Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States

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 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)

fundamental right talk page and Old Testament source

I posted these cases on the talk page of fundamental right

Here is a biblical source, which refers to "every man":

"Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!" 2 Sam 15:4 (St. James)

Here is a biblical source of the right to trial by jury:

"Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments" Num 35:24 kay sieverding (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is considered, and has been used as binding precedent by only one of nine supreme court justices, and is only occasionally persuasive authority to one or two others. If the bible leads you to believe that the Supreme Court's list of fundamental rights is "wrong," that is your opinion. You may be right. However, we live in a world of man's law, not just G-d's law. You must refrain from misleading people by rewriting the article to misstate the law. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was using the Bible as a historical document showing the development of common law rights. The Bible was the first published book and was widely read at the time the U.S. was formed. The Bible was influential. kay sieverding (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

kay's comments

Arthur has maintained that self-representation is not a 'fundamental' right and in support he cites a wikipedia page. However the Supreme Court uses the term 'fundamental right' to describe the right and the AJS specifically publishes this quotation of the S.C. highlighting the term fundamental right

The American Judicature Society wrote: "Access to the courts is a long-standing right whose roots extend to several constitutional sources. Several of the earliest pronouncements of the right point to its origin in the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Art 4 Section 2). For example, in Corfield v. Coryell,(6 F. Cas 546, 551-552, No. 3, 230 (1823), the Supreme Court held: "The inquiry is, What are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities, which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments, and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of hte several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principals are it would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate...[but include the right] to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state."

Mr. Rubin deleted this reference several times:

"people in this country have a constitutionally guaranteed right to self-represent....The bar can no longer keep the courthouse “members only.” There’s little to be gained from complaining about pro se litigants’ burdening the system and opposing counsel" ABA GP Solo Magazine [14]

The Supreme Court also uses the term "fundamental" here:

"This Court's past recognition of the right of self-representation, the federal-court authority holding the right to be of constitutional dimension, and the state constitutions pointing to the right's fundamental nature form a consensus not easily ignored" Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

Arthur Rubin's POV is stated by him is "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)" 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not POV. That is verifiable, accurate, and has community consensus support. The contrary is a fringe theory. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I took your advice and I changed my signature to my name--as Arthur Rubin does. Where you ask for references, I am supplying them or changing the text to be more precise. I did not make a big deal about Arthur's not realizing that there is more than one U.N. document but covered for him. I am trying to assume good faith on your part, why don't you assume good faith on my part? For instance, why is not the use of blogs for informal communication an appropriate sentence to be included in this discussion?

In Rubin's talk pages, he says that the right goes no farther than the filing of pleadings. That conflicts with this year 2000 use of the word "fundamental right" referring to due process:

"Access to the courts is a constitutionally protected fundamental right and one of the privileges and immunities awarded citizens under Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S.Ct. 34, 52 L.Ed. 143 (1907). The First Amendment right to petition the government has as one aspect the right of access to the courts. See California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972); Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1979); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 336, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963); Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358, 1363 (5th Cir. 1983). Judge Thornberry's writing in Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (1983), serves to guide our analysis today. Relying on Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) and Rudolph v. Locke, 594 F.2d 1076, 1078 (5th Cir. 1979), we learn in Ryland that,

"A mere formal right of access to the courts does not pass constitutional muster. Courts have required that the access be "adequate, effective, and meaningful." Bayou Fleet, Inc. v. Alexander, 234 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 11/28/2000)

I searched on Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt in all the circuits and Bayou Fleet, Inc. v. Alexander was the most recent use.

"The Substantive Right of Access to Courts:

The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

207 U.S. at 148, 28 S. Ct. at 35 (citations omitted). It is clear that the Court viewed the right of access to the courts as one of the privileges and immunities accorded citizens under article 4 of the Constitution and the fourteenth amendment.

In California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 92 S. Ct. 609, 30 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1972), the Supreme Court found in the first amendment a second constitutional basis for this right of access: "Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." Id. 92 S. Ct. at 612.

This court recognized the first amendment right of access to the courts in Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir.1979), where we stated: "It is by now well established that access to the courts is protected by the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances." Id. at 1387. See also NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S. Ct. 328, 336, 9 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1963); Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358, 1363 (5th Cir.1983).

A number of other courts have also recognized that this right of access is encompassed by the first amendment right to petition. See McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 6 (4th Cir.1972); Harris v. Pate, 440 F.2d 315, 317 (7th Cir.1971); Pizzolato v. Perez, 524 F. Supp. 914, 921 (E.D.La.1981); Crews v. Petrosky, 509 F. Supp. 1199, 1204 n. 10 (W.D.Pa.1981).

A third constitutional basis for the right of access to the courts is found in the due process clause. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court defined the right of access in a civil rights action under section 1983 in the following terms

The right of access to the courts, upon which Avery [ Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S. Ct. 747, 21 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1969)] was premised, is founded in the Due Process Clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights. It is futile to contend that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 has less importance in our constitutional scheme than does the Great Writ.

Id. 94 S. Ct. at 2986. See also Mitchum v. Purvis, 650 F.2d 647, 648 (5th Cir.1981); Rudolph v. Locke, 594 F.2d 1076, 1078 (5th Cir.1979). The due process clause has also been construed to allow prisoners meaningful access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S. Ct. 780, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1971).

A mere formal right of access to the courts does not pass constitutional muster. Courts have required that the access be "adequate, effective, and meaningful." Bounds v. Smith, 97 S. Ct. at 1495; see also Rudolph v. Locke, 594 F.2d at 1078. Interference with the right of access to the courts gives rise to a claim for relief under section 1983. Sigafus v. Brown, 416 F.2d 105 (7th Cir.1969) (destruction by jail guards of legal papers necessary for appeal supports claim for damages under § 1983); McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d at 6 ("Of what avail is it to the individual to arm him with a panoply of constitutional rights if, when he seeks to vindicate them, the courtroom can be hermetically sealed against him by a functionary who, by refusal or neglect, impedes the filing of his papers?"); Crews v. Petrosky, 509 F. Supp. at 1204 ("An allegation that a clerk of state court has negligently delayed the filing of a petition for appeal, and that the delay has interfered with an individual's right of access to the courts, may state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.") (emphasis added). See also Harris v. Pate, 440 F.2d 315, 317 (7th Cir.1971) (prison authorities may not place burdens on right of access to courts); Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251, 253 (2d Cir.1972).

