Jump to content

Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


Conflict of interest and bringing up your own case

Kay, your remarks about being defamed in the net made me curious. I had never heard of you before this, so I did a Google search on "Kay Sieverding" and was rather stunned to see over 2000 hits. I then looked at a smattering of the top fifty unique hits. There were news articles that covered actions taken and rulings made against you, and predictable commentary. There were transcripts of court cases: all rulings against you. Together these amounted to about half the total I saw. I saw your web site about your own case. The rest were links to this talk page and to blog pages that started out on some other topic, but where you commented in a manner that seemed to allude to your own case. No one denies your absolute right to argue your case on any site that welcomes that type of discussion (a set that does not include Wikipedia). No one denies your right to schadenfreude concerning the judge's legal troubles, and to make your own defamatory remarks based on published reports of his conduct. But, if you so do, and thereby attract attention to your own case, you take your chances that the attention might not be favorable. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I made no mention in any forum on the Internet about anything involving myself until things were published about me and related to me that were not true. There is and was no getting away from the articles published about me that really affect my life. I asked for the articles to be removed from the Internet or at least corrected, but was refused. The Steamboat Pilot fixed their articles about me so that the comment posting function is disabled and they deleted my comments on those articles. Years ago defamation was published in hard copy form, usually only once, and you could move to get away from it. But there is no getting away from "Google". I am not a public figure and have no ability to call a press conference to dispute the articles about me.

I don't believe that any of my comments about Judge Nottingham are untrue in any way. Most of them simply quote articles by AP, 9 News, The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News. As far as my opinion that Judge Nottingham committed crimes towards me, I do totally believe that what he did to me was criminal. I wrote a 4-page letter to Judge Nottingham's criminal defense lawyer, Stephen C. Peters, after the Rocky Mountain News published that Judge Nottingham was referring questions about his behavior to his criminal defense lawyer and gave his name. In April 2008 I wrote to Mr. Peters:

"I would greatly appreciate it if, assuming that my quotations of Judge Nottingham from the transcripts and record are accurate, you would respond if you think that there is any possibility that Judge Nottingham is innocent of criminal conduct towards me and explain why you think so as I think that what Judge Nottingham said, wrote, and used his authority to do match these crime statutes perfectly. Most of these crimes have pretty long possible sentences and my perception is that they were pretty severe crimes, worse than rape."

I faxed that letter to Mr. Peters twice and I mailed it to him and I referred to it in various blogs but Mr. Peters never disputed that what Judge Nottingham did to me was criminal. Peters never wrote to me at all although my address was on the letter.

My husband had a hearing with Judge Nottingham in December 2008. At that time, Judge Nottingham referred to reading what I had "blogged" about him but made no representation that anything I wrote was inaccurate. Judge Nottingham knows my address, which has not changed since 2002, and has made no attempt to contact me to say that anything I posted anywhere was inaccurate or misleading or should be corrected and supplemented. He also did not post on any of the blogs that I have seen at least not in his own name.

Also, the District of Columbia ruling, I believe, misrepresents the facts. There was no jury trial and the defendants filed no summary judgment motions. I filed various motions to correct the D.C. ruling but the clerks didn't docket what I filed. I have FEDEX and USPO receipts showing deliveries that were not docketed and many of them were returned to me without explanation but with court stamps and dates. One of the defense lawyers sent me a bill for a 15-minute discussion with the "chambers" of the D.C. judge. I don't know what was said. The judge in D.C. claimed that a motion I filed related to the failure of one of the insurance companies involved to pay income taxes was "res judicata" to a claim I made under 42 U.S.C. for unlawful imprisonment 18 months after my case before Judge Nottingham was dismissed and I think he left out or misrepresented the facts in Steamboat Springs. I didn't complain for instance that my neighbor fenced off a few feet, I complained that my neighbor fenced off 6,000 square feet and put a fence 60 feet from his property on our side of the street. My complaints that my neighbor violated the zoning involved three entire buildings, two with central heating and plumbing, that to this day are not even on the Routt County tax rolls. The local judge sua sponte ruled that I 'molested" my neighbor and issued a restraining order on me on that basis but I was not accused of molesting her. I was denied my right to confrontation. The Colorado restraining order statutes require that they can only be issued on the basis of what is complained about and my neighbor did not complain that I 'molested' her. We never were alone together and had no physical contact at all and she admitted under oath that there was "no offensive touching', I hadn't been following her around town, and the last time she could remember my calling her was years before. The Colorado Bar Association publishes "Understanding Protective Orders" at http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/0/subID/274/Understand-Protective-Orders/ and none of the requirements outlined there were met. I only received notice of the hearing three workdays before it and I was unable to get a lawyer. I was not offered an extension even though I said that I had tried to get a lawyer. At the hearing, I was not allowed to introduce evidence as to my neighbor's financial motivations--to cover up their building the extra not allowed buildings--and there was outright perjury. The judge said he thought I would be unable to find a constitutional lawyer. That caused me emotional reputational and economic damages. I was also criminally prosecuted without an affidavit of probable cause. Those charges were eventually dismissed but the d.a. gave a press conference to say that my neighbor was my "victim". When I filed my amended complaint in Judge Nottingham's court, I sent a copy to my lawyer in Steamboat Springs and he replied that he read it while he was on vacation. He found no fault with it and offered free advice. I don't believe that anything in Judge Nottingham's court causes res judicata to anything because there was no jury trial, no summary judgment hearings, and the defense bills show over 20 calls to the court and a conference call with the magistrate, all of which we were not privy to. As you know, res judicata is an affirmative defense and requires an “answer” but the defendants did not file one in either the D.C. or the Colorado case. Prior to filing the Colorado case, I abandoned some pleadings without service or any defense response and the Supreme Court stated in Semteck v. Martin Lockheed that that does not cause claims preclusion. The Denver Post article quoted a defense lawyer as saying that my pleadings were all “gibberish” but he did not file a motion for more definite statement. It quoted him as saying that I was upset that my neighbor built a “garage” and a “shed”, but the so called “shed” had a bathroom and kitchen and the so called “garage” was two floors with central heating and plumbing and over 2000 square feet but had parking for only two vehicles. One was 10 feet from my property and the other was 5 feet from the front property line. I had a right as an adjoining property owner to rely on the zoning. This also affected me because I have a degree in city planning so the fraudulent statement that my neighbors’ construction complied with local laws affects my professional reputation and employability. If they complied with the local laws, the three buildings would be on the tax rolls, don’t you think? The tax rolls show that all the construction there was completed in 1950, consists of only one small building, and is in 1970 condition while the buildings in question were constructed in 2000. My neighbor was president of the city council when they were built.

What would you do if fraudulent information were published on the Internet and caused you damages?

On another subject, I just emailed to the ABA and the American Constitutional Society and asked them to contribute to this article. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


P.S. I had to look up "Schadenfreude". I would not characterize my reaction to Judge Nottingham's problems as enjoyment at his misfortune. The fact is that the day that Judge Nottingham charged $3,000 on his AMEX card at the Diamond Cabaret was only three days after he said "I will not listen" when I tried quoting Civil Procedure Lawyer's Edition and directed that I be put in jail without accusing me of criminal contempt, asking a U.S. attorney to prosecute me, finding that I committed contempt in the presence of the court, prosecuting contempt in conformance with prevailing usages of law, or convicting me of a crime. AP interviewed the manager of the strip club, who they identified by name, who said that he recognized the judge. But Judge Nottingham's ex wife only found one credit card charge for the strip club. AP reported that the Diamond Cabaret is very expensive and charges $175 for some single drinks. So unless Judge Nottingham was paying in cash on the other occasions, frequent enough that the employees recognized him, someone else was paying. Lesley Stahl did an expose on 60 minutes about another judge who was taking payoffs and part of that was that the lawyer was paying the judge's bills at a bar. So my theory is that various lawyers were paying for Judge Nottingham's bills at the strip clubs and possibly at the brothel. This is consistent with the statement of the magistrate assigned to my case who said in court that he "drinks with lawyers". Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So you don't like the fact that the practice of law is a "good old boys club." Join the club. That's still a POV and Wikipedia is not the place to peddle it. The fact that you specifically claim injury from this thing that you're now assailing gives a serious COI to your edits. Kay, let me ask you straight up: are you here to improve wikipedia, or are you here to prove a point? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I realize that the discussions on this page have gotten rather contentious, but I think we all need to cool down. If everyone walks away from this page for a day or two, it will still be here, and you can go right back to work on it, and, let's face it, most of the world will be none the wiser for the break. Kay, I've looked at your edit history, and it is almost entirely involved in edits to this article and to related legal topics. I think you would find it very much to your benefit to spend some time working on articles that have nothing at all to do with the law - surely you are interested in other topics that you can write about? Or perhaps you can find something in the various lists of requested articles that you can write about? I suggest this because working on something else might allow you to learn about editing for encyclopedic style and content outside of what has become an emotionally charged atmosphere here. Please consider taking some time to work on matters unrelated to this, so that you can return to this topic with an even footing in understanding Wikipedia's content and style goals. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Great idea from a great editor. Thank you BD2412. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. I have no problem with that. I would like to address a small misunderstanding: I did not mean to suggest that Kay has said anything untrue about Judge Nottingham. A true statement is still defamatory if it exposes another to ridicule or loss of position. Despite the lede of our article on defamation, I believe that what we learned in 9th grade civics remains strictly true in the U.S.: For a statement to constitute slander or libel, it must be both defamatory and false. (See lectlaw for a more detailed discussion of the term.) Robert A.West (Talk) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both here and his Kay's talk page, I didn't mean to suggest that Kay has said anything untrue about Judge Nottingham, either. Wikipedia policy requires that potentially defamatory (or even contentious) statements be sourced to a reliable source, even on user and user talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as Judge Nottingham, there are sources listed on the Judge Nottingham page. These consist of major publications that were clearly worried about being sued. There is also an AP article.

