Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 1

removed content
"It is perhaps unfortunate that legal systems are set up for the convenience of the legal profession, which includes the judges and the attorneys, and not for the parties' convenience, the very people without whom the others would not have a job. It is discerned by litigants that they have an inalienable and absolute right to defend themselves, or to prosecute their cases, under constitutional guarantees."

"Due to the high overhead costs of litigation, and the massive backup of cases, the trend today is to provide legal self-help materials to enable would-be litigants with their cases. Such free materials can usually be found in the courts, but mostly on the internet. The courts and the lawyers are by their very nature intimidating, but slowly the process can be seen to be adapting to these changes, and the courts are realizing that they have to adjust to the demands of the public if they can be helped to be knowledgeable and intelligent, and that they need to hold any inbuilt bias in check."

I removed the prior sections due to editorial content. Manney 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal Implications of Pro Se
Suggest addition of this section in pro se by someone who knows better than me .... I read in another wikipedia article that I can't find now that the Supreme Court held that right to legal counsel could be satisfied by access to a law library OR by attorney representation, which the lower courts have interpreted to mean prisoners who elect pro se waive the right to library access. If someone could confirm this or find other issues, please do ... Mistsrider (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal Standing
I'm looking for information on the legal standing of self-represented cases and judgments when cited in later cases. I realize this is esoteric, but I've been up a creek trying to decipher the phrase, "this case is not to be cited in any other case and is not to be reported in any courts", which I've been finding references to on the Internet lately. Sweetfreek 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CHECK OUT ARIZONA PRO SEE 1THINK LATE 90S TO CURRENT 71.223.34.40 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Added Barbara Schwarz to famous Pro se litigants
I was a bit surprised that she wasn't already listed here. Anynobody 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Might want to add the citations to this article too, so people don't have to go digging through the referenced article to find them... Smee 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Can do, but I thought if editors really wanted to know they'd link over to her article. This is based on my observation that this article doesn't seem to have one (a reference section). If one is required I'm all for it, but if references for Barbara Schwarz are entered it would obligate us to reference all those on the list. Anynobody 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not required, just a thought. In general all Wikipedia articles should have References sections, and be standalone referenced in their own right with citations.  Not any one person's responsibility to reference the whole thing, but at any rate, I will add a references section and see where it goes from there...  Smee 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Still, only referencing one entry makes the entire article look "incomplete" so I've referenced the others from their respective articles. Anynobody 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Clarence Earl Gideon be on the list? His landmark case established the present-day meaning of the 6th Amendment right to counsel - but it started with his representing himself at trial. Any objection to his inclusion? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge from pro per, Litigant in person, and propria persona
I'm suggesting a merge with all these terms. All the articles are as stubby as possible and have no information that differentiates them from pro se.Mneumisi 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Merge -- can I write that?! :-) Yes, it'sa good idea. Let's work on merging all of these. I redirected per pro, another synomym, to Pro se.  Bearian 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've let it go for a while. I went ahead and merged pro per and in propria persona into this article because both of those articles were one sentence. Litigant in person is longer though, and might require more time to integrate the text, plus there may be some difference in English law.Mneumisi 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, the pro se article is quite strongly slanted towards the US - Really all the main body is US specific. That's OK, but any merge would have to take that into account. Francis Davey 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PRO SE and PRO PER are NOT the same. The desire to merge these articles illustrates incredible ignorance. Pro Per is short for PROPRIA PERSONA, Pro Se is not. A Pro Se litigant is representing himself, and a Pro Per litigant is there AS himself with out any representation.

From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary PROPRIA PERSONA. In his own person. It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propria persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeHovell (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

pro se rights????????????
'''I am pro se in a law suit and the plaintiffs attorneys have been brutal. They illegally broke into my e-mail and i went for a dismissal. The judge ruled that because the emails were not attorney/client previledged that the plaintiffs attorneys could have simply asked for the e-mails. Problem is that the e-mails were evidence that I was collecting to prove them frauds which is what this entire case is about. Is there law to protect a pro se under these circumstances? Thank you, Robert dive101@hotmail.com Dive101 01:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These questions are rather inappropriate for wikipedia. You will have a lot more luck looking for answers on a newsgroup.Mneumisi 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that you probably have a good reason to litigate your contest pro se, but at this point, you might want to consider getting a lawyer, since that is a very technical question. Check with your local Bar Association or Legal Services for help. Someone might take this case pro bono. Even if you lose this case, you may have a cause for appeal. Or, more likely (since the plaintiffs might really have had access to the emails), you might have a separate tort suit for invasion of privacy. --Eshatologist 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of pro se litigation
These two articles --  -- feature criticism of pro se litigation. (Per, WP:SCOIC, I note that I wrote the second article.) Is there any objection if I write a criticism section? THF 12:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