In conclusion, it is clear that, under our Constitution, the right of access to the courts is guaranteed and protected from unlawful interference and deprivations by the state, and only compelling state interests will justify such intrusions.

Procedural Due Process:

As stated above, the Rylands' complaint may also be construed to allege a deprivation of their right to procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment. Our analysis must begin with the inquiry whether the Rylands possessed an interest protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Rylands claim that they have been deprived of property without due process. The Supreme Court has long held that "the hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except 'for cause. '" Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 1155, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1982). See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 735-36, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2708-09, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Article 2315 of the Louisiana Civil Code, supra note 4, defines the right of parents to institute wrongful death claims as a property right.*fn5 We have previously recognized the rights of survivors to bring a wrongful death action under sections 1983 and 1988 where authorized by state law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921, 82 S. Ct. 243, 7 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1961). In Brazier, we held that in enacting section 1988, "Congress adopted as federal law the currently effective state law on the general right of survival." 293 F.2d at 405 (emphasis added).*fn6....

In essence, the allegations in the complaint may be characterized as wrongful interference by the defendants with the Rylands' access to the courts. Alternatively, the actions of the defendants can be analyzed as a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

An analysis of the extent of a constitutional deprivation is not an exact science capable of quantification; rather, it is qualitative in nature. Thompson v. Washington, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 39, 497 F.2d 626, 636 (D.C.Cir.1973). However, we have previously held that "if state officers conspire . . . in such a way as to defeat or prejudice a litigant's rights in state court, that would amount to a denial of equal protection of the laws by persons acting under color of state law." Dinwiddie v. Brown, 230 F.2d 465, 469 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 971, 76 S. Ct. 1041, 100 L. Ed. 1490 (1956). Conduct by state officers which results in delay in the prosecution of an action in state court may cause such prejudice. As we stated in Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 931, 101 S. Ct. 1392, 67 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1981):

Delay haunts the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the unjustly accused. It crowds the dockets of the courts, increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to take short cuts, interfering with the prompt and deliberate disposition of those causes in which all parties are diligent and prepared for trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of disorganization and insolubility. But even these are not the worst of what delay does. The most erratic gear in the justice machinery is at the place of fact finding, and possibilities for error multiply rapidly as time elapses between the original fact and its judicial determination"\

Id. at 303-04 n. 10 (quoting Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Stoot, 530 S.W.2d 930, 931 (Tex.1975) (emphasis added).

The actions of the defendants may also have amounted to a violation of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides in section 22 of its Declaration of Rights that "every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to [his] . . . property . . . ." La.Const. art. I, § 22 (emphasis added).

The decision goes on to say that a conspiracy to deny access to court is actionable on its own.

Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 07/05/1983)

I believe that Ryland v. Shapiro is cited in many other cases and that there is no question that it is current law. Do you have any reason to believe that this decision has been superceded? kay sieverding (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay, instead of trying to badger us with authority, why don't you go read what I suggested you read? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The AJS also cites this case:

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Meese, 615 F. Supp. 200, 206 (District of Columbia District Court 1985)) "'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".

The U.S. Judicial Conference, a link Arthur deleted, has an on-line guide to the required written procedure in 1983 cases that judges are required to use. I haven't read the whole document but there is nothing in there saying that a requirement that a party be represented can be allowed. kay sieverding (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The ABA implicitly recognizes that self-representation is a common law right when it endorsed unbundled services thru its publications and awards. They are all gung ho on the concept, which allows lawyers to make money in a down economy by expanding their services to the middle class. The only way the concept is legal is if the litigant acts like an owner builder and the lawyers hired to for the components are like plumbers and electricians, hired to do the most specialized tasks. They are the litigants' agent. In the recent S.C. case involving denial of self-representation to a diagnosed schizophrenic (part of what Arthur deleted instead of improving), his lawyers argued that they were his agents. The exception was then made only to a schizophrenic in a criminal defense, where he had a right to a paid government lawyer. If the ABA didn't recognize the common law right of self-representation, that would have come up in the various discussions of unbundled services. The concept of unbundled services has also been ratified by many state bar associations including New Hampshire and Minnesota.

Another way to verify that self-representation is a natural and common law right, is that it is a recognized right in Canada and almost every other country. kay sieverding (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. "Natural and common law right" is one thing. "Fundamental right" is another. Do you not understand the difference? Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Separation and Deletion is totally against my wishes

I am stating unequivocally that the division of the work (probably 85-95% of which I wrote or sourced) into two articles and being excluded from the interaction with the public on the subject of this article is totally against my wishes. Since the parties who have done so have stated that they do not believe that self-representation is not a fundamental right and their concern that exercise of the right of self-representation will adversely affect the income of certain people, I believe that they are acting in bad faith and that their intention is to censor the article to keep certain information from being freely available to the reading public, who have been induced to believe that Wikipedia is unbiased. Kay Sieverding kay sieverding (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've made this clear by refusing to follow consensus and community-based editing. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion whatever on whether Pro se, or self representation, is a fundamental right or not. None. I also have little or no interest in the question itself, and no ties to anyone who does.

What I have an opinion about, is how things have been proceeding with this article. Badly. What I have an interest in is whether this article can be edited in a harmonious, constructive and consensus driven way... what I am seeing leads me to believe that if the pool of editors actively editing includes Kay, (absent a significant change in approach, by Kay) that the probability of that is significantly lower than if it excludes Kay. Since my main interest is in the encyclopedia as a whole, not any particular user's point of view, the solution is clear.

