banc. Despite nudging, the editor does not do any digging when dealing with court decisions. Oddly, some of the exact problems that Kay had (has). They refuse to do any work, even when issues are pointed out to them and to be blunt, I'm not doing it for them. Kay, here's a really broad hint that hopefully you'll actually look at this time. Google "11th circuit court of appeals procup " and look for a decision in 1986. Then we start getting into the problem of this being nearly 30 years old. What has happened in the 11th court since then? Is this still binding? What impact does it have? Again, because we're using a primary source, we don't know.
- Give the specific decision was reversed, I'm going to again revert. Kay, please research this and discuss it here before adding as it would really help to improve the quality of what you're adding. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a WP:RS, but it's a blog from an attorney practicing in the 11th Circuit that goes over how a particular vexatious pro se litigant was handled by a court, noting the Procup ruling. If we can find something this from a solid WP:RS that's fairly recent and notes what the Procup ruling does, any objections I've got are going to go away. Blog article is here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a much more recent ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that has a brief summary of Procup - [5]. (Note that the Procup ruling they mention is NOT the same one our editor(s) have been trying to use as a reference). There are three references to Procup in the decision, and I think the first and last have useful material. (The Miller case referenced in that decision is here).
- I don't see where the 11th Circuit "vacated" its earlier En Banc opinion. It merely supplemented it. In the later opinion, the Court suggested that in some cases a plaintiff's pleadings can be restricted in page number, as is common in local rules, and in the filings of motions, which is usually not a problem if the litigant is allowed to use ECF which requires them to classify the type of motion, and required to set forth their attempts, if any, to hire an attorney. Where do you see the word "vacate"? Sammy131 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind. I give up. I'll wait until the WP:SPI comes back and go from there. You don't want to discuss anything, just shove your POV. Well, shove away. I'll shovel it out later. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see where the 11th Circuit "vacated" its earlier En Banc opinion. It merely supplemented it. In the later opinion, the Court suggested that in some cases a plaintiff's pleadings can be restricted in page number, as is common in local rules, and in the filings of motions, which is usually not a problem if the litigant is allowed to use ECF which requires them to classify the type of motion, and required to set forth their attempts, if any, to hire an attorney. Where do you see the word "vacate"? Sammy131 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, this seems to be a personal attack. What does anyone's personality or values have to do with what the 11th Circuit did or did not rule? Posr whatever you want but don't delete an En Banc federal court of appeals. Sammy131 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- No Kay, it's not. It's a simple statement that you and all of your socks aren't worth dealing with. You don't want to listen to people and do your own work. (Hmm, which Procup case gets cited in cases again? Oh yeah, not the one you use. And why would that be?) As for what I'm planning on doing, see the above statement. Some of this will end up in a rewrite of the section that doesn't use primary sources, but that actually takes research and effort. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is some secondary-source material from a practitioner's guide:
One of the most severe sanctions that a court can issue is an injunction limiting a litigant's future access to the courts. Such an injunction raises constitutional issues--it limits a citizen's right to petition for redress of injuries--and must be carefully tailored not to deny the offender meaningful access to judicial relief. This sort of injunction can issue properly only where the offender has repeatedly abused the privilege of open access to the courts and stubbornly ignores warnings or lesser sanctions.
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse (2011), § 16(B)(11)(a).
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In 2011, the judiciary committee recommended revision of Rule 11 to eliminate safe harbor motion requirements and make monetary sanctions mandatory. The bill did not pass and has not been reintroduced, has it. The proposed bill makes no mention of pro se litigants although they are included in the definition of litigants. The word injunction does not appear in the bill and was not discussed in the hearings. see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt174/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt174.pdf
I'm not sure what is going on here but I don't understand why the 11th Circuit En Banc decision and following 11th Circuit decisions were deleted. Is editing on the article blocked? Why would appellate court cases be deleted? This makes no sense. Researcher47 (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are blocked from editing the article, Kay. And the present FRCP Rule 11 is not actually an act of Congress. It could be, but, at present, it's promulgated by a committee of the Supreme Court. This bill really would be unprecedented, if passed. However, the present Rule 11 also doesn't mention "pro se" litigants, and the sanctions may be issued against anyone submitting a document or motion, including parties, even if represented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- So what you are saying is that there is no way to prove who I am or am not but that if there was a way to prove that I wasn't a particular person, the editors of this page would allow En Banc and other decisions of the 11th Circuit to be cited on this page and that the ONLY reason that 11th Circuit decisions were deleted is that some people think they were posted by a particular person? Where is that in the Wikipedia rules? Why do you care whether or not the 11th Circuit decisions are referenced. What does the book cited above say about the 11th Circuit decisions or are they not discussed? Researcher47 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- And another Kay sock, being reported. Good bye, Kay. And FYI, if someone else was using primary sources they way you were, I'd remove them too and try to work with them on improving the article. You don't want to work with others on the talk page, you want your way and nothing else. That's part of what got you blocked in the first place. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought a primary source was personal information not reported in the press. How can an appellate court decision be considered a primary source unless one is on the Court of Appeals? Are you saying that a federal court of appeals isn't as reliable of a source of legal opinion as a law school article? Researcher47 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you were blocked. Anyway, ....
- As (most of us) are not qualified to interpret the Court of Appeals decision, they cannot be used in an article unless there is no other possible interpretation, and (due to WP:BLP considerations) cannot be used at all unless reported on the press (which include law review articles). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Arthur. On your last comment, I'm a little confused about what Biographies of Living Persons has to do with use of published (primary sourse- not necessarily discussed in secondary sources) articles. Could you point out a section in that policy? And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of material that started this thread, I'm just seeking clarification of this single basis that was raised. IMHO (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- See the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy page, it's pretty explicity about not using court cases. Ravensfire (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. And I assume that's what Arthur meant, especially since the abbreviation is similar. And in those cases (no pun intented) it makes sense. Thank you. IMHO (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arthur, I'm relatively new to this document, and haven't studied it extensively, but WP:BLPPRIMARY states only that trial transcripts and court records cannot be used to support assertions about a living person or where personal details are included. Also, it has nothing (stated) to do with the ability of an editor or a reader to interperet decisions by a court of appeals (at least in that article). It's entirely possible that I'm missing something, but a decision seems, by its very nature, to be notable and reliable as a source (as it is backed by that court). It is, further, a published decision, satisfying the need for publication. While the veracity of any government's publication will be called into question by those who question the individual government or have a conspiracy theory that is related to the decision, that seems beyond the scope of this discussion. Feel free to point out what I've missed here... --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there will almost always be a WP:OR problem with using a published opinion as a source for a legal rule. Due to the nature of court opinions, the rules announced therein are generally open to interpretation, and of course interpretations differ. Ask any two attorneys what a case stands for, and you'll usually get different answers; ask an attorney and a layperson, and you'll often get wildly differing answers. Some opinions are so fundamental to the law that their holdings are well understood; however, such fundamental opinions are always discussed in detail in legal treatises, journal articles, and other secondary sources that are safer to use as sources. Steveozone (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
| 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
- ^ Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36
- ^ http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Litigation_Costs.html