I will take the editor's suggestion and add to a history section that requested additional sources using an obscure local history book that I have.

To overcome any bias on my part, I have emailed to various lawyers and asked them to contribute to the article and I also posted on various blogs asking for contributions. I also found a 40 page booklet on the subject of pro se litigation available from the U.S. judiciary and am ordering a copy.

I don't believe that law today is "an old boy's network". The Clintons and Obamas are examples of people from working class families without connections who made it big in law. The Erin Brockovich story concerned a very large judgment obtained by a lawyer without an upper class background. Gerry Spence is known as a successful litigator and he went to U of Wyoming law school. Kay Sieverding 24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to cut and paste the box requesting input but obviously I didn't do it right. Please help. Kay Sieverding 24.183.52.130 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally mislabeled this edit 24.183.52.130, which was just correcting a typo. I'm sorry. KS 24.183.52.130 (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The ABA web new web site is using the term "self-represented litigant" and it refers to "self-represented litigant task forces" Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

September 18, 2008

User:Kay Sieverding has now, through approximately 100 edits in the last 12 hours completely remade the article into an expository essay justifying his or her opinion about the value of self-represented litigation. It bears no trace of its former content. Contributions by other editors have been completely wiped out, pushed to the sidelines, and mangled. The article is no longer encylcopedia-worthy. I believe this edit pattern is highly disruptive, and it is time to roll it back. All of it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing myself. I haven't been participating in the editing of this article, but I've been following it, and the editing today has clearly crossed a line. It might be very useful to revert to an August version of this article and start improving it (very slowly, and very methodically) from there. The August versions weren't great, but today's version is not acceptable. Avruch T 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, we should have a roll back for the one user and his or her anons, because several of us have contributed in the interim. Still, between today's version and a mid-august version, a mid-august version would be preferable. I have noticed an a sysop to intervene in the misconduct. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand there is some really interesting new material and some of the changes do appear to be for the better (even if not all of them are). I'd hate to discourage Kay Sieverding who does appear to be doing a lot of useful reference finding. For example its great to see a reference for the phrase "self-represented litigant" - it makes the lead much less flabby and weasely. Similarly I now know (thanks I think to KS) that a US attorney who "represents" themselves is treated as pro se. There is also useful material about whether attorney's fees follow or not in such a circumstance. If there is a "big revert" it should be made clear to KS that useful material should be added back and that we will make an effort not to simply trash his work. My take is that he hasn't really quite got how wikipedia works but is learning. We were all there once. There are far worse individuals who are tolerated (one of whom made me give up contributing for ages and has discouraged me from anything other than minor bits and pieces in law - my field). Francis Davey (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Francis: you are right. There is some good stuff here. I don't want to trash it. Avruch had a good idea: let's move the new version of the article to Kay's userspace, and let Kay do Kay's thing in Kay's space. The good stuff can be merged into this article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The August version was a misstatement of law. The references you are objecting to were taken from 1.) a public article for a 2004 ABA President 2.) American Judicature Society Book on Self-Represented Litigation--the only book on the subject at the U of WI law libray which is 5 floors and it was on reserve, 3.) The only empirical study of the results of pro se defense conducted by a professor at U of GA law school, 4.) The only statistical studies of the current incidence of self-represented litigation, 5.) New York Times article on line today, ABA current web site including a reward they made in 2008. 6.) Scholarly book on the history of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary Act of 1789.

I emailed to the ABA yesterday and asked them for input on the article and they emailed me back these links this morning. Now, you are accusing me of anti-lawyer bias? I do not understand. You seem to be the one with an agenda. I am open to suggestions on wording and organization but I am opposed to deleting these sources. Someone else working on this article quoted the Supreme Court in Kay v Euler. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is accusing you of anything, Kay. What we are saying is that your editing of the article is problematic because of the way you are doing it. You're taking it upon yourself to dramatically change the content of an article with multiple involved editors who do not always agree with you, and this despite your relative newness to the style and process of editing articles on Wikipedia. We'd like you to slow down, address your points in small pieces, and allow the collaborative editing process to work itself out without making other editors feel like you are steamrolling the content of the article. Avruch T 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll cop to this: I've made some accusations about Kay's motivation. I do not know what the user is really thinking, but I know how the edits look, and that's what I'm commenting on. I'm trying to be wp:civil, but I'm entitled to wp:spade. The important thing is the article has morphed from "mildly uninformative" to "trainwreck" in the last two weeks. I can't stand by and watch that happen. Actually, Kay's edits today are not evidence of an anti-lawyer agenda. However, they are still inept, and have many other problems. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay's table of statutification

Today, Kay Sieverding has augmented the article with what I can only describe as a litany of statutification. There is now a table of quotes from each U.S. state, each of which might possibly be intepreted as having something to do with pro se litigation. I have four problems.

  1. First, it provides little or no useful information.
  2. Second, it greatly lengthening the article.
  3. Third, WP:NOT.
  4. Finally, its inclusion creates a slant in that the section on U.S. law is now 10 times longer than the rest of the article.

This material should be removed. Perhaps a new article could be made ("list of state statutes authorizing self-represented litigation," or something of that nature. I oppose "law lists" so I am not going to create it. But it should not be here, and if it is still here tomorrow, of the day, I may delete it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely no objection to the list (I put it in table format to make it more formal and visually appealing). Yes, the U.S. law section is now very long. That is because this is the United States, and each state has its own law on the topic. I would have no objection, however, to breaking it out into a separate article, with the content of the list summarized in this article and linked to the created article. I don't think this is a necessary step, however, at this point. bd2412 T 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will not do anything just yet. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked if anyone would object to it before I spent hours and hours entering it and was assured it would not be. The AJS obviously thought it was important.

If you want the rest of the article to be longer, you can add to it. The numbers of self-represented litigants justify a longer article. The AJS book is 146 pages and I have an ABA booklet too so I can add more material to the rest of the article.

Where we are coming from is that less than one month ago the article was claiming that there was no right to self representation. I have seen that written elsewhere. Obviously, the various state laws are being relied on. The table format is friendly to the reader, they can look to their state.

I personally found the information about the other states to be interesting. If you want to move the table to the end of the article we could do that but the way it is currently laid out is chronologic--history, rights, reforms...

You could write a section on the responsibilities of the self-represented litigant, Rule 11, perjury etc. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that the article asserted that there was no right to self-representation. This assertion by Kay has been refuted before and I am disappointed to see it back again. What the article said, and should still say, as it remains true, is that the right to self-representation is not regarded as fundamental. Fundamental rights are much harder to take away or circumscribe: I believe it is pretty much limited to conviction for felony or necessity in defending the Republic from invasion or disaster. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." There is nothing in the content section that is contradictory to the AJS table. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the quotation says, there is a distinction between what can be done and what should be done. It is simply not true that everything that does not clearly violate content policies should be included. Lists tend to make readers' eyes glaze over and stop reading, which makes Wikipedia worse. Articles should consist mainly of prose, rather than lists. There is a separate guidline for placing lists in their own articles, and I think that would be a good option in this instance. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PPS The AJS book was about pro se or self -represented litigation and no other subject and the state material is copied from there word for word. So their opinion when they selected these quotes is that they were related to the subject of the book. The book was on reserve at the U.S. law library so it is obviously popular. It is a frequently cited book with 4 authors published by a national organization Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Kay: I can tell you worked very hard on the list. It's not bad at all - although I have some issues with it. I just don't like what it does to this particular page. Would you be okay with it moving to a seperate article? This article would then have a link to the full list. Is that okay with you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be your proposed summary? I am very nervous about this because a.) I was put in jail for engaging in non fraudulent pro se litigation without even any rule 11 motions and I was totally denied a decision on the merits with the result that I am defamed on the Internet daily and am now virtually unemployable b.) When I started with this page it said that there is no right to self representation c.) Everything else I entered was also criticized or deleted. I was told to find authorities other than the U.S. Supreme Court and when I found them you want to delete them. What I keep hearing from Non Curat Lex is what he doesn't want on the article, not what he does want, no offense. This is an important subject and can support a long article. It would be better to have it at the end then as a separate link. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay: First, The article did not say that there was no right to self-representaiton. Diff.
Second, Kay, I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but when it comes to editing this article, the fact that you went to jail does not matter. The more you talk about your PERSONAL experience, the more you subtract from your credibility as an editor. I believe that there is an improper purpose behind your edits. As long as your edits do not have improper content, the purpose does not matter. But when there is both, your edits will be removed. That is why your lengthy, tangential, and often improper quotes from Supreme Court cases are being removed - and not just be me. As you recall, Artur Rubin and Famspear were here policing you before I was.
So, look, I'm very sorry you went to jail, and I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but it just doesn't matter to wikipedia. This is not the place to come reargue the case you already lost. That's what you are doing here. You're also subtly pushing a point of view that the entire legal system should be chagned so that lawyers are no longer necessary. You are soapboxing, pov-pushing, and citing authority in an unreliable manner. You have a first amendment right to do that on your own time, but on wikipedia that is disruptive. That's not how wikipedia works. This is an encyclopeida, not a freeforall. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Non Curat Lex"

As previously discussed, the article on 8/25/08 said exactly that there was "no fundamental right to self-representation". I wonder if one reason for my mistreatment was the misinformation presented by Wikipedia. There was no citation for that statement.