Kay, either change your approach or you will be excluded from editing this article. You have been warned multiple times. Do you understand that you may well lose your editing privs, Kay? Yes or no? ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The facts show that I participated in the article in good faith: 1.) I wrote to the ABA and asked them for input 2.) I did not engage in edit warring. Not once did I revert anyone else's text except for the deletion of "notable pro ses", which no one objected to. 3.) When my text was reverted, I modified it to respond to the stated objections (which were minimal and not on the talk page) 3.) I made no threats to anyone 4.) I sourced everything. I personally found over 100 references. I went to the law library to get references and today I received 5 books that I ordered specifically for this article. 5.) I suggested a communal outline 6.) I did not delete anyone else's references, not one (the only references anyone else came up with use of the term pro per related to pro se lawyers and legal fees-a subject I suggested since I was already aware of the Kay v. Ehler decision. 7.) I tried to assume good faith 8.) I tried to de-escalate the controversy writing things like "what's past is past" and "please direct me to the policy". 9.) I tried to use the talk page to discuss references, which is the only thing it is supposed to be used for. 10.) I was a good sport about your erasing my user page and convincing me to change my signature 11.) I did not claim authorship.12.) I did not make a big deal about your false claims that I cannot cite the Supreme Court, even though it is clear that the Supreme Court is used as a director reference all over Wiki-Law. 13.) I asked for references to specific Wikipedia policies and followed them when I found them or they were pointed out to me. For instance I used the Wikipedia citation guideline (which is optional not required).

The fact is that we are writing over an important subject involving fundamental rights.

Lar, what the H do you mean "change your approach or you will be excluded from editing this article"? Just what approach am I supposed to change?

You already have excluded me from editing the article.

Lots of people in the past have come to consensus to do the wrong thing. Writing an article about fundamental rights so that it is incorrect is wrong.

Wikipedia policy is that polling is not a substitute for rationale discussion. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of policies and guidelines you (Kay) have violated is probably more than the number I've read. There have been a number of times you have been informed of multiple guidelines your contributions violate, and you fix the contributions to satify one of the guidelines, and say you've solved the problem. This is wrong.

Actually, I think the notable pro se section, including the one you deleted because she didn't want to be listed, probably should be included. I suspect the reason no one objected as that everyone notices the other things you've done which were clearly inappropriate and objected to.

As for citation guidelines, you have never followed the citation guidelines. You've copied HTML from some other citations. But you've never used {{cite}} templates, nor has the HTML been correct.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My links worked and when you alerted me to the Wiki citation guidelines I used them. I didn't delete anything anyone else wrote except the padding section on pro se litigants you decide to write about, including Barbara Schwartz, even though the Wikipedia editors had ordered there was to be no article about her. There were 40 million pro se litigants in one year in California alone but you want to pick selected people are write about them against their interests.

You were the one who violated Wiki guidelines in the important ways--you deleted references as well as text without an explanation in the talk page. You used the talk page to discuss the subject. You attacked me. You attacked me on the talk page. You tried to make the edit about me. And most importantly, you made the article so that it has no useful information. You removed the statistics about self-representation, the need for self-representation,links to organizations, forms based self representation, the basis for the right in common law, every single theory about the basis for the right, policy suggestions, all the Supreme Court citations except the two you approve of, all the discussion about the rules of professional conduct, sanctions, and obstruction of justice, how pro ses use blogs to communicate with each other, how pro ses are affected by the news coverage. You removed all the historical text about distrust of lawyers and pro se litigation in reaction to that.

You removed the U.N. Covenant and accused me of defamation for quoting the U.N. library. I posted a brief on U.S. law that quoted the same U.N. Covenant and referred to a presidential order referring to that and I mentioned that in my summary, but you didn't acknowledge that.

I spent weeks finding and quoting references. I probably added 200 references that you deleted based on your claim that they "weren't relevant". I posted a link to the brief, after you three chose to disable my ability to participate and made comments about why would I want to participate, and you didn't read or acknowledge it. You deleted the biblical references to pro se litigation, you deleted the discussion of the Laws and Liberties of Mass and all the historical statements and references.

You didn't want people to see this:

The Book of Samuel, as published and distributed for over twenty five centuries, acknowledged on the written record the right of self –representation and justice for every man: “Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!” 2 Sam 15:4 St. James Version http://rapturebooks.co.uk/cgi-sys/bible/bible.cgi

You don't want people to see this:

In 1797, Thomas Paine, a celebrated American Statesman and advocate for civil rights, acknowledged in the written record the rights of access to court by every man. Paine said "either party...has a natural right to plead his own case, this right is consistent with safety, therefore, it is retained, but the parties may not be able...therefore the civil right to pleading by proxy, that is, by counsel, is an appendage to the natural right of self-representation."

You don't want this

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, acknowledged in writing both the right of self-representation and the corollary right to control an attorney representative:

“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.”

In 1907, the United States Supreme Court again acknowledged the rights of access to courts in the written record that the "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation of an orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution" < Corfield v. Coryell,(6 F. Cas 546, 551-552, No. 3, 230 (1823)>

In your user pages you state that once the pleading is accepted no more process is required ignoring

In 1985, a court in the capital of the United States acknowledged in the written record the right of every man, including strangers, to appear and to file papers: "'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"[3]

you won't acknowledge

“The right of self-representation is enforced by the both of the current international tribunals established to prosecute violations of the law of war….It is worth noting that the World War II international military tribunals also recognized the right of self-representation….(Referring to England in 1695) The right to counsel was viewed as guaranteeing a choice between representation by counsel and the traditional practice of self-representation. . . . This common law approach continued in Colonial America, where “the insistence upon a right of self-representation was, if anything, more fervent than in England.”… Finally, rules of professional responsibility governing attorneys’ conduct also recognize an individual’s right to self-representation. In discussing the formation of aclient-attorney relationship, one commentary observes “The client-lawyer relationship ordinarily is a consensual one. A client ordinarily should not be forced to put important legal matters into the hands of another or accept unwanted legal services.” Restatement

3d of the Law Governing Lawyers, American Law Institute (2000), §14.