pro se civil law my supreme Court case quotes were removed why?
../Kay Sieverding case law 1 quotes removed to subpage &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My talk page was also deleted. Do you need my password to check my supreme court case quotes. I don't understand why

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 21:43, August 31, 2008


 * We need a third party source (law review article?) pointing to the court cases, and the quotes are much longer than relevant for the article. As far as I can tell, your talk page was not deleted.  Your user page was because it contained only information supporting about your lawsuit, not relevant to Wikipedia; and that it contains material defamatory to real people, and is sourced only by your opinions.  (And it appears that your WI/MN lawsuit is arguably prohibited by the 11th Amendment.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The information that I put on my "user page" was not defamatory because it was true and I could prove it. In any case, after you deleted my "user page" I cut those references out. I saw on other people's user oages contained personal information about them. I thought that was what a user page was supposed to contain. What are the requirements for a user page? If you want you can say that I am 53 years old, married, and I graduated from MIT. Would that be acceptable to you?

What do you know about my MN law suit and why do you care? My MN lawsuit has nothing to do with the 11th amendment because I didn't sue a state government and the defendants didn't even mention the 11th amendment. In my MN case I sued only one party, a law firm, and they offered no defense other than that they thought I shouldn't be able to represent myself.

If I shorten the Supreme Court quotes above will you leave them in?

I could also add the WI supreme court and the CO Supreme Ct.

Why do you need a law review article in order to quote the Supreme Court and the U.S. code? I am very concerned because the page as it is is actually false, wrong, conflicting with the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

../Kay Sieverding case law 2 quotes removed to subpage &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above I shorted my first three quotes and hope that is acceptable.

The discussion of pro se rights in criminal law is also incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled that the mentally ill do not have a right of self-representation. Also, in most criminal cases where there is pro se representation the court appoints standby counsel. One reason that pro se representation is popular in criminal cases is that it allows a jury to see the accused as a articulate and reasonable person, if they are. Also, the public defenders are so overburdened that they have little time to prepare.

There should be a new section here about ECF. How can we make a new section? ECF stands for Electronic Case Filing Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your ability to research case law, we (Wikipedia) cannot include it unless a reliable source, such as a law review article, reports the relevancy. Look at the discussion in regard tax protester arguments; some law review articles note that the arguments are unfounded, some being clear (except to them) misinterpretations of court decisions, and all courts agree that they're unfounded, so we do not include them except in articles about those arguments.  I'm not saying that your arguments are flawed, be we really don't know unless a court has accepted them, or a published source makes note of the relevance and interpretation.  On Christopher Michael Langan, Jimbo intervened and removed information on court cases in which Chris is a defendant, because the only source that the court cases were important was the plaintiff.


 * As for your user page, truth is not adequate, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. WP:BLP requires that any potentially defamatory information about a living person be sourced to a reliable source (or to the person himself, in a published statement); court filings, or statements made under penalty of perjury, are not adequate.


 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Pro se section has the most that could be included, if not too much, without reliable secondary sources, such as law review articles. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please correct your "signature" to include your user name. If you use ~, it would automatically produce an acceptable signature, unless you've edited it under the my preferences link.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot include my user name because you deleted my user page twice even after I deleted references to the perjury, which I can prove. Even if you think that I should not be able to state on my user page that I was a victim of perjury that I can prove, my second version of my user page deleted that. I have no idea what you consider acceptable information about myself and why it is any of your business what information about myself I wish to convey. I cannot even attempt to create a new user page because you "locked" it. One potentially acceptable version of my user page would be

"I am 53, married for over 25 years, and hold two degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have no criminal record and, although I was involved in civil litigation, no rule 11 c. 6 order was ever issued against me, I was never involved in a summary judgment hearing, and I was never involved with a jury trial. "

Is that "acceptable" to you?