I have been totally honest as to my experience. When you objected to my quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, I came back with quotations from the American Jurisprudence Society and the ABA. You just stated your bias--your perception that I am "subtly pushing a point of view that the entire legal system should be changed so that lawyers are no longer necessary". It sounds like you are worried about your own income.

I do not want to "change the legal system so that lawyers are no longer necessary". First of all, my husband and I made more than $1 million on patent licensing, which we never would have been able to do without lawyers. I have friends who are lawyers and my old serious boyfriend was in law school, while we were dating. I was able to teach myself a great deal of law but it took me years. I have no illusion that the average pro se litigant could learn as much about law as I was able to. I took an aptitude test years ago and was told that I was in the top 99% in reading speed and reading comprehension. Also, I am aware both that I don't know everything about law and that lawyers don't know everything about law--it is a big subject. Furthermore, lawyers seldom operate totally alone but have other lawyers and paralegals for proof reading, back up, feedback and redirect.

If I was able to rewrite my life, my problems in Steamboat related to the response there when I objected to my neighbors' conversion of the street and building extra buildings in violation of local ordinances never would have happened. If I had spent longer buying our house there instead of flying in for a few days, I might have realized the hidden problem and bought a different house. I was told that the reason that our house was such a good deal is that the sellers were anxious to sell and the house was covered with tobacco smoke stains but now I think that part of the reason is that the locals knew about the problem with the neighbors. There was no mandatory disclosure of neighbor's code violations on the sellers' disclosure forms used then. I was later told there were confrontations about the lack of a road terminus and my neighbors not having a functional driveway even before my neighbors bought their house. I met someone who had lived in my neighbors' house as a tenant and said there were confrontations 35 years ago involving nail studded boards put under tires.

If I were not able to rewrite that part of my life, I would have had my Steamboat lawyer represent me in federal court. He said he was reluctant to do so because he was afraid it would hurt his local law practice to sue my neighbor's lawyer, and other involved lawyers. My preference would have been for a speedy resolution according to law as the various state remedies clauses guarantee. I would much rather have gone to a jury in 2003, with less damages than I have now, and gotten whatever settlement the jury thought appropriate and then moved on with my life. The last 5 years have not been fun for me at all and I have been distracted from making money and family goals and needs.

As part of this article, I have been thinking about writing a subsection on the disadvantages of being pro se. But I don't really have a good published reference at this time. Most of the references I have seen concern the problems of the less educated at a time before the law became available on the Internet. The AJS book was written in 1998 and when I started my experience as a pro se litigant in 2002, there was probably 90% less law on the Internet than there is today. Many self-represented litigants have college and even graduate degrees.

I believe that people should be able to get remedy in court and that many people don't--therefore, the system today must be inadequate. Telling law firms they should spend 3% of their time on pro bono services does not seem to be adequate to the dimensions of the problem. I believe enabling self-help is a part of a solution. For instance, 60 minutes on Sunday included a program on the fact that bogus science related to identification of bullets and guns was used to incarcerate many people and that those people are not being sought out to be informed of the fact that false evidence was used to convict them. But it would be easy to do a mailing to prisoners asking them to come forward if gun and bullet identification evidence was a factor in their conviction. In medicine, patients are called upon to educate themselves about their medical problems and treatment. They are asked to pay attention and alert the staff if they are given incorrect dosages of medicine. Their self-help resources are used.

When I studied city planning in the 1970s, the term used was "capacity building". The idea was to alert local government officials to available resources so that they could govern better. Similarly, given that lawyers' time is expensive, the more the public knows about law and can learn about the law affecting their particular problem, the better and more cost efficient outcome they should receive.

My proposal at this point is that we decide what sections should be added and add them. After that, we can look at the overall organization of the article and see if it should be reordered, or there should be subsections. I think there should be a section on the duty of the pro se litigant to comply with Rule 11, discovery obligations, affidavits, and perjury. Should I write the first draft or does someone else want to?

I know that the section on pro se criminal defense is inadequate because it does not discuss competency hearings nor stand by counsel nor prisoners problems accessing law libraries.

There should be a section on the Prison Reform Act and prisoner litigation.

There should be a section on ECF.

There should be a section on litigation within the military services--a subject I know almost nothing about.

My being in jail is relevant to this article. In my entire life, I was only accused of a crime once, There was no affidavit of probable cause and they charges were dismissed. However, I was in jail anyway. I read and I believe that legal issues of the criminally accused and criminally convicted are under litigated and under discussed because the accused and prisoners end up exhausted and broke. Because I was not convicted, and was not able to control the publicity related to my being in jail, I am willing to acknowledge having been in jail. While I was there, I thought that I could use my time productively by interviewing other prisoners and guards. I made some discoveries I think are interesting. For instance, I spent 4 months in a county jail that is on contract with the U.S. Marshals. There is no federal prison in Colorado. So 40% of the prisoners there are federal. Yet, in their "law library", there was not a single copy of Title 18 and the only discussion of criminal procedure was in American Jurisprudence published in 1975. It looked like they had no budget for legal materials at all and the only legal references they had in addition to American Jurisprudence was West's Guide to Colorado Practice and a copy of the Colorado statutes. Even the one copy of American Jurisprudence they had was incomplete-- the volume on motions was missing. My perception is that innocent people are in jail and that that shows that the system as is inadequate.

Anyway, my proposal "Non Curat Lex" is that you state if you want to write any sections and provide whatever citations you have that you think are relevant. Then we could create the missing sections and put requests for legal authorities on them. If you don't want to write about Rule 11, Rule 56, affidavits and perjury, I think I have books adequate as sources to allow me to write that section, which you could then criticize. If no one else wants to write the other sections, I could go back to the U of WI law library and look for appropriate authorities that do not involve my quoting cases directly.

It is possible too that American Judicature Society has additional publications about self-represented litigation that are not at the U of WI law library. I will check their web site and/or email AJS.

I believe that the U.S. should create an Access to Courts Peace Corps and send teams of systems analysts and lawyers abroad to help create effective civil and criminal law systems. I think that as soon as people are victimized they should be encouraged to file a civil law suit before their damages escalate and that this will discourage oppression.

I would like to point out that the references I cited are commonly available. Some of them were on the Internet and I think the AJS book is probably at your local law library. It is a paperback and is probably not expensive. I found the Massachusetts law journals from the 1920’s at the Wisconsin State library. That was at the time when the first bar associations were being formed.

"Non Curat Lex" do you have anything specifically you want to add?

