User talk:24.183.52.130

Irrelevant sections

Would you (and Kay, if you're different), stop adding irrelevant sections (about legal aid, and other "access to courts" issues not related to self-representation) and case law dumps to the article pro se (now pro se legal representation in the United States)? If you are Kay, you still haven't learned Wikipedia guidelines. If you're not consider this a level 2 warning that adding inappropriate material to an article may be considered vandalism, after you've been informed it's inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthurs' bad faith is shown by the fact that the ABA and the AJS specifically link Access to Court issues to pro se issues but he has chosen the POV that the are "not related to self-representation". Even though he obviously has no respect for me, as shown by his threats, condescension, and name calling and refusal to explain on the talk page why he deletes references, why doesn't Arthur respect published books and Supreme and Appellate Court decisions? 24.183.52.130 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop casting aspersions on everyone. Really. It is disruptive. Disruptive editors get blocked, to stop disruption. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued disruptive editing against consensus on Pro se legal representation in the United States‎ despite numerous requests to stop. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Risker (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note for any administrator reviewing this block: Please see also User:Kay Sieverding; she has edited interchangeably between that logged in account and this IP address. Risker (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Unblock because the underlying reason for the disagreement between myself and Lar, Arthur Rubin, and Non Curant Lex has been resolved. Formerly, their POV was that self-representation is not a fundamental right. I challenged them to find a reference supporting their POV that self-representation in court is a mere procedural right. They were unable to produce any references supporting their POV. They concede below that they will allow references showing that the right of self-representation is "fundamental". The major reason for the conflict was their deleting references.}} 24.183.52.130 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship at work/Deliberate attempts to mislead the public and publish inaccurate and incomplete statements/Attempts to cover-up the fact that self-representation in court has been repeatedly recognized as a fundamental right for over 25 centuries

Over 200 references have been deleted from this article with the clear intention of making it grossly inaccurate. All the Supreme Court references to the right of self-representation in a civil matter have been deleted. All the ABA references acknowledging the right of self representation have been deleted. All the American Judicature Society references acknowledging the right of self representation have been deleted. All the quotations and references to court documents acknowledging the right of self-representation have been deleted. All the references (links to government documents) related to ECF use by self-represented parties has been deleted. All the statistics regarding self-representation have been deleted. (in one year in Cal there were more self-represented actions than the population of Los Angeles). All the information related to government agencies involved in self-representation has been deleted. All of the information related to U.N. and International treaties has been deleted. All of the policy recommendations made by commissions were deleted.

None of the deletions were discussed in the article talk page.

Unsupported statements have been inserted in an attempt to mislead the public. Such as "In the United States, self-representation is permitted in most instances." (The only instance in which it was not permitted was by a diagnosed schizophrenic and that July 2008 S.C. decision is being criticized in the press) "In many instances, state constitutional provisions regarding the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been so interpreted.[dubious – discuss" (They are always interpreted that way because self-representation is a fundamental right that was explicitly recognized by the S.C., Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the Old Testament, the ABA).

These were among the deleted references:

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

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

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.

I cannot standby while Wikipedia's editors mislead the public about their fundamental rights. The people involved in this editing have stated that they are worried that an increase in self-representation will adversely affect lawyers' incomes and that they believe that there is a common law right to file an action but that after that the courts should discard the documents. Although the most progressive law firms donate a maximum of only 3% of their time to pro bono work, and the Internet is filled with complaints from people who hired a lawyer on contingency and then were dissatisfied, these editors have a POV that if a person cannot afford to pay for a lawsuit they should go without remedy. They deleted the references in articles to people's reluctance to take out a second mortgage to pay for attorney bills. Any reference that does not agree with their POV they will delete or ignore. Such as http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/d20040917selfrep.pdf. They use the talk pages to discuss their strategy to exclude information instead of the approved use of discussing how to get or verify information, they misquote Wiki policy, they make threats, they state that when anyone other than themselves quotes the Supreme Court it is a "case dump" but they can "dump" any old district level case as if it were established law. Wiki policy requires a discussion on the talk page of any deletions but they delete verified references for the sole stated reason that the group has not agreed to quote the Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. Courts, the ABA, the AJS, the WSJ, the NYT etc. They argue that there must be a consensus to cite references opposite to their POV. An administrator associated with this article has already noted his opinion that the S.C. can be cited and stated that he has never before seen a list of references (which these same editors control) inserted in the bottom of the talk page instead of used in discussing the various sections. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempts by the user to violate Wikipedia policies by including rants, sources irrelevant to the article, and sources whose relevance to the articles requires WP:OR, have, and will continue to be, reverted. Suggest increasing the length of the block, as the user has stated an intent to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the same manner she has done so before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy requires inclusion of references/Challenge group to cite and explain http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/d20040917selfrep.pdf