The article as it stands is fraudulent and it is directly contradictory to both the U.S. code and the Supreme Court. In addition to the Supreme Court I provided similar quotations from 14 circuit court decisions.

Why would a law review article by more reliable than direct verifiable quotes of the Supreme Court itself? All that law review articles do is quote the court. I am unaware of any law review articles on the subject of pro se civil litigation.

Here is the official syllabus of the Winkleman Supreme Court decision. As you can see the Wikipedia article as it stands is contradictory to both the U.S. code and the explanation of the U.S. code provided by the Supreme Court in 2007:

../Kay Sieverding case law 3 quotes removed to subpage &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to the U.S. code U.S. code Title 28 Section 1654 quotations that were deleted

Here is a link to Cornell University Legal Institute

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001654000-.html

Here is a link to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel U.S. House of Representatives. You can verify my quotation by entering Title 28 section 1654

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+3425+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2828%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281654%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I didn't delete your talk page, or lock it against creation; although I would have, if it was brought to my attention. Please check the logs to see who to complain to, but the WP:ANI noted on your talk page is probably the best bet.
 * You deleted my previous comments about your case law dumps, in violation of WP:TALK. However, I don't want to try to recover them, so here are the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you have been violating.
 * WP:BLP applies to your user page; as you make prima facia defamatory comments about individuals, they must be sourced by Reliable sources, or they will be promptly removed.
 * WP:TALK requests that you sign your contributions with your user name and date, and not remove others' contributions.
 * WP:SIGNATURE suggests what is appropriate in a signature, and it does not include "Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy"
 * WP:NOT: " Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia."
 * WP:PRIMARY suggests that information should only be included in an article if its relevance is established by secondary sources. Your case law dumps are primary sources, and should only be included if there are reliable secondary sources.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I deleted anything anyone else wrote from the talk section. You are the only person who deleted from this talk section.

I followed your suggestion and contacted the other administrator to find out what he will allow me to say on my user page.

I don't understand your comment about not allowing the Supreme Court to be cited as since then I found a Wikipedia article about the S.C. case that I cited with links to the Supreme Court decision. The other Wikipedia page does not include any law school articles. It is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkelman_v._Parma_City_School_District

Here is a law school article about the Winkleman case

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2006/winvpar

I looked up Wikipedia primary sources and found this definition: "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; videos; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs".

The U.S. code and the U.S. Supreme Court do not meet the definition of primary or secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, will you please allow me to quote the U.S. code and the U.S. Supreme Court without your deleting the U.S. code and the U.S. Supreme Court statements?

Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I deleted my own comments from the talk page, in an attempt to refactor it. I apologize for accusing you.  I suppose I should have protected the page (temporarily) while I was moving out the case law dumps to subpages, but some might construe that as being improper.
 * Court decisions and the text of laws are primary sources, at least in the context of WP:BLP. Now, only your user page violated WP:BLP, so that's not directly relevant, but the relevance of the decision to the concept at hand must be provided by a secondary source.  The Duke article clearly does that for Winkelman v. Parma City School District, so a short excerpt from the commentary there and from the ruling or syllabus could be included. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The administrator allowed one sentence in my user page so that now exists at least. I did quote two sentences from that U.S. Supreme Court case.

I would like to quote the WI court case, which I think is highly relevant to today's economic situation. That case is quoted on the official annotated Wisconsin constitution. Does that make it acceptable for me to quote that case? see Article 1 section 21

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems primary, but the legislature may be a relevant secondary source for interpretations of the constitution. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the case as you agreed but I forgot the Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC). When I used a minor edit to add the Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) it put the signature on the page and I can't figure out how to get it off Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted that. It's either your signature (not allowed on article pages) or an unsourced editorial comment.  To clarify, signatures are not allowed on article pages, and your "tag line" is not allowed on an article page unless sourced to a reliable source, which does not include you or your web page(s).  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. I also would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision about pro ses. The case is listed in Wikipedia about the Canadian Supreme Court. It is

Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36

It is cited here http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/pdf/Judging-the-Judges-10-April-2007.pdf http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144689 http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf http://ohlj.ca/english/documents/01-Dodek.pdf

Would that be OK? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if any of those are non-primary and reliable. Please cross-check and find which of them may describe the applicability of the case without being contained within a court decision, and are not from a personal web site or blog.  Also, you would need to find a place to locate it in the article.  It clearly cannot be in the US section.  Also, you state "listed in Wikipedia" above.  I cannot find it.  2004 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada seems to be a literal translation from the French, and is not actually correct.  "reasons" should be "opinions" or some other legal term.  Please wait for an opinion from someone else before adding it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia page I referred to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_reasons_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Canada

The discussion page says

Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.