Is it agreeable to you "Non Curat Lex" that we will not delete anything from the current article for a month or so and will concentrate on adding authorities and sections? Then we can look at the organization and readability of the entire article. I encourage you to add quotations of publications reflecting your views. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not strike me as a remotely appropriate suggestion. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Me neither. I cannot agree to that. However, Kay, I will add this:
  1. You are right that there should be a section on PRLA.
That act is very significant and relevant. I would encourage you to add something. But remember, this is an encylcopedia. Don't just spew the statute. Don't spew the statute but do it quoting a secondary source. Say in one or two sentences, or a paragraph, what the statute means. Cite sources therein.
  1. There should not be a section on ECM/ECF. WP is not a howto.
  2. Thank you for sharing your experiences and for explaining your position. I believe you. However, despite your explanation here, your edits still have a look to them, a look of having an agenda. We can't have that on wikipedia.
  3. Kay, there are several reasons why people keep taking your quotes off the page. The main reason is they're just not appropriate. They're not appropriate because we don't like long block quotes unless they're necessary. They're not appropriate because they're not integrated into the narrative of the article. They're not appropriate because they are not relevant. Your attempt to make them relevant by cloaking them in a secondary source was a partial success, but still also a failure. I did my best to keep some of your additions when I rewrote a section the other day, but I had to get rid of cases that had nothing to do with the issue. When you cite cases, Kay, it's OR. Even when you go to other sources, if you abuse them (as you did the AJS study), that doesn't satisfy WP:CITE either.
  4. You said the article said there was no right to self-representation. I showed you that it did not say that. Now you're saying the article says that it's not a "fundamental right." That's different.
You need to slow down and learn what wikipedia is and what it is not and how it works. You have shown repeated unwillingness to listen to this advice because you continue to make the same improper edits. After you get reverted, you come talk about it on the user page, and slow down for a few hours, then go and dump on the article almost the same as before. That kind of editing is disruptive. I do not want to squelch you Kay, but you are going in the wrong direction with your editing here, and someone else is going to finally say enough is enough. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We need to concentrate on removing Kay's assertion that "courts should be open" means that there is a "right" to self-representation. (Kay is also including case-law-dumps related to the right to have an attorney appointed in this article. I think most of those have been squelched.) When those expressions, and other statutes and court cases for which we cannot find a secondary source for relevance are removed, we may get somewhere.
I have a counter-proposal. Kay is to be prohibited from editing the article, and should create subpages here or under his/her talk page to provide potentially relevant case-law-dumps. (I already moved 6 of his/her case law dumps to subpages.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't sound appopriate either, at least not as prohibition. It sounds like a sanction for eggregious conduct violations, which I cannot say that I have observed. I agree, however, that Kay's writing style tends towards prolixity and overkill and is frequently unfocused. In particular, dumps of case law make the article harder to read and and actually less informative. As a modus vivendi, I can see it. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not. However, I and Non Curat Lex have both tried to explain that case-law-dumps are not appropriate, either in the main article, or on the talk page, without success, or apparent change in Kay's actions.
I moved the {{primary sources}} tag to the main article, as most of the article is now primary legal sources without secondary sources that they really refer to self-representation. (Note, not all of those were added by Kay. At least, I don't think all of them were added by Kay.)
As an aside, is "statutification" a word. Should it be a word? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A.R.: "Statutification" is a neologism and law/academic [jargon]], like "tortification." I don't know who coined it, but it is notably used in Calabresi's 'A Common Law for the Age of Statutes, and occasionally in other legal academic writing.
As for this situation, I think a protect on the page or a sanction against Kay is appropriate for repeated violation of Kay. However, I am not asking for it because I could be seen to have a COI too. She's kind of anti-lawyer, or something, and I'm a lawyer. My edits have preserved the neutrality and accuracy of the article while hers have not. She's WP:POV pushing/WP:fringe; I just caught a serious WP:BLP violation, and she's confessed to a WP:COI and to WP:POINTism. Still, I am very concerned that it would look like I'm using wikipedia rules to squelch an opposing point of view. I'm an honest editor and I will not WP:game the system. However, there seems to be an indication of consensus that she's repeatedly abusing the rules, and making a mess out of the article.
Also, even if she wasn't breaking all of the above rules, her edits are still disruptive, because she writes with a rambling, undifferentiated, stream-of-consciousness style. It would be uncivil of me to say what it reminds me of, but I'm sure some of you are are thinking what I'm thinking. I do think something should be done to protect this article from Kay, or protect Kay from herself, but I am in no position here to do it. Non Curat Lex (talk) Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S: AR, everybody else: did you see my edits yesterday? I partly rewrote a section. BD2412 helped fix up my grammar and spelling. Were you, A.R., and R.A., comfortable with what I did?
P.P.S. Kay's assertion that "courts need to be open" and "self-represented access is essential for democracy" are almost certainly POV-pushing and do not mean literally what they say the mean. As the caselaw spewn and statutes now spewing across the page shows, there is really no question that the courts are open for people to get redress for grievances. And people have a choice to bring whatever counsel they want, provided they can afford it. It's seriously not even an issue. Does anyone here doubt that he or she can go to court and file a case? You might not win, it might not be easy, but it's possible. So why would someone -- anyone -- need to campaign for it like it's a big controversial deal when clearly it's not? To me the answer is obvious: that person wants it to mean something more. Access to the courts is there. No campaigning is necessary. Unless you think access to the courts also means that self-represented litigants shouldn't be jailed for contempt, or filing fees should be abolished, or... any number of other things I can't even begin to imagine. But I think Kay's approach reeks of a POV-pushing agenda and is, at best, confused, at worst, underhanded.
In addition to the problems with the table that I've already mentioned, I'd like to add one more. It's NPOV, and it's not w/in CITE. Why? Because it gives a deceptive fragment of state statutes. This does not require OR, just a little common sense. By citing only the parts that sound good to the editor, the editor who placed that table in the article is not citing reliable sources in a reliable way. It needs to go. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up. I was looking at Calabresi's book this weekend and realized that his term is "statutorification" - even more of a frankenword! Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Response

There is some gook on the bottom, at least on my screen, that was not there a few hours ago and I don't know how to fix it. On my screen it is below the sources.

I would like to restore the ABA section with a different lead in to reflect the ABA email I received earlier today.

I would prefer the article to have more international coverage and I think the issues are similar. I went to the U.W. law library on Sunday to look up material for this article but there was not a lot there. UW does have an international law school and maybe they would have some materials or maybe the U.N. has some.

Maybe we can get some information from South Africa. I looked around for different constitutions but the South Africa one was the only one that addressed the subject directly--compared to Germany, Bolivia, United Kingdom and Canada. However, I only speak English. I think the search term is probably Access to Courts. The ABA publications recent publications are all using that term as well as self-represented. We earlier discussed the article name and we did not discuss the name Access to Courts at all. What would you think of that as a name for the article?

I put subjects in brackets that Wikipedia does not have at this time, but which I thought it should have. Is this the best thing to do? I ordered some publications from the U.S. Judicial Conference that looked like they could be relevant but it will probably be two weeks before they come. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do would be to have you work on a version of this article in your userspace, and discuss here merging specific sections and pieces of information over. Avruch T 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think the article should be? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that about 70-80% of the current content does not belong in this article; it may belong in a US-specific article. The article under this title needs to be considerably more global in its view, or at least not be extremely overloaded with the US situation. This may come as a surprise to you, but many countries permit pro se representation without having a specific constitutional clause or amendment about it. Pro se, for example, is relatively common in Canada and the UK. One does not necessarily need to read other languages to research this information; I have no doubt there are several resources specific to law that discuss this topic in depth and draw comparisons with other nations. Access to Courts is an unsuitable name for this article, as pro se is only one way in which courts can be accessed. I think Avruch is correct, and that the majority of the information that has been added should be hived off and developed as a separate article in userspace, while this article regains its focus on the meaning of the term and its practical application in various countries.
One more very important point needs to be made here. As it currently reads, this article gives the impression that it advocates self-representation in courts. That is not acceptable under our neutral point of view policy. Kay, you may benefit from taking this into your userspace and requesting assistance from an experienced editor to help you work within the Wikipedia editing policies and style. I do urge you to understand that work is often "edited mercilessly" and that it is not necessarily a reflection on you, but on whether or not the content of the article is consistent with other factors like the title or our (relatively few) policies. Risker (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see what you can have from other countries. I personally would love to see it as a combined International article.

I am not trying to "advocate" self-representation in court. I wrote a section on the pros and cons. I went out of my way to write to the ABA to ask their opinion and they emailed to me with a link to a new place on their web site this morning. It is http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbund.html and I made a big point of quoting from it and linking to it.

It is simply not realistic to expect that everyone who has any assets or any issues will pay $250 per hour to go to court. I heard about a defamation suit involving a 3 day trial that cost the plaintiff $350,000. The news media explained the conflict with just a few pictures. Americans are broke and are trying to save money. There are other issues also that can make lawyers not available or not practical. I lived formerly in a city with 9,000 people and there were very few law firms. The local government was crooked. A woman I knew there who was worth $30 million told me that she thought you absolutely could not trust a single lawyer in the city because they were all so wrapped up in the crooked government. She said that for her legal problems she hired a lawyer from 200 miles away. Which means that every time you have any sort of hearing you have to pay for 10 hours of work. Another person I knew there also had problems with the same group of dirty pols. He spent over $100,000 on lawyer bills for a dispute that involved a single family house. He heard that the city's plan was to bankrupt him with attorney bills. It is not just minimum wage workers who need a divorce who need to Access the Courts in this country. . I don't have a problem with lawyers offering services. I don't have a problem with other people hiring lawyers. My husband and I have probably spent $40,000 on lawyers over the years. But if I get into a bad situation and I need to go to court, I want to be able to rely on the written law and have all the rules followed exactly as they are written. I don't want to be told that they are going to throw my papers away because I don't have a law license or that they "will not listen" or that the mediation services that are paid for with our tax dollars aren't available to me.

Most people buy a house someone else built. But there are many books and seminars for "owner-builders" and some people build their own house. It is just human instinct to want a good outcome for one's family. It is self-help. A defamation lawsuit is not that complicated. I heard there are 30,000 of them in India every year. Jury, this is what the truth is and this is what was written. Wrong things were written to hurt me and this is how they hurt me. What is the problem with my presenting my facts to a jury? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Kay, you think you have an answer for everything. You say you're not advocating a POV, but then you still a story which admits that you are, as I have said all along. Your position that you should be absolutely entitled to rely on the written law is interesting, but it is not the reality. You have shaped the article in a flawed attempt to advocate that inaccurate position, and certain corollaries thereof. You have done so unilaterally and in reckless disregard of the advice of other concerned editors. Wikipedia does not work that way. This is a community project. You can't ignore the community just because you think your point is superior. Because of your repeated refusal to heed the community. I would not be surprised if action is now going to be taken that will seriously limit your ability to edit this article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Non Curat Lex. You have a POV that self-represented civil access to court is "not a right." I believe it was you who deleted my quotations from the ABA and my quotations from the American Judicature Society. If you look at the history of this article, I think it was you on Wed night who fixed it to imply that there was a constitutional right to self-representation in criminal defense but not in civil matters.

Here is a reference new to the article that I would like to post:

"Constitution v Ethics

There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate."