Wiki policy requires assumption of good faith. I stated no intent to violate any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy says that polling is not substitute for discussion. I see that this morning the history shows deletions of references with no explanation that there were better references or that they were unsubstantiated. Justification is listed as "There are many statutes & cases about lots of legal topics; delete this sentence, as it adds little to the article",

As stated before I have absolutely no objection to rewriting for style. I suggested that we do a group outline, and I suggested an outline. No one else ever suggested an outline nor did anyone suggest any sections. The only references supplied by the group were specialized ones concerning attorneys fees.

If this article is not soon factually accurate, then I will publish a web site showing the deletions of records of fundamental rights from the Wikipedia web site. I hope that you will restore the references to the discussions of fundamental rights by the Bible, Thomas Paine,Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. Supreme Court,the State Supreme Courts, the American Judicature Society etc.

The people who have made the deletions should submit a list of all of the references they deleted and an explanation as to why they deleted them. That is Wiki policy.

Several times I posted a link and a summary of a very scholarly article in the talk page and suggested that they read and write about it, but they chose to ignore it because it is contrary to their :POV that there is no fundamental right of self-representation in court. The ignored citation includes:

“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 withthe 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

Instead of personal attack, why can't we just post the references and develop an accurate article?

24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to say that you intended to violate Wikipedia policy. I intended to say that your past and intended future actions clearly violate Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are unable to see that suggests an indefinite block is a appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are also apparently unable to comprehend that fundamental rights is a term of law, and does not necessarily mean fundamental rights. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If I violated Wiki policy, please be specific. Wiki Policy states that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Your poll is that my references should be excluded because you don't like my references.

You sound like someone from the Spanish Inquisition. My motives are pure. I want to see an accurate and inclusive article.

I was using the term "fundamental rights" in the same way as the Supreme Court and the other Wikipedia articles. For instance, one listed "fundamental right" is "self-reliance". There is an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson on the subject that was very influential in its time-- a time of high self-representation in response to distrust of lawyers (as stated in a historical article by a judge in another deleted reference). The U.S. Supreme Court specifically and repeatedly used the term fundamental rights to describe the right to file a law suit. But of course Wiki readers want to know the law of Aurthur Rubin not the law of history and the law of the Supreme Court of the U.S. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay: I am the editor who deleted this sentence:

There are many statutes and cases about the right of a party to represent a business they own or to testify without a lawyer about an unincorporated business by which they are employed.

As you noted above, my comment was: "There are many statutes & cases about lots of legal topics; delete this sentence, as it adds little to the article". I believe that's a reasonable explanation for what I believe was a reasonable deletion.

I note that you seem to be contending or implying above that editor Arthur Rubin is engaging in a "personal attack" on you. I respectfully disagree with your implication. I believe Arthur and other editors are trying to explain -- with what appears to be a considerable degree of patience -- why they are making the edits they are making to the article on pro se representation.

I know this may be hard, but you should not consider efforts by Wikipedia editors to change or delete material you have contributed as a "personal attack." Any Wikipedia editor is subject to having his or her contributions edited or deleted unmercifully; further, no one editor can "control" what is or is not included in a Wikipedia article.

I cannot speak for other editors, but for me personally the subject is boring; I therefore have the advantage of emotional "disattachment" to the subject. The following comments should be read with that point in mind.

