Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States

Complaint about 3 people disabling the Wikipedia software abilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics question

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

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

Here's a start:

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

Here's more federal stats:

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

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

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

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

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

Further statistics questions

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

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

I posted these two sentences with references

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

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

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

NOTE: Removing material that violates to GFDL

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

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

I was careful not to remove a single thing that was dated in October.[1] --Elonka 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Supreme Court statements and Civil Rights Act of 1866

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Lex

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restored comment of kay sieverding

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

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

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

Back to subject of statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kay, A few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sentence c

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

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

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

Another problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some additions to the article:

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

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

Here is another reference on prisoner litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deconstructing this talk page

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

modifications to discussion of unbundled services and legal ghost writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[What appears to be a personal message to another user, unrelated to this particular article, has been moved to the editor's talk page[2] ]

Note re: Talk Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joriki deleted this from "requests for expansion"

"=pro se represented litigation==

self-representation in Jacksonian U.S.A.

North v South self-representation during time of slavery

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

pro se w jury trial

recent stats state court, family, civil,

bankruptcy

criminal defense

pro se procedures in federal appellate court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok Famspear it is

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

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

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

see for instance

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

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

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

No, Kay, here is the edit I made: [3]. That's not me "archiving" one of your comments. That's me making my own comments. You're mis-reading the heading. The heading for the section is "archiving", and the comment that I added was the word "comment" -- meaning that I was adding my own comment to the talk page. Look at the edit. Nothing in your material was "deleted" when I made that edit. I was simply adding my own comment to the talk page.

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

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

Here is the actual edit to which you are referring: [4]. You are incorrectly claiming that this is an archiving of comments. You are simply not paying attention to what you are reading. This edit is an ADDITION of material. You are misreading the material. The word "Archiving" is displayed on the page by the software as being the heading for the section of the talk page where the edit was made. The words "conversation w Lex" are the explanation by the person making the entry. Look at the entry. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Kay, that last entry shows you ADDING the material. Here it is again: [5]. The text is shown, shaded in green on the right hand side of the screen. This is your own addition of material to the talk page -- NOT a DELETION or ARCHIVING of your material. Famspear (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: Same thing here: (cur) (last) 14:47, 10 October 2008 Famspear (Talk | contribs) (114,471 bytes) (→Archiving: comment) (undo). You, Kay, are saying that this edit involved "archiving" a comment you had just written. Wrong. Look at the edit: [6]

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

Dear Kay, OK, I found what you are talking about with respect to editor "Joriki". It's here: [7]. Do you see the mistake you made? Editor "Joriki" had nothing to do with that entry. That was YOUR entry, not Joriki's entry. That was you yourself, adding your own comments to a project page in Wikipedia. Again, you are not reading correctly. "Joriki" has never even been involved in this process. Please pay closer attention to what you are reading. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why were these references deleted

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

Decisions on Access to Courts

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Self Help Website (not my posting)

http://www.representyourselfincourt.org

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

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

he wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, , Nevada Wisconsin Pennyslvania, Virgina, Rhode Island, Washington State, West VirginiaUtah, kay sieverding (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Kay, you did bring up the subject of your personal experiences. The person who brought up your own personal experiences for the very first time on this talk page was you yourself, on 10 September 2008, at [8]. I do not see any discussion of that on this talk page made prior to that date by any other editor. You also talked about this several times later, bringing this up again on this page on October 9, here [9] and here [10] and here [11]. While editor Risker's point -- that discussing your case on this talk page may not be helpful in keeping the focus on the general subject of the article -- is well taken, I want to keep the record straight. Famspear (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appellate Mediation and Pro Se practice

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

Biblical references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute on Canadian attorneys fee award

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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