Source:

Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

This is a 32 page booklet I checked out from the U. of WI law library. You can buy a copy for $5 from the ABA by calling 800 285 2221

The booklet also includes set off in boxes, "General Principles for Court Staff Dealing with Pro Se Litigants" quoting from The Judges Journal "Protocol to be Used by Judicial Officers During Hearings Involving Pro Se Litigants" from the "Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges" and "Excerpts from "Recommendation for Systemic Programs and Procedures Dealing with Pro Se Litigants" quoting from the same AJS book that was the source for the table.

It is not "me" who "has an answer for everything". The right of self representation is an established right and shows up in many places.

Kay 96.60.83.246 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay... please stop adding additional material until some consensus has been reached here on what material should or should not be added. I've reverted your latest changes. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar, The article asked for sources and I provided them. These include a quotation from a federal magistrate judge. The KnowYourCourts web site has had that article up for almost a year. I hope at least you will tolerate my putting the footnotes back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a good approach. The article is 4x the size it should be and needs a thorough rewrite by someone who is familiar with encyclopedic style. That means being brief, and precise, and not overwhelming the reader with case law but making the point succinctly, for each point that needs making. I think you need to stop adding material. Instead discuss here, in outline form, what it is this article needs to cover, and why. Then find good cites for each important point. Do not drown the article in minutia. And please, remmeber to log in, and remember to sign your posts. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I am logged in

Why don't you want footnotes for what is already in the article and why is the article asking for footnotes if you don't want them?

Since you seem to have such a strong opinion as to what the article should not include, why don't you say what you think it should include and why? So far, all I am aware that certain people want in the article is a discussion of bad, stupid, and mentally ill pro se litigants. What was the point of deleting the statements made by a federal judge regarding the statistical results of self-represented civil litigation to a pro se litigant who is a Yale Grad and a medical doctor?

The article is asking for references all over it and the only ones that were provided by sources other than myself were one Supreme Court quotation provided by Non Curat Lex and the ones related to pro se attorneys and their bills. I saw on one of the discussion pages that they were not even aware of the issue regarding self-represented attorneys until I brought it up. I think the only other sources given by anyone other than myself were direct case quotations but when I quoted cases directly, I was told that I was not allowed to, even when I was quoting the Supreme Court.

No one has posted any sources suggesting that there is not an unmet need for Access to Court or that self-represented litigants are happy with their treatment in court. No one has posted any articles about people being happy with attorney contingent fee representation either and when I googled on the subject there were a number of blogs about problems when parties discharged their contingent fee attorneys. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay, we didn't just ask for some sources. We asked for this article to be edited like an encyclopedia article. You seem to think throwing in a bunch of selectively-chosen block quotes improves this disaster. It doesn't. If you don't see the difference between the slop you've made here, and the article on Harvard University, you are bonkers.
Also, you have mischaracterized the article, and the law, repeatedly. It is not my position that there is no right to self-representation. You keep saying I've said that, or the article has said that, when neither is true. You don't know what you're talking about. You need to learn the law, or stop wasting other peoples' time. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Name survey

In light of the above discussion on a proposed move, I'd like to take a survey of editors who work on this page. Please indicate which of the following move options you support or oppose, and why. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note my remarks are about moving a page about the US term "pro se" and its usages rather than about creating a new page which is like this one but about some generic idea of lawyerlessness. I hope that makes sense. This page simply can't stand as a general article its way way too POV for that. The little material that is not US specific will need work anyway, the English stuff isn't entirely clear (and wrong in places) and the international stuff simply irrelevant (right to representation is a totally different topic). Maybe we should be thinking about where we put all the really useful and interesting US stuff and where we are going to put anything generic that points people at pro se litigant in person and so on. Francis Davey (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No move at all, keep the page at Pro se.

  • Support
  1. I think Pro se should remain a page, but the page should be different. Pro se, linguistically speaking, is not a Latin adjective (despite what the article suggests). As a phrase on its own, it is better suited for a brief dictionary-type treatment. Links, or summaries should appear on the page which direct to further discussion of its legal uses (often in adjective form), for example: Pro-se litigant and Pro-se Appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triple whopper with cheese (talk • contribs)
  2. Very weak support. While I agree with BD2412's reasons, I didn't think about this until BD2412 brought it up, and would not be very disappointed if it stayed here. I prefer it to some other alternatives. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak support - Better this than some of the below. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. I oppose keeping the page at Pro se because this is an adjective, and therefore not an appropriate title for an article. bd2412 T 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Move to Pro se litigation.

  • Support
  1. This term is used by American Judicature Society, which also uses self-represented litigation. It does not use the term "pro se representation" Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. On reflection, I oppose this option because there is nothing inherently different about most litigation when one or both parties act pro se. Small claims court is an exception, but has and deserves a distinct article.Robert A.West (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per R.A. West's comment above. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Move to Pro se litigant.

  • Support
  1. Weak support. Marginally better than the current title since it is a noun. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems a reasonable title and does what it says on the tin. Francis Davey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support At least it makes sense. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose

4. Move to Pro se representation.

  • Support
  1. Strong Support. Best option. It is the right to such representation and the challenges thereby entailed that should be the focus of the article. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong support, agree with Robert. This captures both the "legalese" use of pro se and the fact that it is representation we are talking about. bd2412 T 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, this would to to. I had a slight concern about it being an oxymoron (you can't be a represented pro se because you can't represent yourself -- you are yourself) but that appears to be a level of pedantry no-one else has attained. Francis Davey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. I think that Francis Davey is right about the grammar but I don't want to fight about it. I don't think I have ever seen this term used anywhere else and I am worried about what will happen in search engines. The term "Pro se litigation" is sued by the American Judicature SocietySelf-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I have more than a slight concern about the oxymoron. I think this is the second-worst possible title. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Move to Self representation (or Self representation (law)).

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. I strongly oppose the former and oppose the latter. The former should be a disambiguation page, since a reader seeking the psychological concept would be astonished to end up at this article and vice-versa. I prefer to avoid parentheticals in titles when there are other reasonable options. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose both. This article works ok at the moment because it is essentially about a US concept and the US jurisdictions, though different, do have some thing in common. A general article would (as I have said) be quite useless because all it could do is say that the rules vary (as they do) and depend so much on circumstance that really all that is left is a disambiguation page. Stick to having a US specific page. Maybe fork out stuff for other jurisdictions under what they call it (we already have litigant in person) and have a disambiguation or cross-reference if you must. Francis Davey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per R. A. West and Francis Davey above. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Move to a hybrid name such as Self-represented (pro se) litigation.

  • Support
  1. I do understand the advantages of the advocate system, but the facts show that article after article and panel after panel point out the unmet legal needs of the general population and the bar associations never come forward to meet them in any adequate way. Therefore, self help is mandatory. I like using the words "self-represented" in addition to "pro se" because it implies self-help. Also, the Internet is allowing parties to remove the barriers to finding the law and may make self-representation much more effective than in past decades so I like using new terminology. Kay Sieverding 24.183.52.130 (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. I Strongly oppose this option. The title should either use the latin term or the English, not both. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, not the norm in Wikipedia article titles, potentially confusing to users. Whatever issues arise with the name having both English and Latin counterparts can be resolved through redirects and by explication at the beginning of the article. bd2412 T 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose per BD2412. That would be "fugly." Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strongly Oppose per DB2412 and also my objections to a generic title (above). Worst of all possible worlds. Francis Davey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Other options: Self-represented litigant.