Similarly,§1.16(a)(3) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, which exists in each of the Service’s rules of professional responsibility, “recognizes the long-established principle that a client has a nearly absolute right to discharge a lawyer.” The Law of Lawyering, Hazard & Hodes, Aspen Law & Business 2003 (3d ed.), 20-9.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the American Convention on Human Rights (AMCHR), and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF) all recognize an accused’s right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing. ICCPR, Article 14(3)(b) and (d); AMCHR, Article 8(2)(d); CPHRFF, Article 6(3)(c). The plain language of these provisions unequivocally establish such a right.

Further, the right to counsel of choice is enforced by the both of the current international tribunals established to prosecute violations of the law of war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) both allow for representation by counsel of one’s own choosing before the tribunal. Statute of the ICTY, Article 21(4)(d); Statute of theICTR, Article 20(4)(d). States. Furthermore, the President has ordered executive departments and agencies to “fully respect and implement itsobligations under the international human rights treaties to which [the United States] is a party, including the ICCPR.” Executive Order 13,107, Section 1(a), 61 Fed.Reg. 68,991(1998). The Executive Order provides that “all executive departments and agencies . . .including boards and commissions . . . shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully.” Executive Order 13,107, Section 2(a). The commission is also bound by customary international law. Customary international law is developed by the practice of states and “crystallizes when there is‘evidence of a general practice accepted as law.’

“The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international

law”…(quoting) “The U.S. Military Services shall comply with

the principles, spirit, and intent of the international law of war, both customary and codified, to include the Geneva Conventions.”); Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, July 1956, Chapter 1, Section I, para. 4 (the law of war is derived from both treaties and customary law). …States domestic law establish that self-representation and counsel of one’s choosing are recognized as rights that must be afforded as part of one’s ability to present a defense. …. Protocol I, Article 75, para. 4(a). The United States considers Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to be applicable customary international law. William H. Taft, IV, The Law of

Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features, 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 319, 322 (Summer2003)(“[the United States] regard[s] the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled.”) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/d20040917selfrep.pdf

you repeatedly deleted this reference

One publication of the American Bar Association, a voluntary organization of 440,000 U.S. citizens with special training in law acknowledged in the written record that "In theory, statutes, prevailing case law, and the rules of court apply to all litigants equally.[4]

You deleted all the discussion about the Rules Enabling Act.

You outright lied to me and said that it was against Wikipedia policy to quote the Supreme Court and appellate courts and then you quoted them yourself.

I will never trust Wikipedia after this terrible experience. Participation in Wikipedia is a total waste of time. It is an organization that allows any creep to censor while presenting itself as an inclusive source. I will never believe what the website says about anything is accurate. Great software but a total unwillingness to enforce policies. Look at the Wikipedia foundation and there is no contact information.

Here is the article about out of control Wiki editors deleting info about Human Rights in China

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html kay sieverding (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To reply to some of your specific misunderstandings,

1. The viewpoint of 4 editors should prevail over the viewpoint of 1 (you).
2. Many (more than the 4 who have actually reverted your edits) have objected to your edits; you usually replied by making a technical correction or two, leaving the overall unencyclopedic character or irrelevance of your essays to the topic (or the section of the topic) intact. (Many of your sections would have been relevant to an "access to courts" article, if probably edited to include secondary sources. However, that article is not this one.) You have never met Wikipedia citation guidelines.
3. Thanks for reminding me about the "Notable pro se litigants" section. It should clearly be retained, but trimmed to what is reliable.
4. I never said it was against Wikipedia policity to quote the Supreme Court; I just said it was a primary source, and, at least in opinions dealing with living people, per WP:BLP, we need secondary sources. As you are interpreting the Supreme Court decisions in a manner not obvious from their wording, we need a source that that interpretation is relevant. You may be interpreted the sources correctly, but determining that would require published input from legal scholars, per WP:OR.
5. You're confusing the actions of the multiple editors who have removed your essays. Some of us have also removed each others essays as being inappropriate on Wikipedia, so you need to distinguish the individual editors who removed your text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is correct. I see that you tried to do the same things at Fundamental rights, Kay. Don't do that, please. We have all tried to explain what the issue is, over and over, and you are not getting it. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times link you say talks about "out of control Wiki editors deleting info about Human Rights in China" does not discuss deletion of information about human rights in China; it talks about the fact that the article was, at the time of writing, protected against editing, and is used as an example of an article closed for editing to prevent improper information from being added. This reference source was easily checked, Kay, and your complete misinterpretation of it gives rise to questions about how you have interpreted other reference sources you have quoted. Risker (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Risker

The NYT's article says "Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera....But as the article grows, and citations slowly accumulate, Mr. Saewyc said, the article becomes increasingly accurate...." It seems that the removal of citations is a problem. My perception is that the removal of citations has been a problem with this article. I did check the Christina Aguilera article. It was interesting to me that that article was 86K, all about just one person. kay sieverding (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ISBN number

Someone posted that the ISBN number for a source I cited "Litigants without Lawyers Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation" is incorrect. I checked and it turned out that I had erred by adding an extra dash. The correct ISBN # is 1-59031-061-6 kay sieverding (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

definition "pro se practioner'

One of the web site links that someone deleted referred to "pro se practioners". Does anyone have a reference as to what that term is supposed to mean? kay sieverding (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you inserted it, you should have already known what it means. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the phrase "pro se practitioner" has been in the article at any time.

Here is a reference to the term"pro se practitioner"

PDF] Trends Report FM File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Pro Se Practitioner’s Resource Center or www.selfhelpsupport.org This is a Web site dedicated to pro se practitioners that is ... www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_CtFutu_Trends03_Pub.pdf 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Request technical assistance creating sub page

There has been some discussion on user pages that there should be a group effort outline. I have not yet learned all the Wiki software and I don't see how to create a subpage. It was suggested that there be a subpage for a communal outline. Someone said there is supposed to be a tab on the top of the page to create a subpage, but I don't see one. Since there has been controversy as to what is or is not "relevant" to the subject, such as "organizations involved in pro se issues", "access to court", "misconduct" and "basis in common law for self-representation", wouldn't a communal page outline be useful? kay sieverding (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't see such a page as helpful, you can create it either by editing the URL directly (if you edit this page as a whole, you see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States&action=edit, and you edit that to insert "/Subpage_name" between the "States" and the "&action"), or you can can edit a section of this page, insert [[/Subpage name]], click the "Show preview" button below the edit window, and click on the redlink in the preview window. I'm sure there are other methods, but I'm not entirely sure what they are.