One article referring to it, coming up on Google is

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT CASES FOR REGULATORY BODIES by Lisa C. Fong.

http://www.ngariss.com/v2/publications/PAPER-ASPPB-2008-05-24.pdf.

It says:

“Finney v. Barreau du Québec is a Québec case in which a client (Ms. Finney) of a lawyer (Mr. Belhassen) sued the Barreau du Québec (the Québec equivalent of the law society) for failing to protect the public by taking action against the lawyer.”

and discusses the case from page 9 to page 14.

The “Judging the Judges” article is published by the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“The Directors on our governing Board are West Vancouver businessman ClausJensen (Chairman), Simon Fraser University criminology professor Ehor Boyanowsky, Vancouver lawyer Daniel Burns, Vancouver family physician Will Johnston, Vancouver businessman Mark Mitchell, National Post editorial board member Marni Soupcoff, Calgary community volunteer Monique Beaumont, and Ottawa lawyer Christopher Schafer”

and “Our Advisory Board members are Toronto lawyer Avril Allen, Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant in Calgary, and Eugene Meehan, Q.C., head of the Supreme Court Advocacy Group at Lang Michener, Ottawa”

The case is listed on page 39.

“Statutory Immunity” is a discussion paper published by the Administrative Justice Office of the Ministry of Attorney General Province of British Columbia and the case is listed on page 5.

The case is referred to in Developments in Administrative Law: The 2003-2004 Term by Lorne Sossin University of Toronto - Faculty of Law is published by the Social Science Research Network

The case is also referred to in a 49 page article called Canadian Legal Ethics: Ready for the Twenty-First Century at Last by Adam M Dodek

That article refers to a book saying

“See Finney v. Barreau du Quebec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17. Philip Slayton writes about this case in Slayton, Lawyers Gone Bad, supra note 33 at 208-18. I was a member of Finney’s legal team until the fall of 2003 when I joined the staff of Ontario’s former Attorney General, the Hon. Michael Bryant.

All that I want to do is quote the case, not analyze it. Is that OK? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote the case, you need to quote a reliable third party stating it's relevant to the pro se issue. The words "pro se" being in the syllibus or ruling is irrelevant.  (I'm not sure the Canadian Constitution Foundation is reliable; it may be an advocacy group.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the statement about reliable source being required to quote a Supreme Court Ruling. The word "pro se" is used in the ruling many many times and I provided 3 articles and 1 book discussing it.

What is of more concern to me is that the posting, that Mr. Rubin approved, of the U.S. Supreme Court quoting the U.S. code was removed. Why is that? Who did that? Also, Mr. Rubin had approved my quoting a Wisconsin case, which is quoted in the WI annotated constitution. That was also removed with no explanation. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that someone named Steven J. Anderson removed the Supreme Court case that Arthur Rubin had agreed I could post. I posted on this in Deletion Review.

I would also like to quote Supreme Court Justice Scalia from an interview published by the American Bar Association. I don't plan to quote a blogger--I plan to quote the ABA quoting Justice Scalia. Would that be OK? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of posting this

../Kay Sieverding case law 4 quotes removed to subpage — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with that? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The way this article is being expanded with primary sources is not helping the quality of the article. Movingboxes (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where a recent Supreme Court case is defined as  a "primary source". Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

I don't understand why it says that my comment was "unsigned" when I pasted in the 4 squiggles. Is it because I am using a Mac and Safari?

Is it OK to quote this law review article?

