Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States

kay sieverding (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too long, far too US-centric

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

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

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

Given the section above, it looks like most editors will agree with you. It's clearly focused on the US, despite a short "History in England" section. Avruch ^T 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess what worries me is that this article will go the way of other law articles. It will start with a US specific definition (as it does now) and then say something along the lines of, "Oh yes, in <jurisdiction> they call this X". The impression being that the US are right and everyone else (perhaps in their perversity) call a well-known concept by another name. Tag (game) is a good example of this: its a game with many names, the technical term amongst game sociologists is "touch" but everyone in the US calls it "Tag" and so that will be the title of the article. The fact that most law articles are started by USians means that they stay US specific and there is bugger all that lawyers elsewhere can do in an elegant way to make things right. At least in this one I know that everything that is being claimed is US specific. That's great! It means I can (perhaps when I stop being long-term sick) edit it and say: "... in the US XXXX, but in EW YYYY" or some such. If you want a world-wide article then you need (a) to rename it and eschew US specific terminology such as pro se, SRL or whatever that may mean inventing a term which may be contrary WP:NOR which always worries me; (b) the lead should say what little there is to be said (imho almost nothing) about the rules for non-lawyer appearance or whatever you call it and then some specifics about jurisdictions. Much of the body of this article (with all the real thorough detail in it) can then be pushed to a truly US specific article with all the detail. Francis Davey (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

U.S.-centrism is no longer an issue, as the article has been moved to an "in the United States" title. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think its a much better article already as a result. It means the lead etc can be much bolder about asserting facts about the US which are useful for a non-US reader. I will watch with interest to see how the article evolves. Francis Davey (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A reset?

Let's compare things.

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

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

Agreed. I had hoped things were going to quieten down so we wouldn't have to do anything so drastic. Its got unmanageable. Francis Davey (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-agreed. I propose the following:

1. Break the list of state statutes out into a separate article. This is a valid sweat-of-the-brow collection of encyclopedic information.

2. Copy the remaining current content to a temporary subpage and allow Kay and others to continue working on that page in an effort to develop a proposal for an alternative to the current material.

3. Have all future changes to the actual article page (other than minor grammar/spelling/syntax type edits) approved on the talk page prior to inclusion in the article.

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Francis Davey (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I like what you have done. Francis Davey (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lar's proposal is to return the page to its original content, eliminating your work altogether. My proposal is to keep your work on a subpage, so you can continue editing it until you have something that meets Wikipedia's style and content guidelines to present to the editors of this page. If you can turn out something well-written, well-sourced, concise, and encyclopedic, I will certainly push to have that work returned to this article. As it stands, I see little chance for your work to survive at all, otherwise. bd2412 T 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and moved the list to List of U.S. State constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts. The name may need some reworking, but the material is preserved. I'll work on the transitional language over the weekend. bd2412 T 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well done, BD2412; your proposal is pretty well what I would have suggested had I been online earlier, and I fully concur with moving the list to its own page. While much of Kay Sieverding's prose requires extensive work, the list appears to have been done well, has encyclopedic value and I agree it should be preserved. (I note some typos in there, but those can be cleaned up fairly quickly, I would think.) I do agree that Kay's prose additions to this article should be withdrawn to userspace and redeveloped into something different; my sense at this point is that, with very disciplined editing, they would probably be suitable for a discrete article specific to the US practices. Risker (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Risker: I concur as to the proposed disposition but I am less unreserved about the merit of the list. I have concerns about "selective quotation" misleading people. There isn't really any doubt that people have a right to sue or be sued... the particular assembly of the list seems to suggest more than that and could possibly, or probably, be interpreted as suggesting people they have rights that they do not. I'm not saying it should be junked, but I have some lingering issues.

Now, who's going to actually do this? (I don't know how.) Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's just a matter of looking up and confirming the laws of fifty states, I'll do it. Maybe one every other day. bd2412 T 15:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Kay: I don't have any issues with the A.J.S. itself. I have an issue with how you're using it. WP:Cite doesn't mean that everything supported by a citation is a reliable citation. Even though the A.J.S.'s publications are generally a reliable source, you have used them in an unreliable way.