Subpages of pages in article-space are deprecated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BD2412 has already created Pro se legal representation in the United States/temp, based on the version of the article prior to Kate starting to edit. Perhaps the talk page of that temp page would be suitable: Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/temp. While subpages are generally deprecated (Kay: that means generally discouraged), they are used from time to time for articles undergoing major edits, reworking of specific points, or sometimes to set aside contentious material while it is being reviewed without directly impacting the article. Kay, please stay on the talk page if this is where people will develop the overall article plan. Risker (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Access to court

I propose deleting the entire "access to court" section, with possible userification. It doesn't belong in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Kay should move it to her userspace if it means something to her. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that some sections were removed, and I have put them into a user page for Kay, with a link on her talk page. Please consider doing that yourselves, as the involved group of editors work through the article. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Once the article is lightened of the junk, I'll bring back a prior good version, and then we can add back what, if anything, we can from the Kay page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship complaint

The New York Times reports that Wikipedia forbid the editing of information about the rights of the Citizens of China. However, three Wikipedia editors have removed discussion of the rights of the Citizens of the United States from the article on self-represented access to court. kay sieverding (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}. I tried both a google news search, and a search on the NYT web site, and found no reference for the first sentence. The second sentence is obviously (to anyone who understands Wikipedia policies) wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article requires a New York Times registration.

Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy By KATIE HAFNER Published: June 17, 2006 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the article was about the use of protection and semi-protection to prevent edit-warring and vandalism. At the time it was written, the article Human rights in the Republic of China was fully protected because of a major edit war. The article includes a link to the list of protected and semi-protected articles. In another section of this page, Kay uses the same article to suggest it discusses "out of control Wiki editors deleting info about Human Rights in China", which it does not, in any way. The article was about the inherent conflict between the "anyone can edit" philosophy and the need to prevent BLP violations and blatantly partisan information from being entered into the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times article referred to problems with deletions from Wikipedia of information about rights in China.

Information about rights in the U.S. was deleted from this article even though the references were accurate and in most cases supported by links. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the article:

“ Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera. (para) Wikipedia's come-one, come-all invitation to write and edit articles, and the surprisingly successful results, have captured the public imagination. But it is not the experiment in freewheeling collective creativity it might seem to be, because maintaining so much openness inevitably involves some tradeoffs. (para) At its core, Wikipedia is not just a reference work but also an online community that has built itself a bureaucracy of sorts — one that, in response to well-publicized problems with some entries, has recently grown more elaborate. It has a clear power structure that gives volunteer administrators the authority to exercise editorial control, delete unsuitable articles and protect those that are vulnerable to vandalism. ”

Kay, you have conflated two separate concepts from this article. The first is that the article on Human rights in the Republic of China was protected from editing; the second is that administrators have authority to delete unsuitable articles. This clearly incorrect synthesis from one single article raises serious concerns in my mind about your ability to correctly parse what you are proposing as reference sources. Risker (talk) 20:49, 28 September 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)

Reference brief acknowledging rights of self-representation

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/d20040917selfrep.pdf.

The subject of the brief is the right to self-representation in a military defense trial.

The brief quotes extensively from military and rule of war law. It draws on the United Nations International Covenant and it quotes a U.S. Presidential enforcement order.

The brief also points to statements and assumptions in the Rules of Professional Conduct that acknowledge that self-representation is a fundamental right. kay sieverding (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update on Wikipedia criticisms, fact checking, and editing policy

To be consistent with the people who have taken control of this article, and who state that court cases cannot be directly cited, only "scholarly" articles discussing the court cases, I removed court case citations from the section on "pro se attorneys".

Here are some articles discussing Wikipedia editing policies.

KATIE HAFNER "Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy" June 17, 2006 New York Times

"Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera."

"Intentional mischief can go undetected for long periods. In the article about John Seigenthaler Sr., who served in the Kennedy administration, a suggestion that he was involved in the assassinations of both John F. and Robert Kennedy was on the site for more than four months before Mr. Seigenthaler discovered it. He wrote an op-ed article in USA Today about the incident, calling Wikipedia "a flawed and irresponsible research tool."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?scp=5&sq=wikipedia&st=cse

NOAM COHEN "Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It" August 31, 2008 New York Times

NOAM COHEN "Wikipedia Tries Approval System to Reduce Vandalism" July 17, 2008, New York Times

"The German site, which is particularly vexed by vandalism, uses the system to delay changes from appearing until someone in authority (a designated checker) has verified that the changes are not vandalism. Once a checker has signed off on the changes, they will appear on the site to any visitor; before a checker has signed off, the last, checker-approved version is what most visitors will see. (There are complicated exceptions, of course. When a “checker” makes a change, it appears immediately. And registered users, who make up less than 5 percent of Wikipedia users, will also see “unchecked” versions.)"

NOAM COHEN "A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source" February 21, 2007 New York Times

KATIE HAFNER "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits" August 19, 2007 New York Times 24.183.52.130 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Other References

http://www.pro-se-litigants.org/the_pro_se_problem

Federal Judicial Center, "Resource Guide for Managing Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation" 1996, 172 pages (Free) kay sieverding (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Text moved from article to talk page

The following verbiage from user Kay Sieverding is moved here for discussion:

The United States Supreme Court has called the right to "institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts" a "fundamental" right. CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN, 40 S. Ct. 402, 252 U.S. 553 (U.S. 04/19/1920)

The article is supposed to be about pro se representation only. Neither of these cases involved the issue of whether the right to proceed pro se is a right, or a fundamental right. The subject is not even mentioned in the texts, as far as I can see. Please explain why these materials were added to the article. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-script: The material quoted above had been added to the article by Kay Sieverding under, and along with, a heading worded as "Self-representation as a fundamental right". I deleted the heading at the same time I moved the material to the talk page. Famspear (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1920, the Supreme Court used the words "actions of any kind"

In the 19th Century, self-represented litigation was common. (There was a deleted article about the frequency of self-representation prior to the twentieth century. It was in the article for maybe a day or two, maybe around 8/20. The author was a judge. There was a link.)