1. The right to represent yourself in a court of law without a lawyer, the right to proceed pro se, is indeed a legal "right." There is little that is controversial about that.

2. The right to proceed pro se may or may not be "fundamental" (I haven't research it, and I don't really care at this point). "Fundamental" is sometimes used as a technical legal term, so we need to be careful about how we use that term in an article on a legal topic. "Fundamental" may or may not mean the same thing to you as it does in a court of law.

3. Like most legal rights, the right to proceed pro se is definitely not absolute. What I mean by that, in non-legal terms, is that the right can be legally taken away where that right has been found to have been abused. There is nothing that you or I can do, merely by editing Wikipedia, to change that rule.

I would urge you to, metaphorically speaking, take a deep breath and concentrate on working with other editors to achieve consensus. In particular, I would respectfully suggest that you try to set your personal feelings aside. As a general rule, the stronger you feel about the topic, the more difficult will be your task in following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been specific before, but you removed the comments from your talk page. Please read your talk page history before demanding specific violations. As for "polling", WP:CONSENSUS overrides almost all criteria for inclusion of material in an article. (There are criteria for exclusion which are not overriden by consensus; WP:BLP and WP:NOTFREE come to mind.) In fact, I can't think of a single criterion for inclusion which is not overridden by WP:CONSENSUS. And there is WP:CONSENSUS that your material is not helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal"..... My goal is to have an inclusive article.

"Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others."

So, Arthur please convince me why the Supreme Court decisions, Military Law, and Law of Lawyers law regarding the fundamental rights of self-representation should be excluded from this page. I don't care at all who writes the final description of the rights or what order they are written in, my concern is your stated POV that self-representation is not an absolute right and your deletion of references proving otherwise. This is not personal at all. I think you are hurting people by denying them information about their fundamental rights. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So, could you read WP:CONSENSUS. It does not contain "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal"; nor is that necessarily relevant, as your goal is apparently not the same as the Wikipedia's goal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis' consensus was that access to court isn't a fundamental right.

My goal is to have a truthful article. The Nazis had a consensus that pro se Jews couldn't petition from Auschwitz didn't they? Did those millions deserve to lose their pro se rights? How many people joined the consensus that pro se Jews didn't have a fundamental right? Do you agree with the Nazis consensus yes or no? Do you think that U.S. Citizens should have less rights than Jews in Germany in 1945? 24.183.52.130 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Farmspear please provide references for your statements above

You stated above:

2. The right to proceed pro se may or may not be "fundamental" (I haven't research it, and I don't really care at this point). "Fundamental" is sometimes used as a technical legal term, so we need to be careful about how we use that term in an article on a legal topic. "Fundamental" may or may not mean the same thing to you as it does in a court of law.

3. Like most legal rights, the right to proceed pro se is definitely not absolute. What I mean by that, in non-legal terms, is that the right can be legally taken away where that right has been found to have been abused.

Please produce references to support these statements which you use to decide what is relevant or not relevant.

The S.C. uses the words "fundamental right" but their words were deleted.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. If one is convicted of obstruction of justice, and a prisoner, one can file for habeas corpus pro se. For instance, if one were convicted of perjury, one could submit evidence that the referenced statements were not perjury or that the required due process was not used. If one were convicted of witness intimidation, one could challenge the accuracy of the DNA or gun evidence.

Disbarred lawyers are people who are knowledgeable about the law who intentionally abused process. Never the less, even disbarred lawyers can proceed pro se. I posted a S.C. reference to that effect, but it was deleted. I can provide you with a WI Supreme Court decision saying that the court does not distinguish between pleadings written by a pro se never lawyer, a disbarred lawyer, or a lawyer in good standing. Also, one of the historic cases discussed was by a disbarred lawyer. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay/IP24.183.52.130: Please re-read my comments above: "Like most legal rights, the right to proceed pro se is definitely not absolute. What I mean by that, in non-legal terms, is that the right can be legally taken away where that right has been found to have been abused."