National Law Journal Florida judge enlists private attorneys to assist overburdened public defender office Julie Kay / Staff reporter September 04, 2008

../Kay Sieverding case law 5 quotes removed to subpage — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "signatures" do not meet WP:SIGNATURE, as there's no link to your user page or user talk page.
 * And Supreme Court Cases are clearly primary sources, so we need a secondary source that the decision is relevant. Actually, I don't think your selected decisions are relevant to the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

dear Arthur Rubin is Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) how I should be signing? What I was doing before was copying the Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) from the Wikipedia page.

Which Supreme Court decisions do you not think are "relevant" and why?

Did you delete the quotations from the State Constitutions?

I was under the impression that Wikipedia defines a primary source as one based on one's own experience, whereas a quotation of a state constitution, the U.S. code, or a Supreme Court case was verifiable encyclopedic content. Do you want me to post links to the state constitutions in the talk page? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for signatures, normally one uses ~, and, if you select raw signature from the preferences, you must have a link to your user page or talk page.
 * As for court rulings, it has been determined that court decisions may not be used, at least in articles about or referring to living persions, unless the notability of that decision is established in third party reliable sources. I assume the justification is that they're considered primary legal records, which should not be used unless notable.  That might not apply to Supreme Court decisions (which might be considered inherantly notable), but we need third party sources as to the applicibility of the decision to the matter at hand.  It's only in the tax protester community that I'm aware of bizzare interpretations of court rulings, but I suspect that many fringe (or outright crackpot) legal views do the same thing.  (Regardless of whether your views are crackpot, the judges clearly consider them so, according to the deleted text on your user page.)  As we on Wikipedia are not (all, or even many) legal scholars, we may not include court decsions without a third party source.  The pun I made above about you being constitutionally (def. 5) unable not to perform legal research suggests that you shouldn't be editing article about legal terms.  I've tried to avoid editing mathematical articles where I am the secondary source, even if I were am considered an expert.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin: I think you are correct. Exclusively citing a primary source that requires interpretation to make it relevant may violate NOR - even if the OR is also a R.S. However, I am not willing to make a general rule against citing primary sources in law articles. First, the primary source could feature so much explanation that its meaning is self-evident to lay persons. Second, the mistake could be harmless. The goal of substantive edits is to provide verifiable content. If an expert cites a primary sources rather than a secondary source, it may be a technical violation of OR, but harmless, if the material provided turns out to be verifiable. (I rely on this position from time to time myself, if I have a digest or casebook at hand, and not a secondary source). Perhaps you have too, from time to time?


 * Law is a vexing subject, because it can be indeterminate, but there is still a difference between "novel" and "crackpot." The question is how fine is the line. Either way, "Kay's" edits are disruptive, and have cluttered this article and its talk page with a whole lot of nonsense. It was a slightly uninformative stub before. Now it's an unreadable mess. Also, this "Kay's' signature is disruptive. I believe it too is a policy violation, and not a harmless one; it tends to cast doubt over all of his or her edits to this article. I believe he or she should be stopped before this gets out of hand. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problems with my signature is because Mr. Rubin twice deleted my user page and somehow it didn't get properly reconnected. I will email to Wikipedia about it. If you think my tag line is a problem then complain to Wikipedia about it. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

Question, Comment:
1: Mr. Rubin: Is a SCOTUS case (or any court opinion) ALWAYS a primary source? I would agree that they are primary sources for articles about the cases, or articles about the issue[s] the case decided. However, I think a case opinion could also be a secondary source, if used merely for its analysis. This is a general question, and should in no way be construed as second-guessing your edits on this article, which were useful cleanup.

2: This article needs to mention the important LIMITATIONS on the right of self-representation --

A) there is no right of self-representation on appeal. B) The written thoughts, notes or impressions of a self-represented litigant may not be protected by the attorney work product doctrine. C) A self-represented litigant is generally not eligible to recover attorney fees, even if he or she prevails in a case where a prevailing party is, by contract or by statute, authorized to recover attorney fees. D) A self-represented criminal defendant may be contacted or questioned by police or prosecutors after the initiation of judicial proceedings; attorney-represented criminal defendants may not.

The article also does not cover the procedural aspects of self-representation, which can be terribly important (e.g. how to elect to proceed self-represented; formalizing waiver of counsel; available resources).