The Supreme Court used the words "actions of any kind" in 1920. The justices were aware of the phenomena of self-represented litigation because it had been so common in the U.S. History and they were aware of Thomas Jefferson's letter (it looks like President Thomas Jefferson's letter regarding the right of self representation was also removed from the page)

“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.”

In 1920, when they used the words "actions of any kind" if the Supreme Court knew about pro se litigants. According to the deleted historical article by the judge, there were a lot of pro se litigants. If the didn't mean any to include pro ses, the Supreme Court would have said so.

I think that almost all of these judges and statesmen at the time read the bible regularly. I think a lot of them had the St. James version. That uses the words "every man":

“Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!” 2 Sam 15:4

Will you please post a link to the Wiki Policy page and number you are on? kay sieverding (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay, one of the rules in Wikipedia is that sources must stand for the proposition stated in the article. In the cases you cited, the Court did not rule that self-representation is a fundamental right. The Court did not rule that self-representation is a right at all (although we know of course that there is a legal right of self-representation - that's a separate point). The Court in the cases you cited was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue regarding the nature of the right of self-representation.

"The justices were aware of the phenomena of self-represented litigation because it had been so common in the U.S. History"?? That's your answer? Your answer is not responsive. You cannot take source A with statement A and source B with statement B and then combine them with your own discussion of the Second Book of Samuel and quotations by Jefferson, etc., etc., etc., to reach your own "conclusion C" (i.e., your conclusion that "self-representation is a fundamental right") and then stick that in a Wikipedia article. That's called "original research," and it's prohibited.

Worse, as I stated above, it's faulty research. The cases you cited do not stand for the proposition you apparently are trying to "prove" (i.e., that self-representation is a fundamental right).

That does not necessarily mean that you are "wrong" in your conclusion. It does mean that you are faulty in your research, and that you are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read or re-read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the rule:

Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In essence, Kay, you are interpreting the use of the phrase "actions of any kind" to mean that the Supreme Court, in the cases you cited, was ruling that "pro se representation is a fundamental right." That is not what the Court ruled, and that is certainly not what the Court was saying. The "analysis" you provided is not only improper as legal analysis, it's a violation of the Wikipedia rule I have quoted. Famspear (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that pro se litigation is a substitute of "actions of any kind". One of the references you deleted was

http://www1.law.nyu.edu/pubs/annualsurvey/documents/60%20N.Y.U.%20Ann.%20Surv.%20Am.%20L.%20453%20(2005).pdf.

There is a discussion of history of the bar and the self-representation in there.

Please source this statement "In the United States, self-representation is permitted in most instances" and show sources as to when it is not permitted.

The statement "In the United States, self-representation is permitted in most instances" is not sourced. Can you source that and write a precise statement as to when pro se litigation is not allowed? I think you should divide that into civil and criminal. I don't think it is necessary to discuss corporations. Please list people and types of people or types of actions in which self-representation is not permitted. kay sieverding (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. per your instructions I removed that statement from the article, because it was unsourced. I also removed the unsourced statement that pro se litigation is common in small claims court. I believe it is universal in small claims court.kay sieverding (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why were these references removed from article

The Massachusetts Bill of Rights, passed in 1780, included " Article 1 XI.--Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws. XII.--No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his council, at his election." [5]

The New Hampshire Bill of Rights, passed in 1784, Article 1 Section included "XIV. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he may receive in his person, property or character, to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws. XV. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, and counsel." [6]

The Indiana Constitution of 1951 Article 7 Section 21. included "Every person of good moral character, being a voter,shall be entitled to admission to practice law in all Courts of justice." [7]

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the U.S, wrote a letter saying: "“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.” [7]

The Colorado Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance issued a recommendation of “do not retain” for Judge Adele Anderson, a judge in Pueblo County. Anderon was one of two out of 83 judges who was not recommended for retention. The Commission’s decision was based on a survey conducted to evaluate Judge Anderson’s performance. Respondents to the survey included members of law enforcement, attorneys, litigants, jurors, criminal defendants, courthouse personnel and crime victims. One of the bases for the Commission’s decision was that some survey respondents noted Judge Anderson’s “demeaning and harsh treatment of individuals appearing in her court without legal counsel.” See the Commission’s recommendation at [12]

The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a judge for failing to respect the rights of pro se litigants. Inquiry Concerning Judge Fred L. Heene, Jr., No. 153, October 13, 1999. This seems to be the only case in which a judge has been disciplined for the judge’s treatment of unrepresented individuals. [13] kay sieverding (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove them but you might want to review WP:WEIGHT This level of detail strikes me as undue weight on one particular subfacet. Why don't you craft one or two tight sentences that clearly and succinctly make the point you are making, give them however many references are needed to support them, and propose them here, on the talk, for criticism. If the total proposal is more than 500 chars, you're not getting what we are saying about building the article up slowly, with well crafted, clearly germane and easily understood additions. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why were these ABA and military source references removed from article?

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

§1.16(a)(3) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, which exists in each of the Service’s rules of professional responsibility, “recognizes the long-established principle that a client has a nearly absolute right to discharge a lawyer.”

Military Treaties referring to self-representation

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) both allow for self-representation before the tribunal. Statute of the ICTY, Article 21(4)(d); Statute of the ICTR, Article 20(4)(d). The rules of procedure governing the Nuremberg military tribunals provided that “a defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense.”The 1695 [Treason Act] . . . provided for court appointment of counsel, but only if the accused so desired. Thus, as new rights developed, the accused retained his established right ‘to make what statements he liked.’ The right to counsel was viewed as guaranteeing a choice between representation by counsel and the traditional practice of self- representation. . . . At no point in this process of reform in England was counsel ever forced upon the defendant. The common-law rule . . . has evidently always been that ‘no person charged with a criminal offence can have counsel forced upon him against his will.’ [26]Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides that a court trying an accused for law of war violations “shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence.” Geneva Conventions (1949), Additional Protocol I, Article 75, para. 4(a). The United States considers Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to be applicable customary international law. William H. Taft, IV, The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features, 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 319, 322 (Summer 2003)(“[the United States] regard[s] the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled.”) [27]

The ABA rules of professional conduct are American Rules, since it is the American Bar Association not the French Bar Association or the Swedish Bar Association.