I do not have time to research the law for you on this point, at least not at this time. However, we're not editing the article itself right now; we're talking about your interaction with other editors, not the substance of the article. I am trying to make the point that you seem to keep pushing this idea that the right to proceed pro se is either "fundamental," or "absolute," or both. I think it would be beneficial to you for you to back off from that position at least for a while, regardless of the fact that you believe you are correct. I suggest that you focus less on pushing your view about the the subject of the article and focus more on finding a way to achieve consensus with other editors. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Famspear is spot on. If you do not find a way to work constructively, collegially and cooperatively with other editors, you will not be able to work with them at all. Making assertions about rights, about why all other editors are wrong, about why the article HAS to be a certain way (see WP:TRUTH) is not the way to show that you can work collegially. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Popularity before truth

I did not say once that the article "had to be a certain way". I said that I didn't really care about what the article is called, I don't care about what order the information is presented in. I don't care about getting "recognition" for the 150-200 hours I spent researching the article. I don't care if any or all of my writing is rewritten.

All that I care about is having the references in so that the article is truthful. Primarily I care about acknowledgment that self-representation is a fundamental right. In support of that I supplied many many references. Lar, Artur Rubin and Lex are asking me to go along with Wikipedia publishing to the world that self representation is only a procedural right, which the Supreme Court has already said is not true: If I wasn't being "cooperative" I wouldn't have suggested a group outline nor given you references that you could summarize and contribute under your own name. As deleted by you:

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

You haven't even come up with a quote from Nazi News or the Skinhead Journal to support your position that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong.

You want me to agree that the "theoretical" rights of U.S. citizens are less than the recognized theoretical rights of Jews in Nazi Germany, minorities in pre civil rights U.S, rights of American soldiers held in Iraq, or rights of supposed terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay and you don't want to cite any reference in support of your position. Well, I don't care if you get me banned from Wikipedia, I'm not going to agree that a fundamental right is not a fundamental right.

Here's a suggestion: I have interacted quite a bit with Carolyn B. Lamm. When I was a pro se litigant in 2005-2006, my defendants hired Carolyn B. Lamm to represent them. My wiring was so bad and my logic so illogical that they had to get a $2,000 per hour lawyer, a $250 per hour lawyer couldn't handle me. Lamm is now the ABA president elect, Call Carolyn B. Lamm at 1 202 626 3605 and ask her if she can provide any reference to indicate that self-representation is not a fundamental right.

Another place you could look for references in English to suggest that self-representation in court is not a fundamental right is slave holding America. Maybe you can find some pre civil war law journals in the basis of some Southern law library.

Another place you could look for references in English to suggest that self-representation is not a fundamental right is South Africa before integration.

Other places you could look for references to suggest that self-representation is not a fundamental right is Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Rawanda and/or Darfur. Oh, all those countries adopted one of your deleted references, the U.N. Covenant, at least "in theory" didn't they?

So you have no references to support your position, that self-representation is not a fundamental right, which is your rationale for deleting Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN, the Bible and over 200 other references???? If you have the references to support the statement that you are using to censor references, then state them. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is mislabeled. It is not "popularity before truth", it is "well written is required". I don't really know what sort of right self rep is, and I no longer care, if I ever did. You continue to miss the points made to you. You cannot firehose in vast swaths of text without any organization. You cannot go on about how unfair everyone else is. You cannot make changes to the article against consensus, If you presented a well written, concise, tight paragraph that made the point that some authorities think it's fundamental, it would be happily included. But you are not doing that. The article went from 9K to 70K and got not one word better. It just got longer. Everyone has been telling you that. Try working on some other topics and learn how to write encyclopedia articles where you're not so passionate about getting the truth out. Accusing others of censoring you, etc, just is not on. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

make it better

I have no problems with anyone improving sentence structure and am glad that you concede that you don't have a reason to delete references that reflect the truth that self-representation is a fundamental right. I will insert that back into the article.

Do you want to have a group "organization" plan or outline?24.183.52.130 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---