BD2412: I didn't mean cite-checking the table; I was referring to reverting this page and moving the new content to Kay's userspace. But... wow, I admire you for volunteering for the duty. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Risker.

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

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

Here's another Wikipedia article with general statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can I help?

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

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

Your name has to be there to preserve GFDL. If you had created the subpage, it wouldn't be necessary. However, I would object to that name for the subpage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GFDL can be preserved by an attribution note on the talk page. bd2412 T 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I was having a bad case of MEGO just looking at the state of the article.Robert A.West (Talk) 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Title of list of Supreme Court and other cases related to self-representation and Access to Courts

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

It's GFDL

the long lists needed to be put on a subpage because they are {{toolong}} lists, not all related to the article's subject, and without sources saying how they relate to the article's subject.

I would object to an article name without "case law dump".

And your signature is improper again. It should have a link to your user page or user talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The treaty (or, at least, our article about the treaty) doesn't seem to deal with "pro se" litigation. (And I was wrong about the treaty violating basic human rights guaranteened by the constitution. That was the Declaration of Human Rights and the "economic rights" treaty which would have done so, if implemented. This one might have violated due process, in some cases, if any of the provisions were ratified.) It would appear to override the concept of soverign immunity protecting authorized agents from lawsuits against the agent as a person, which may or may not be a good thing.

Even if it did relate to "pro se", the last sentence is highly disputed, so should specifically state whose opinion it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

It still has nothing to do with "pro se". I'll consider renaming the subpages to remove your name, provided you concur with adding header to each subpage stating

Case law dump, created on main talk page by Kay Sieverding, moved at file creation date

on each page, and each page title contain "case law dump", although it can be more specific as to what it might be applicable to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your last paragraph above, it seems even more clear that it has nothing to do with "pro se". My parenthetical remark might be a subject of a legal journal article, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor, even if published in a journal article, anything to do with this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

possible section headings

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

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

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

Why was this deleted instead of improved?

Organizations Affecting Self-Represented Litigants

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

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

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

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

Broken references; all I see is the [nn], rather than actual footnotes.

Hence I cannot confirm it's actually what you say it is. Furthermore, only the two sentences seem relevant. The rest only seem appropriate in an article about the association itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Alternative suggestion regarding AJS table

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

Why were the AJS recommendations deleted?

Who deleted this and why?

Policy Recommendations

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

Wikiblame reports it's been gone for over 2 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it at 20:14, September 18, 2008, by Avruch. I suspect the reason is questioning the notability of the American Judicature Society, and whether the source represented the opinion of the society or merely that of the authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AJS is not my favorit source for anything, but it's notable enough. The problem isn't that AJS or their opinions aren't notable. They are. But the quotes from AJS were not being cited in a reliable or acceptable manner, or for an acceptable purpose. They were not being used to state AJS's opinion. They were being used to evade our order that KS stop abusing primary sources to make a legal argument. Kay misunderstood us, and WP:Cite, to mean that it was okay to continue quoting primary sources to make a legal argument, as long as the primary source was cloaked in a citation to secondary source. Hence, most of the same caselaw dump we removed before, was re-dumped, but with an extra layer of citation. It was still un-encyclopedia-like legal argument. This is a classic case of "listening without understanding." Kay, the quotes were removed because you missed the point. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated AJS Report

This is more recent than what was deleted

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

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

blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations to blog are disfavored. Wikipedia has high standards of notability to cite to blogs. In any case, I don't think many people would agree with you that blogs should be mentioned in this article. What relevance do they really have in an article about pro se litigation? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They have little or no relevance. See our policy on reliable sources ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

3. Text of Act

4. Payments and Pricing

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

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

Sure. No problem. I am pretty darn busy right now though. I don't know when I can get to it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely all that would be appropriate to a different article (about the act etc) rather than here which is about pro se representation in the united states. Its not the place for a discussion of (say) Habeas Corpus which has its own article. Francis Davey (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FD - each of those things could have its own article. Some do. I believe that PRLA may have a notable impact on the subject of this article, which I will research. Perhaps a short section with intra-wiki cross-references will sum it up. I won't let it become articles-within-articles. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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

It still hasn't stopped

Kay still has not regarded the suggstion to take this to her userspace. Some of the sprawl has been removed, but the article continues to grow with unsourced/OR/improperly cited/unencyclopedia-like content. Kay has paid lip service to our informal resolution, but I do not believe she has participated in good faith, because the whole time, she has continued to pollute the article. The edits are a good faith attempt to improve the content, but they are in such blatant disregard for quality guidelines, and our requests to expand the article within policy, as to be disruptive. Something must be done.