The primary source was written by two U.S. lawyers, submitted to a U.S. Court, and concerned treatment of foreign nationals on U.S. soil. The same laws theoretically apply to U.S. citizens who are captured abroad. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See the response to the last section. Also, please use either the IP, or your login, but not both. Using both confuses matters and makes it look like there is more support for your position than there actually is. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Can this page be protected or semi-protected until folks can come to a resolution on how to deal with Kay's determination to edit in his/her so-far typical style? Kay's editing pattern seems to have been strangely uninfluenced by the unanimous criticism so far. Avruch ^T 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Kay for 72 hours. Protecting the article would prevent other good faith editors from editing in a consensual manner; there is only one editor who seems to be having a problem with that, and so the problem is being addressed at its source. Risker (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Sensible. I wasn't sure where you were at with the blocking escalation, and I hadn't seen one yet, so I thought in the absence of a block that semi-prot at least would help. Were you planning on blocking the IP as well? Avruch ^T 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are statistics of the incidence and success of self-representation in court relevant?

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. 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.

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%. 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? --Elonka 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)

Restore RfC: Are statistics of the incidence and success of self-representation in court relevant?

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.

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%. 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

"In 2000, according to the World Health Organization, at least 171 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes, or 2.8% of the population.[51] Its incidence is increasing rapidly, and it is estimated that by the year 2030, this number will almost double.[51] Diabetes mellitus occurs throughout the world, but is more common (especially type 2) in the more developed countries. The greatest increase in prevalence is, however, expected to occur in Asia and Africa, where most patients will likely be found by 2030.[51] The increase in incidence of diabetes in developing countries follows the trend of urbanization and lifestyle changes, perhaps most importantly a "Western-style" diet. This has suggested an environmental (i.e., dietary) effect, but there is little understanding of the mechanism(s) at present, though there is much speculation, some of it most compellingly presented.[51]

For at least 20 years, diabetes rates in North America have been increasing substantially. In 2005 there were about 20.8 million people with diabetes in the United States alone. According to the American Diabetes Association, there are about 6.2 million people undiagnosed and about 41 million people that would be considered prediabetic.[52] However, the criteria for diagnosing diabetes in the USA mean that it is more readily diagnosed than in some other countries. The Centers for Disease Control has termed the change an epidemic.[53] The National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse estimates that diabetes costs $132 billion in the United States alone every year. About 5%–10% of diabetes cases in North America are type 1, with the rest being type 2. The fraction of type 1 in other parts of the world differs; this is likely due to both differences in the rate of type 1 and differences in the rate of other types, most prominently type 2. Most of this difference is not currently understood. The American Diabetes Association point out the 2003 assessment of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime.[54][52]

According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 18.3% (8.6 million) of Americans age 60 and older have diabetes. [55] Diabetes mellitus prevalence increases with age, and the numbers of older persons with diabetes are expected to grow as the elderly population increases in number. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) demonstrated that, in the population over 65 years old, 18% to 20% have diabetes, with 40% having either diabetes or its precursor form of impaired glucose tolerance.[46]

Indigenous populations in first world countries have a higher prevalence and increasing incidence of diabetes than their corresponding non-indigenous populations. In Australia the age-standardised prevalence of self-reported diabetes in Indigenous Australians is almost 4 times that of non-indigenous Australians.[56] Preventative community health programs such as Sugar Man (diabetes education) are showing some success in tackling this problem."

Here's another statistics section:

"The US market-based health care system relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance; some 60% obtain it through an employer, while about 9% purchase it directly. Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[27]

Public programs provide the primary source of coverage for most seniors and for low-income children and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. The primary public programs are Medicare, a federal social insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states but administered at the state level, which covers certain very low income children and their families, and SCHIP, also a federal-state partnership that serves certain children and families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private coverage. Other public programs include military health benefits provided through TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration and benefits provided through the Indian Health Service. Some states have additional programs for low-income individuals.[28]

In 2006, there were 47 million people in the United States (16% of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[27] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000.[27]

In 2004, US health insurers directly employed almost 470,000 people at an average salary of $61,409.[29] (As of the fourth quarter of 2007, the total US labor force stood at 153.6 million, of whom 146.3 million were employed. Employment related to all forms of insurance totaled 2.3 million.[30] Mean annual earnings for full-time civilian workers as of June 2006 were $41,231; median earnings were $33,634.)[31] The insurance industry also represents a significant lobbying group in the US. For the 2007-2008 election cycle insurance was the 8th among industries in political contributions to members of Congress, giving $13,411,561, of which 56% was given to Democrats (lawyers and law firms were number 1, giving $59,205,616, of which 80% went to Democrats). The top recipient of insurance industry contributions was Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).[32] The leading contributor from the insurance industry — as measured by total political contributions — was AFLAC, Inc., which contributed $907,150 in 2007.[33]"

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)

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) 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)

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. --Elonka 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.[1] --Elonka 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. --Elonka 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! --Elonka 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? --Elonka 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? --Elonka 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; "> 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) 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)

Everyone thinks everyone who disagrees with them is biased. Bias is not relevant. Only pre-existing bias is relevant. Do you have any evidence of that?