I oppose all of the above, but I don't oppose a rename. How about "Self-represented litigant?" Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. Weak support for NCL's alternative. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, a workable alternative, but shouldn't it be Self-represented litigation, as the article is about the right to the process, not the person. bd2412 T 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Don't we have articles that are about processes, but identified by the person, or the description of the person who fills the role? E.g. Police Officer. Besides, is the whole of litigation somehow changed because one party is self-represented? Only one party can be self-represented. And, if we look at the content of the article, the point is that formally speaking, litigation is no different, doctrinally, from any other litigation. I don't think it really matters either way. So, I do not oppose "self-represented litigation" but I prefer "self-represented litigant."
  1. I support the self-represented litigation term suggestion Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose for reasons given above. Not even a good title for a disambiguation page. Francis Davey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Question: Why do you oppose this but not #3? Aren't they almost the same, except for this is all in English and the other is half-Latin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I meant for my reasons given above - a self-represented litigant (if that means anything) means *any* litigant who does not have a lawyer, that's a worldwide topic and utterly useless because there's no general truths we can say, its a disambig or generic page of a few lines with pointers. Pro se nails it to the US nicely. Francis Davey (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That strikes me as a strange reaction. This article isn't exclusively about U.S. or U.K. law. People who look up the term may be Anglo-American, and so that information will be of more direct importance to them, as it is the common American term for the situation, they may well want to know - and will receive - information about the subject worldwide - even if known locally by a different name. The article is worldwide in coverage(notwithstanding the volumetric bias to the US), and the issue is a worldwide issue. Was it not once written that "a rose by another name would smell as sweet." In any case, someone who just hears the phrase and types in "pro se" to learn more will still get the same article, and right at the top, they'll see what it means: the Latin phrase for a litigant who represents himself, i.e. a self-represented litigant. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing useful you can say that is not jurisdiction specific (and often highly so) about the appearance (used in the sense I would understand it) of a party in person rather than by someone else. The article illustrates it. It begins by telling me that the phrase "per se" is used for a particular situation. That's POV of course, because that phrase is only used in some places and by some people. "use in....." would be a much better start. Then it rather grudgingly admits that other people might use other terminology for that situation and suggests (again POV) that SRL is being increasingly used (again where). Then we go into the article which has a brief and not particularly informative article about England before being mainly about the US. OK. SO being charitable I can think "this is a US article so its ok to be POV in the lead". If it isn't, then its awful. If that's what you want, for goodness sake get a neutral title for a page, write a paragraph or so that says "the situation where an individual appears in court but does not have someone appearing on their behalf is given different names in different places" follow with list and instruction to look at specific jurisdiction. End of story. Francis Davey (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to give some idea of what would be useful - its not even clear to me whether a litigant in person is the same thing as a pro se litigant. What happens when a corporation (aggregate) appears by one of its officers? We (in England and Wales) would not describe that as "in person" because a corporation aggregate cannot appear in person (its not conceptually possible) but must act via someone else, but that someone else need not be (and often is not) a lawyer or someone with rights of audience. Does pro se mean effectively /no lawyer/ or /the individual party themselves doing the talking/? Francis Davey (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a nifty solution to that: not allowing corporations to appear except through counsel. But even if they were allowed to appear without an attorney, they would be appearing through someone acting as their agent-in-fact, and he would be the litigant in person, but in a representative capacity. This happens if a corporation is in receivership.
As for your contention that jurisdictional relevance demands the use of latin, I disagree. I think substance matters more than form. Even if all relevant jurisdictions use a particular term, but the article is about the meaning of the term, the word or phrase that summarizes the meaning should be used; people using the jargon can be sent her via re-direct. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
But are we talking about the same concept? If we aren't then that requires much more careful editing (more careful than we have). The reason I think we aren't is that from where I sit it would be meaningless to say a corporation could appear "in person". Not merely that we don't allow it, it just can't be done. Usually they appear by an officer (who is probably not a lawyer). The agent/officer can't be a litigant in person because they are not the party, only a party can be a litigant in person. So you see, we do conceptualise this in different ways. Am I right in thinking that a lawyer appearing as a party would be treated as pro se in the US? Francis Davey (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right that a lawyer who represents himself is still pro se. The statistics are not clear as to what percentage of self-representers are attorneys, but I would guess that lawyers are more likely to try to represent themselves on minor matters than members of the general public (and more likely to see the wisdom of hiring counsel on major matters). bd2412 T 16:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a resolution on the original issue yet? Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Move to Pro Se Appearance Support: Although I am a bit torn between this and Pro Se Litigant, I believe this to be the stronger term as Pro Se is more about the nature of the appearance, of which being a self-represented litigant is only a part. If nothing else, a good portion of the material could be moved there.

The ABA web new web site is using the term "self-represented litigant" and it refers to "self-represented litigant task forces" . Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on the above responses, I've moved the article to Pro se legal representation in the United States, which is a compromise of several ideas, particularly needing "pro se" and "representation" in the title, and also clarifies that this article addresses a legal topic and will be restricted to U.S. practice (there is more than enough content on the U.S. issue to fill an article; globalization will wait for another article on another day). bd2412 T 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Far too long, far too US-centric

Given the fact that this article is now extremely unbalanced and is almost entirely about pro se in the United States, there are several options that can be taken.

  • Split off the definition and a very core section on pro se in the US and any other countries discussed (it is a term that is used in several countries, or alternatively has a comparable local term) and split off the rest into an article titled Pro se in the United States
  • Do a major edit of this article and rebalance it. There is a fair amount that should probably be cleaned up regardless of whether or not a split is done.
  • Rename the article Pro se in the United States and start a separate article that may or may not be based on this article under the title Pro se

Regardless, this article really reads like an essay, and it cannot remain as it is. Discussion please. Risker (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the section above, it looks like most editors will agree with you. It's clearly focused on the US, despite a short "History in England" section. Avruch T 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess what worries me is that this article will go the way of other law articles. It will start with a US specific definition (as it does now) and then say something along the lines of, "Oh yes, in <jurisdiction> they call this X". The impression being that the US are right and everyone else (perhaps in their perversity) call a well-known concept by another name. Tag (game) is a good example of this: its a game with many names, the technical term amongst game sociologists is "touch" but everyone in the US calls it "Tag" and so that will be the title of the article. The fact that most law articles are started by USians means that they stay US specific and there is bugger all that lawyers elsewhere can do in an elegant way to make things right. At least in this one I know that everything that is being claimed is US specific. That's great! It means I can (perhaps when I stop being long-term sick) edit it and say: "... in the US XXXX, but in EW YYYY" or some such. If you want a world-wide article then you need (a) to rename it and eschew US specific terminology such as pro se, SRL or whatever that may mean inventing a term which may be contrary WP:NOR which always worries me; (b) the lead should say what little there is to be said (imho almost nothing) about the rules for non-lawyer appearance or whatever you call it and then some specifics about jurisdictions. Much of the body of this article (with all the real thorough detail in it) can then be pushed to a truly US specific article with all the detail. Francis Davey (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
U.S.-centrism is no longer an issue, as the article has been moved to an "in the United States" title. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think its a much better article already as a result. It means the lead etc can be much bolder about asserting facts about the US which are useful for a non-US reader. I will watch with interest to see how the article evolves. Francis Davey (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A reset?

Let's compare things.

  • First, take a look at the article as it was on 25 August. As of that revision (the last edit before the first of Kay's edits) the article was about 9000 bytes in size. It had fairly encyclopedic sections which gave a good overview of what Pro Se is, why people use it, gave some references, and listed some well known people who had pursued this. It suffered from being US centric, to be sure. But this was an article that had structure, and that could be built upon.
  • Then, take a look as of the most recent revision. The article now has 70,000 bytes. But is it more than 7 times better than before? No. It is only 7 times LONGER. Even if you look at the table of contents you can see the issue. Instead of an encycopedic coverage, we have topic headings like "Constitutional and Statutory Citations to Self-Represented Litigants" and "Unauthorized Practice of Law and Payment Authorization" and so on. This is NOT what the interested but not yet knowledgeable reader needs. It is a morass of confusing and irrelevant text, with no structure and no clear purpose. This article, I am sad to say, would be better served by returning to the August 25 version than leaving it in the current state. I realise that other editors have tried to edit what Kay has been firehosing in, but really, unless Kay stops adding things, the situation will grow worse. Where do you even start to edit this? What is the overall structure? This article suffers from way too much wordage and way too little structure.

I propose that this article BE returned to the state it was in prior to Kay appearing, and that substantial additions be discussed here, shaped, and made to fit into an overall plan, rather than just shoveled in. We are not graded on weight here, and there is no rush to get the article up to some huge size. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I had hoped things were going to quieten down so we wouldn't have to do anything so drastic. Its got unmanageable. Francis Davey (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-agreed. I propose the following:
1. Break the list of state statutes out into a separate article. This is a valid sweat-of-the-brow collection of encyclopedic information.
2. Copy the remaining current content to a temporary subpage and allow Kay and others to continue working on that page in an effort to develop a proposal for an alternative to the current material.
3. Have all future changes to the actual article page (other than minor grammar/spelling/syntax type edits) approved on the talk page prior to inclusion in the article.
Cheers! bd2412 T 01:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Francis Davey (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Great. I like what you have done. Francis Davey (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on self-represented litigation is currently 70,858 bytes.

Isn't this subject at least as important as baseball? The article on baseball is 49,799 bytes.

The article on "History of Transsexualism" is 98% of the same length--69,491 bytes and I am positive there are more self-represented litigants in the U.S. than there are transsexuals.

The article on Madison WI is 81,013 bytes is 14% longer. Madison WI has 208,054 people and I am practically positive there have been more actions involving self-represented litigants in the U.S. in the last year alone than that.

The article on Harvard University is also longer than this article--82,971 bytes.

The article on Bronx High School is 58,431 bytes and that is only a high school.

If there is a temporary sub page what will end up happening is that false statements of law will be presented in it. Most of the parties who are posting on the comment page have already taken the position that there is no constitutional or natural right to self-representation even though the Supreme Court, the ABA and the American Judicature Society have said there is and even though one poster said that self-representation is just assumed in other countries. The proposal you have made will result in my being overwhelmed by lawyers who are concerned about possible loss of business, or being held responsible for obstruction of justice. If I participate in a rewrite and then am overwhelmed by lawyers who want to stop non lawyers from using the courts and then you lock the article from future changes unless the "group" agrees, then Wikipedia will be spreading lies. I am not willing to participate on that basis. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on Madison WI is 81,013 bytes, 15

  • Lar's proposal is to return the page to its original content, eliminating your work altogether. My proposal is to keep your work on a subpage, so you can continue editing it until you have something that meets Wikipedia's style and content guidelines to present to the editors of this page. If you can turn out something well-written, well-sourced, concise, and encyclopedic, I will certainly push to have that work returned to this article. As it stands, I see little chance for your work to survive at all, otherwise. bd2412 T 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have gone ahead and moved the list to List of U.S. State constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts. The name may need some reworking, but the material is preserved. I'll work on the transitional language over the weekend. bd2412 T 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well done, BD2412; your proposal is pretty well what I would have suggested had I been online earlier, and I fully concur with moving the list to its own page. While much of Kay Sieverding's prose requires extensive work, the list appears to have been done well, has encyclopedic value and I agree it should be preserved. (I note some typos in there, but those can be cleaned up fairly quickly, I would think.) I do agree that Kay's prose additions to this article should be withdrawn to userspace and redeveloped into something different; my sense at this point is that, with very disciplined editing, they would probably be suitable for a discrete article specific to the US practices. Risker (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Risker: I concur as to the proposed disposition but I am less unreserved about the merit of the list. I have concerns about "selective quotation" misleading people. There isn't really any doubt that people have a right to sue or be sued... the particular assembly of the list seems to suggest more than that and could possibly, or probably, be interpreted as suggesting people they have rights that they do not. I'm not saying it should be junked, but I have some lingering issues.
Now, who's going to actually do this? (I don't know how.) Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Since it's just a matter of looking up and confirming the laws of fifty states, I'll do it. Maybe one every other day. bd2412 T 15:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think that the American Judicature Society would be inaccurate? I think there is an on-line version of the book if you want to double check my data entry and you could just email to AJS and ask them if they have any corrections.