I am in favor of taking more serious action? Is there yet a consensus in favor? Is there an admin or editor willing to risk being named in the RfAr that is sure to result? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it may be appropriate to ban Kay from editing this article, and require that she propose all changes on the talk, or as sandbox pages, and have others add them after consensus. I agree the volume of material being added is overwhelming, and Kay does not seem to be willing to conform to our normal way of doing things, so this step may be required. I'd like to see if there is a local consensus here for that idea, and if so I'm sure I'm not the only admin that would enforce this. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Kay_Sieverding#Stop_now_please ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have a different idea. I had proposed above to create a temp page for Kay to work on until she had crafted an article suitable for presentation to the community as encyclopedic in tone and style. That suggestion was obviously not taken up, so instead I have created Pro se legal representation in the United States/temp, a temp page with the content as it was before Kay started working on the page. I propose that the community work on that page as an alternative, and when it has achieved a satisfactory state, we can discuss which page to keep as "the" article on this topic (or perhaps mix elements of the two into a single finished product). In the interim, the current sprawl is quite frankly only slightly less useless than the former sprawl. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BD - seems fine to me. More importantly, the article is uselesser than ever. Do you perceive consensus in favor of stopping Kay from editing this article mainpage? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the next formal step is a user conduct RfC. I'd suggest an article RfC, but we tried that, and Kay ignored the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please (formally) supply a link to the RfC outcome showing consensus, and a link to a recent edit by Kay where she ignored the consensus. If that's the case, I'm not seeing a user RfC as needed, actually, it's much simpler than that. There have been a lot of warnings, we'll just start enforcing that consensus. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind that Kay is not a vandal with ill intentions, she is simply convinced that the article is incorrect in that it fails to present her point of view, and is trying to "correct" that. She has, to some extent, bent her editing to accommodate the suggestions of other editors (although this seems to have involved switching from Supreme Court case text dumps to secondary source text dumps and some amount of synthesis). She sees connections that just aren't there (i.e. the Bible supporting a right to pro se representation). But I think she's trying to get it right, and I think she can be brought around with reasoned discussion. bd2412 T 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The RfC can be found at Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 1#Request for Comment: Proper use of Supreme Court and other cases. Unfortunately, it's been archived, although still linked from the RfCSoc. It's also too specific to cover Kay's current behavior. She may be following that to the letter, but avoiding the spirit and the Wikipedia policies mentioned there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BD - I would like to agree, but even if it's true that she can be brought around, at what cost? Also, I'm not sold that she can. When she writes original composition, it's word salad. The implications are discouraging. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

followed administrators guidelines

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

I linked to the Wikipedia article on the case, I dated the case I used the case in the same way as the AJS, and I sourced the AJS. The AJS uses the case as current kay sieverding (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No Wikipedia guidelines have been linked to by Arhur Rubin and Lars. I provided the dead links. Arthur Rubin agreed yesterday that the material he deleted on the organizations were "relevant" and I found the links. I found an update to the AJS article and posted it in the comment section so that AR could verify it and I proposed an outline for the Prison Litigation Reform Act. kay sieverding (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, by focusing on one thing... I've given you plenty of pointers to various guidelines, style guides, policy pages and the like but you continue to present large volumes of material. You need to throttle back. You need to stop adding more material to this article until the material you have added has either been edited into some semblance of usable structure, or removed. You're not internalising that. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prison Reform Act

I think that virtually all the litigation coming out of the Prison Reform Act is self-represented. The U.S. judiciary statistics described such litigation as "pro se" or "pro se prisoner". This is how they describe the Prison Reform Act actions in their statistical reports.