Rule 11 and Rule 38 are not the only means by which you can be sanctioned by a court. The anti-injunction act also has never been a limit on the contempt power of the court, only it's jurisdiction to intervene equitably in certain matters reserved for state and local authorities. You're not entitled to a criminal trial on a direct contempt. Sorry. Next time, don't piss off the judge. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lex, you deleted my comments. The Anti-Injunction Act is a limit on the contempt powers of the court. What else would it be? It's called the Anti injunction act not the pro injunction act. As I stated, you are not entitled to a jury trial if you commit contempt in the presence of the court. The Court is required in its order to state what the summary contempt was. The judge does not have a "right" to put you in jail for making him angry. "The distinction between in-court and out-of-court contempts has been drawn not to define when a court has or has not the authority to initiate prosecution for contempt, but for the purpose of prescribing what procedures must attend the exercise of that authority. As we said in Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 204 (1968), "before the 19th century was out, a distinction had been carefully drawn between contempts occurring within the view of the court, for which a hearing and formal presentation of evidence were dispensed with, and all other contempts where more normal adversary procedures were required.... Congress also has regulated the manner in which courts exercise their power to prosecute contempts, narrowing the class of contempts subject to summary punishment, Act of Mar. 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487....The manner in which the court's prosecution of contempt is exercised therefore may be regulated by Congress, Michaelson, 266 U.S., at 65-66, and by this Court through constitutional review....Our insistence on the criminal character of contempt prosecutions has been intended to rebut earlier characterizations of such actions as undeserving of the protections normally provided in criminal proceedings....While a court has the authority to initiate a prosecution for criminal contempt, its exercise of that authority must be restrained by the principle that "only 'the least possible power adequate to the end proposed' should be used in contempt cases." United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 319 (1975) (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat., at 231)....a court ordinarily should first request the appropriate prosecuting authority to prosecute contempt actions, and should appoint a private prosecutor only if that request is denied... the court erred in appointing as prosecutors counsel for an interested party in the underlying civil litigation....A private attorney appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt therefore certainly should be as disinterested as a public prosecutor who undertakes such a prosecution....If a Justice Department attorney pursued a contempt prosecution for violation of an injunction benefiting any client of that attorney involved in the underlying civil litigation, that attorney would be open to a charge of committing a felony under ? 208(a). Furthermore, such conduct would violate the ABA ethical provisions, since the attorney could not discharge the obligation of undivided loyalty to both clients where both have a direct interest...As we said in Bloom, "In modern times, procedures in criminal contempt cases have come to mirror those used in ordinary criminal cases." 391 U.S., at 207. The requirement of a disinterested prosecutor is consistent with that trend...counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order....We have held that some errors "are so fundamental and pervasive that they require reversal without regard to the facts or circumstances of the particular case." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986). We find that the appointment of an interested prosecutor is such an error...Between the private life of the citizen and the public glare of criminal accusation stands the prosecutor. That state official has the power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual. Even if a defendant is ultimately acquitted, forced immersion in criminal investigation and adjudication is a wrenching disruption of everyday life. For this reason, we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice. A prosecutor of a contempt action who represents the private beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated cannot provide such assurance, for such an attorney is required by the very standards of the profession to serve two masters. Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) So if a judge is angry because you did something he didn't want, or didn't do what he wanted, he still has to allow formal procedure starting with requesting a U.S. Attorney to prosecute unless you actually disrupted a court room. I was never even accused of disrupting a court room nor or perjury nor of any criminal contempt. I was never in the same room as a government or independent prosecutor who was prosecuting me and in my whole life have never received a criminal complaint with my name on it. No judge that I know of ever requested a government prosecutor to prosecute me. kay sieverding (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Above, Kay Sieverding wrote: "The Anti-Injunction Act is a limit on the contempt powers of the court. What else would it be? It's called the Anti injunction act not the pro injunction act." (emphasis added).

Kay, this discussion is getting difficult to follow, but this quoted passage in particular is difficult to follow. With all due respect, I think this verbiage may indicate confusion about the legal concepts of injunction, contempt, and jurisdiction.

The term "Anti-Injunction Act" is often used to describe statutes such as 28 U.S.C. 2283 and 26 U.S.C. 7421. Neither of these provisions is, strictly speaking, merely a limitation on the "contempt" powers of a court. These are basically jurisdictional statutes -- specifically, limitations on subject-matter jurisdiction of courts. These are limitations on the kinds of cases certain courts can hear and decide.

Now, obviously it's true that in some broad sense, a limitation on the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court limits a court's powers to do "things" in the kinds of cases excluded from the court's jurisdiction by the Act -- by definition! But that limitation would apply to lots of things. Obviously, if the court cannot hear and decide a particular kind of case, the court cannot exercise most of the judicial powers that the court would be able exercise IF the Anti-Injunction Act were not on the books. So, saying that the Anti-Injunction Act is a limitation on the "contempt" powers of a court seems to misleadingly and incorrectly imply that limiting the contempt power is the purpose of the Act. I do not think that this the purpose of the Act (and I know for sure that it's definitely not the purpose in the specific example of 26 U.S.C. 7421.)

Again, Kay, I'm not sure but I think maybe you have been trying to do your own original research on this whole subject. I again suggest that you avoid that, at least for purposes of Wikipedia. Just my opinion.

By the way, where the court is prohibited by the Act from hearing a case, the court probably still has jurisdiction to do at least one thing with respect to that case. Can you guess what that one thing is? (This is off the subject, I know.) Famspear (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Famspear is correct. You do not understand what the A.I.A. does. Let me put it another way: your basic mistake seems to be that you have confused contempt with injunctions. They are related but not interchangeable. Contempt is how a court ENFORCES an injunction, but it is not the same thing as an injunction. You can have contempt w/o injunction - you don't have to violate an injunction; there are other ways to be in contempt of court. Now, an injunction w/o the power of contempt is unenforceable.

So what the Anti-injunction act actually does is make a number of cases off-limits to federal judges by depriving them of subject-matter jurisdiction (it is a virtually unlimited power of Congress to control the subject matter jurisdiction federal courts). So of course, if Congress has said that a court cannot hear a kind of case, it should not issue an injunction in that kind of case. In that sense, it does limit contempts, but it's not limiting the power, only where it will be used. However, the AIA places no limit on the power of Courts to issue injunctions in any and all cases where they do have jurisdiction.

It probably won't, but this little exercise SHOULD point up the dangers of original research into law, esp. by non-attorneys. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:16, 10 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. 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. 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. 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 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 , Limits to Detention Title 18 section 4001 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 , 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.

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%.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. --Elonka 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)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom of the talk page, and copy it to archive pages if references are moved.

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)