I found some interesting sources in previously deleted pro se Wikipedia content and footnotes including quotations of Supreme Court cases that found a constitutional right based on various theories. Yet the article keeps reverting to the statement that there is no right. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay: I don't have any issues with the A.J.S. itself. I have an issue with how you're using it. WP:Cite doesn't mean that everything supported by a citation is a reliable citation. Even though the A.J.S.'s publications are generally a reliable source, you have used them in an unreliable way.
BD2412: I didn't mean cite-checking the table; I was referring to reverting this page and moving the new content to Kay's userspace. But... wow, I admire you for volunteering for the duty. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want the "content" on my user page. I don't want "my version" of the article. I don't know what you mean-- that I was using AJS's publications "in a unreliable way"?Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay, please read some other articles that have achieved at least ["B" class] on Wikiproject:Law, for example Due process, so that you can see what we are talking about with respect to content being encyclopedic. What you have written is an advocacy page, not an encyclopedia article. Your extensive additions do not have the support of the editing community in their current configuration. I will move your content to a designated user page in a few hours. This has gone on long enough. Risker (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Risker.

I do like the due process page. If you read the history of the discussion page, you will see that I was told I could not cite Supreme Court or lower courts as references, which is why I switched to looking for third party sources. In contrast, the due process page directly quotes decisions. See for instance, 8/28 description of Supreme Court decisions as "primary source dump".

The subject of self-representation is a subject that involves economics, psychology, sociology etc. and is not a purely legal subject. The model of the page for "family" , for instance, includes a variety of sources and general statements such as "Thus, one's experience of one's family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially, and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization. From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation the goal of which is to produce and enculturate and socialize children.[1] However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family

Here's another Wikipedia article with general statements:

"Mental health refers to a human individual's emotional and psychological well-being. Merriam-Webster defines mental health as "A state of emotional and psychological well-being in which an individual is able to use his or her cognitive and emotional capabilities, function in society, and meet the ordinary demands of everyday life."According to the World Health Organization, there is no one "official";; definition of mental health. Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how "mental health" is defined. In general, most experts agree that "mental health" and "mental illness" are not opposites. In other words, the absence of a recognized mental disorder is not necessarily an indicator of mental health.One way to think about mental health is by looking at how effectively and successfully a person functions. Feeling capable and competent; being able to handle normal levels of stress, maintain satisfying relationships, and lead an independent life; and being able to "bounce back," or recover from difficult situations, are all signs of mental health. Encompassing your emotional, social, and—most importantly—your mental well-being; All these aspects—emotional, physical, and social—must function together to achieve overall health." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health

I have been comparing the success rate of "pro se" appeals by federal circuit. What would you think of statistics that would list the numbers of cases dismissed without opinions and quote from those with opinions with citations? I have found differences between circuits and between time periods.

I would like this article to be as accurate and complete as possible and am willing to do extra research for it. I have even incurred expense to obtain references to use in the article. I am fine with people rewriting if they can express the point more succinctly. As far as I am concerned, the more usable information the better. My major concern is with accuracy and completeness. The earlier "pro se" pages were not accurate and were so short they had almost no useful information in them. Going back to 8/25, the article consisted of a discussion of the origin of the term, a list of 4 "notable pro se litigants", one paragraph called "resources for the pro se litigant" which suggested they hire a lawyer for $200-300 per hour, which was deleted as against Wikipedia policy as soon as I actually listed sources of books and sample pleadings, 3 sentences about criminal law, 2 sentences about small claims court, two sentences about civil law which contained no references at all and were inaccurate, and 7 sentences about "why people proceed pro se" without a single reference except links to wiki pages called "lawyers", "alleged defamation", "plaintiff"" , "slapp","damages", "defendants" and "habeas corpus". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_se&diff=234129350&oldid=230417899

The only reference I ever saw anywhere to the "pro se wikipedia" page was in a blog for law librarians who remarked on how badly written it was (before my involvement). I left a comment urging the law librarians to contribute to the page.

Are there any subject headings that you think should be included or reworded?

Why don't we "Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Kay Sieverding 24.183.52.130 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • In Kay's defense, I see no problem with citing cases, especially Supreme Court cases, as sources demonstrating what the law is, or for facts set forth in those cases. However, we can't have just a collection of quotes from cases, one after another. There must be a narrative structure which ties them together, and because Supreme Court cases are specific to their facts and their time, there must be sourcing to other parties that confirm that whatever the court said in that case is generally the law, and is currently so. bd2412 T 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you or someone else have time to draft a section on the Supreme Court cases regarding self-representation? I can provide a list of many of them. I could put a partial list together tonight or early tomorrow. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

These are some cases I think are relevant or were quoted by AJS:

Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Kay Sieverding case law 6 quotes removed to subpage — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How can I help?

Thank you. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please just label the list of quotes as "pro se case law", as this is not my article and most of the cases came from the AJS. Thank you. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your name has to be there to preserve GFDL. If you had created the subpage, it wouldn't be necessary. However, I would object to that name for the subpage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
GFDL can be preserved by an attribution note on the talk page. bd2412 T 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Belated thanks. I was having a bad case of MEGO just looking at the state of the article.Robert A.West (Talk) 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like the subpage to be renamed so that it does not include my name. I tried to click on GRDL but it was not a valid link. Why did the list of cases have to be put on a subpage at all? kay sieverding 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's GFDL
the long lists needed to be put on a subpage because they are {{toolong}} lists, not all related to the article's subject, and without sources saying how they relate to the article's subject.
I would object to an article name without "case law dump".
And your signature is improper again. It should have a link to your user page or user talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Should U.N. Covenant on judicial remedy and status in U.S. be included or excluded from article

Arthur, I do not understand why you removed this content from the article:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976.... Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy" [1]

The United States is a member of the United Nations but ratified the covenant with exceptions. As stated in the United Nations library, "The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in June 1992. The Senate took exceptions to this treaty. Amongst those exceptions are the provision that the human rights recognized by this treaty shall not be enforcable in courts in the United States. Thus the United States Senate denied Americans the legal power to secure and enforce the human rights recognized by this international covenant."[2]

The article clearly refers to remedy in tort and the due process required and it meets Wikipedia's source requirements kay sieverding 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The treaty (or, at least, our article about the treaty) doesn't seem to deal with "pro se" litigation. (And I was wrong about the treaty violating basic human rights guaranteened by the constitution. That was the Declaration of Human Rights and the "economic rights" treaty which would have done so, if implemented. This one might have violated due process, in some cases, if any of the provisions were ratified.) It would appear to override the concept of soverign immunity protecting authorized agents from lawsuits against the agent as a person, which may or may not be a good thing.
Even if it did relate to "pro se", the last sentence is highly disputed, so should specifically state whose opinion it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rights violated in an official context clearly refers to Bivens suits against the feds and to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 actions. The link goes directly to the U.N. I might be able to find something in the Senate history. Apparently there are several U.N. documents with similar sounding names What about renaming that sub page so that it doesn't include my name??? Thank you kay sieverding 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

It still has nothing to do with "pro se". I'll consider renaming the subpages to remove your name, provided you concur with adding header to each subpage stating
Case law dump, created on main talk page by Kay Sieverding, moved at file creation date
on each page, and each page title contain "case law dump", although it can be more specific as to what it might be applicable to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your last paragraph above, it seems even more clear that it has nothing to do with "pro se". My parenthetical remark might be a subject of a legal journal article, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor, even if published in a journal article, anything to do with this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree: it is important to understand that a right of access to courts and a right to a proper judicial determination of one's rights does not encompass a right of self-representation as a matter of international law. Whether the US have such a right or not is a matter for people qualified to debate it, but the UN declaration really has nothing useful to add. It is normally used to support a right to legal representation paid for by the state. The point (which I think Kay may not get) is that a right to represent oneself is useless to most people who would not able to do such a thing. I would certainly not feel qualified to represent myself in a court in my jurisdiction even though I have enjoyed a right of audience (which I frequently exercise) for over 5 years. I have never met anyone who competently represented themselves (including numbers of lawyers) in front of my courts. It is very hard to do. Some people may be able to do it, but they (it seems to me) are a minority. Making sure people's rights are practically realisable is not the same thing as making sure there is pro se access. Francis Davey (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CIRP should be rejected as a source by anyone who is not anti-Semitic. I hadn't realized that they produce a convoluted interpretation of the ICCPR which would forbid circumcision of children. Even if it were a UN organization, it should be placed on the EL graylist; usable only in articles about itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

possible section headings

What would you think of having subheadings titled something like "self-representation and public policy considerations in civil litigation" and "self-representation and public policy considerations in criminal defense"? kay sieverding (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cases that may be relevant to self-represented litigants in the U.S.