If you made it a separate article, then the title of this one would have to be changed. Also, the Act doesn't limit the number of paid prisoner actions. If Joe Nacchio goes to jail and has the funds he will be able to file as much as he wants. kay sieverding (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the kind of litigation generated by the act, but a separate article about the act and the substantive law underlying it (I hope that makes sense to you) would be much better than putting that information in here. Wikipedia cross referencing works pretty well. A short sentence somewhere in this article alerting the reader to the fact that there is lots of pro se litigation under the PRA and then a pointer to that article would make things nice and tidy. Its how the wikipedia approaches lots of things of this kind. I hope that makes sense (in other words, I am all for you having a page on it, just not here because its about the PRA not about pro se litigation). Francis Davey (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

minor edit

Dear Lex,

Are you talking about removing the brackets around the American Society of Legal Writers? Wikipedia doesn't have a subject for them. Should we request an article? kay sieverding (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No. That was a minor edit. This however, was not. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

fundamental right talk page and Old Testament source

I posted these cases on the talk page of fundamental right

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

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

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

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

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

kay's comments

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

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

Mr. Rubin deleted this reference several times:

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

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

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

Arthur Rubin's POV is stated by him is "It appears that the right to self-representation is not a fundamental right (as defined elsewhere in case law) (and as sourced to an Supreme Court opinion)" 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Substantive Right of Access to Courts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural Due Process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AJS also cites this case:

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Meese, 615 F. Supp. 200, 206 (District of Columbia District Court 1985)) "'One of the basic principles, one of the glories, of the American system of justice is that the courthouse door is open to everyone--the humblest citizen, the indigent, the convicted felon, the illegal alien...That principle of access to the courts consists not merely of the right to file a complaint but it includes the right to file other papers, including motions apprising the court of possible changes in the facts, the law, or the position of the litigant".

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

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

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

Separation and Deletion is totally against my wishes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You already have excluded me from editing the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't want people to see this:

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

You don't want people to see this:

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

You don't want this

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

“We of the United States think experience has proved that it is safer for the mass of individuals composing society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent. Hence, with us, people being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors. I believe that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves is the essence of a Republic.”

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

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

In 1985, a court in the capital of the United States acknowledged in the written record the right of every man, including strangers, to appear and to file papers: "'One of the basic principles, one of the glories, of the American system of justice is that the courthouse door is open to everyone--the humblest citizen, the indigent, the convicted felon, the illegal alien...That principle of access to the courts consists not merely of the right to file a complaint but it includes the right to file other papers, including motions apprising the court of possible changes in the facts, the law, or the position of the litigant"[3]

you won't acknowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you repeatedly deleted this reference

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

You deleted all the discussion about the Rules Enabling Act.

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

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

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

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

To reply to some of your specific misunderstandings,

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

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

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

References section?

Why is there a references section on a talk page? I've never seen this done. If there are references germane to a point in a particular section, those references should be kept together with that point. bd2412 T 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly common when discussing questionable references. At the moment, there's only one section with references, so the {{reflist}} could go in a subsection there, but we don't have a good way to handle multiple references sections in an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the references should just be wrung out with nowiki tags. The section is physically entirely divorced from the relevant discussion. bd2412 T 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case it would be OK, as Kay hasn't yet figured how to use citation templates, or to restore references from a deleted section. If there were more than one editor adding references here, or if Kay were to use citation templates, it would be hopeless without (at least one) references section. I can't find any good examples of where reference sections have been used for good effect on talk pages recently, although I'm sure they're at least a dozen on my watch list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not. References 1 and 2 are in a section I added as a copy from the main page, and reference 3 is one of Kay's. It can no longer easily be split. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ISBN number

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

definition "pro se practioner'

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

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

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

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

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

Request technical assistance creating sub page

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

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

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

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

Access to court

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

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

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

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

Censorship complaint

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

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

The article requires a New York Times registration.

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

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

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

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

To quote from the article:

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

Kay, you have conflated two separate concepts from this article. The first is that the article on Human rights in the Republic of China was protected from editing; the second is that administrators have authority to delete unsuitable articles. This clearly incorrect synthesis from one single article raises serious concerns in my mind about your ability to correctly parse what you are proposing as reference sources. Risker (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about 3 people disabling the Wikipedia software abilities

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

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

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

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

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

Reference brief acknowledging rights of self-representation

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

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

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

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

Update on Wikipedia criticisms, fact checking, and editing policy

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

Here are some articles discussing Wikipedia editing policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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