Why not call it something like "cases that may be relevant to self-represented litigants in the U.S." If you know of additional cases please add them. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative exercise. That's why I put the list out there. Most of them came from the AJS publications on pro se litigants. Why would you not want other editors to have this list as a starting point for a world class legal article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted instead of improved?

Organizations Affecting Self-Represented Litigants

SelfHelpSupport.org [58]is a an organization with a web site dedicated to issues related to self-represented litigation. Its general policy is to not allow self-represented litigants to read the contents of the website. It refers people to LawHelp.org, which offers links to help with "problems related to housing, work, family, bankruptcy, disability, immigration and other problems".[59] It has over 2000 materials in its virtual library, several groups or listservs, a monthly newsletter, and " webinars" but this information may not be read without organization approval, which requires a confirmation that one is not a "pro se litigant". Participating organizations include the American Association of Law Libraries [60], American Judicature Societ,[61], Chicago-Kent School of Law [62] (which received the ABA 2008 Lois M. Brown 2008 Award for Legal Access) [63], The Justice Management Institute[64], Legal Services Corporation[65], National Center for State Courts[66], Pro Bono Network [67], State Justice Institute[68],and Zorza Associates [69]. 1 is an association of 410,000 lawyers whose current mission statement is "To serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession." [70] The ABA's 2008 mission statement includes goals relevant to self represented litigants including "Promote full and equal participation in the association, our profession, and the justice system by all persons", "Eliminate bias in the legal profession and the justice system", "Hold governments accountable under law." "Work for just laws, including human rights, and a fair legal process." and "Assure meaningful access to justice for all persons." [71]. It is not necessary to have a law degree to become an associate member of the ABA. [72] The Administrative Office of the United States Courts was created in 1939. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) serves the federal Judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to provide equal justice under law. The AO is the central support entity for the judicial branch. It provides a wide range of administrative, legal, financial, management, program, and information technology services to the federal courts. The AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements and executes Judicial Conference policies, as well as applicable federal statutes and regulations. The AO facilitates communications within the Judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, and the public on behalf of the Judiciary. [73] The Judicial Conference of the United States supervises the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in the performance of his duties as the administrative officer of the courts of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 604. The fundamental purpose of the Judicial Conference today is to make policy with regard to the administration of the U.S. courts. Section 331 of title 28 specifically provides that the Judicial Conference shall: Make a comprehensive survey of the conditions of business in the courts of the United States;Submit suggestions to the various courts in the interest of promoting uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business; and Carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in use within the federal courts, as prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to law as well as other tasks. [74] The United States House of Representatives has a "Committee on the Judiciary", which has jurisdiction on "The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal", "Administrative practice and procedure" and "Civil liberties". [75] kay sieverding (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The references were broken, and none except the one in the first paragraph are obviously relevant, and that would probably be inadequately sourced even if the references weren't broken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Arthur, for now, why don't we reinstall the first paragraph. I don't know what you mean about the references being "broken" as they all showed up as footnotes and are all links to web sites. These are major organizations. Will you just paste the first paragraph back in please? Thank you.

SelfHelpSupport.org [58]is a an organization with a web site dedicated to issues related to self-represented litigation. Its general policy is to not allow self-represented litigants to read the contents of the website. It refers people to LawHelp.org, which offers links to help with "problems related to housing, work, family, bankruptcy, disability, immigration and other problems".[59] It has over 2000 materials in its virtual library, several groups or listservs, a monthly newsletter, and " webinars" but this information may not be read without organization approval, which requires a confirmation that one is not a "pro se litigant". Participating organizations include the American Association of Law Libraries [60], American Judicature Societ,[61], Chicago-Kent School of Law [62] (which received the ABA 2008 Lois M. Brown 2008 Award for Legal Access) [63], The Justice Management Institute[64], Legal Services Corporation[65], National Center for State Courts[66], Pro Bono Network [67], State Justice Institute[68],and Zorza Associates [69]. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken references; all I see is the [nn], rather than actual footnotes.
Hence I cannot confirm it's actually what you say it is. Furthermore, only the two sentences seem relevant. The rest only seem appropriate in an article about the association itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, the references were all fine when I loaded them up so since you deleted them, why don't you find them and reinstall them? I think the organizations that are supporting the self-help org are relevant since they are paying and contributing to the organization so if you would leave the entire first paragraph in I would appreciate it. Thank you. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So, no comment about only the first two sentences being relevant to this article? There's nothing to improve. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion regarding AJS table

If anyone finds any references suggesting that the Constitutional and statutory citations listed by the AJS are inaccurate or misleading, why don't we just footnote the table? kay sieverding (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why were the AJS recommendations deleted?

Who deleted this and why?

Policy Recommendations

The American Judicature Society recommends these policies: [48] "I. Courts should provide self-represented litigants with information and services to enable them to use the court." "II. Courts should study the composition and greatest needs of the self-represented litigants they serve, and design services to effectively meet those needs." "III. Development of Programs to assist self-represented litigants should be a collaborative effort of the bench, court staff, the bar, and the public." "IV. Courts, in conjunction with the bar, should establish policies to guide court staff in assisting self-represented litigants." "V. State court systems and local courts should train court staff on how to assist self-represented litigants."24.183.52.130 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiblame reports it's been gone for over 2 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Found it at 20:14, September 18, 2008, by Avruch. I suspect the reason is questioning the notability of the American Judicature Society, and whether the source represented the opinion of the society or merely that of the authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
AJS is not my favorit source for anything, but it's notable enough. The problem isn't that AJS or their opinions aren't notable. They are. But the quotes from AJS were not being cited in a reliable or acceptable manner, or for an acceptable purpose. They were not being used to state AJS's opinion. They were being used to evade our order that KS stop abusing primary sources to make a legal argument. Kay misunderstood us, and WP:Cite, to mean that it was okay to continue quoting primary sources to make a legal argument, as long as the primary source was cloaked in a citation to secondary source. Hence, most of the same caselaw dump we removed before, was re-dumped, but with an extra layer of citation. It was still un-encyclopedia-like legal argument. This is a classic case of "listening without understanding." Kay, the quotes were removed because you missed the point. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated AJS Report

This is more recent than what was deleted

http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_sampson.asp kay sieverding (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The AJS policy recommendations were also reprinted in the ABA booklet. kay sieverding (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

blogs

The "blog" media shows more recent experiences with self-represented litigation and also is a way that information is spread on a person to person basis.

Articles on managing law professions discuss the role of blogs constantly.

How can this article at this time exclude the role of blogs?

Where in the article do you think blogs should be included?

What would you think of the idea of a separate section something like "Blogging as a record of self-represented litigants' experiences"?

kay sieverding (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations to blog are disfavored. Wikipedia has high standards of notability to cite to blogs. In any case, I don't think many people would agree with you that blogs should be mentioned in this article. What relevance do they really have in an article about pro se litigation? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
They have little or no relevance. See our policy on reliable sources ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed New Section, Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and prison law

1. habeas corpus a. new evidence b lack of evidence c. improper procedure police/prosecutor d. improper procedure trial

2. prison condition and treatment a. alleged brutality/guard misconduct b. failure to protect/prisoner on prisoner/negligence c. medical/dental care d. food quantity and quality e. exercise f. density g. religious practice h. law library i. rehabilitation services j. family services

3. Text of Act

4. Payments and Pricing

5. Due process a. standards for expedited review b. literacy issues c. language barriers d. family advocates e. role of self-taught jailhouse lawyers f. role of incarcerated former lawyers g. role of prison publications h. standards of judgment i. oral hearings j. joint petitions k. ecf l. filing and service issues m. sanctionable conduct standards n. procedure used to determine when conduct sanctionable o. limited use of courts equitable powers to the minimum necessary to cure the problem (quote S.C. law) p. law library paper q. law library on-line r. effective communication to prisoners

Arthur and/or Non Curant, since you are such experienced Wikis and so interested in this subject, do you think you could write an initial draft? kay sieverding (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I am pretty darn busy right now though. I don't know when I can get to it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Surely all that would be appropriate to a different article (about the act etc) rather than here which is about pro se representation in the united states. Its not the place for a discussion of (say) Habeas Corpus which has its own article. Francis Davey (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
FD - each of those things could have its own article. Some do. I believe that PRLA may have a notable impact on the subject of this article, which I will research. Perhaps a short section with intra-wiki cross-references will sum it up. I won't let it become articles-within-articles. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Edit summaries

Kay: it is inappropriate to mark as "minor" any edits which change the substantive content of the article, even slightly. The "minor edit" tag should be used only when the edit changes the form and not the substance, fixes typos, or removes vandalism. Thank you. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  2. ^ CIRP Library http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-covenant/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=811625479"