Those who take responsibility for this article should be aware, and make some effort to incorporate these matters. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But that would be highly jurisdiction dependent wouldn't it? In my jurisdiction in non-criminal cases (and usually in criminal cases) there is an absolute right for anyone, individual or company, to self-represent. I could go on. Perhaps all this highly US-specific material ought to be hived off elsewhere? (though maybe pro se is a term only used in the US, I do not know). We all take responsibility for this article by the way. Francis Davey (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A) I am not advocating disregard for WP:OWN. But I don't have time to make substantive edits right now. And frankly, I'm not that good at editing some of these articles. Right now, I'm way too busy with work to even try. I'm suggesting that someone who is interested in doing substantive work should take a look at it.


 * B) The limitations on self-representation I described above are common to many US jurisdictions, particularly the fact that it does not extend to appeals. I don't know any US jurisdiction that has treated that right as absolute. I know english-language wikipedia law articles are supposed to be international, not US-centric, but that doesn't mean we can't supply information about the US treatment; it's notable, and affects a lot of people.

The State of Wisconsin Supreme Court calls self-representation an absolute right. See quote from WI annotated constitution. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * C) I'm curous: do you know of somewhere that they allow pro se criminal defendants to represent themselves on appeal? I've never heard of something. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Jailhouse lawyer Michael Ray has accomplished something rarely achieved by even the most experienced of attorneys on the outside: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a case for one of his fellow inmates.

Legal experts estimate the high court accepts less than 1 percent of the thousands of cases it receives each year. The Court's action was even more extraordinary in this instance, because the appeal was drawn up by a prisoner who earns 29 cents an hour and does not even have a college degree, much less a law school education." see http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202211781024/ and http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/27/29-cent-per-hour-jailhouse-lawyer-under-investigation/ Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the only restriction on self-representation in England and Wales is that in certain criminal cases - in particular rape the accused is not allowed to cross-examine the victim as this (it is felt) could permit an abuser to abuse further. In such cases I believe that court appointed counsel will do the job (in other words the job is done by someone). I am fairly sure - though have never seen it myself - that there is no reason for someone not to be a litigant in person on appeal in a criminal matter. One certainly sees them all the time in civil matters of course. Francis Davey (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anywhere where it says that people cannot represent themselves on appeal. The plain language of U.S.C. Title 28 Section 1654 says "all courts of the U.S.". It doesn't say "all district courts". Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)


 * People can and do represent themselves on appeal, however they can be required (by the court) to appear only through counsel. The 6th Amendment does not require appellate courts to allow self-represented litigants to waste their limited time. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a 2nd circuit decision that within it quotes 2 law review articles and 4 history books. I checked the Wikipedia article on the First Amendment and see there that the Supreme Court is quoted and summarized many times without citations to any newspaper, magazines or law review articles quoting them. So in that article, the Supreme Court was treated as an encyclopedic source not as a primary source. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

Material moved from article
The following material has been moved from the article to here:


 * William Penn "The Pennsylvania Frame of Government of 1682, perhaps "the most influential of the Colonial documents protecting individual rights," 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 130 (1971) (hereinafter Schwartz), provided:


 * "That, in all courts, all persons of all persuasions may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manner, and there personally plead their own cause themselves; or, if unable, by their friends. . . ."


 * That provision was no doubt inspired by William Penn's belief that an accused should go free if he could personally persuade a jury that it would be unjust to convict him. In England, 12 years earlier, Penn, after preaching a sermon in the street, had been indicted and tried for disturbing the peace. Penn conceded that he was "unacquainted with the formality of the law," but requested that he be given a fair hearing and the "liberty of making my defence." The request was granted, Penn represented himself, and, although the judges jailed him for contempt, the jury acquitted him of the charge. "The People's Ancient and Just Liberties Asserted, in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead, 1670," reproduced in 1 Schwartz 144, 147. See The Trial of William Penn, 6 How.St.Tr. 951 (1670), cited in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 397 U. S. 353 (opinion of DOUGLAS, J.)." Footnote 37 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

To be discussed.... Famspear (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How can it be disputed that William Penn was a famous pro se litigant? I didn't interpret what happened either, I quoted the Supreme Court. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you are driving at. The issue is not whether William Penn was a "famous pro se litigant." And the issue is not whether "self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy". Please stay on topic.

The problem is the grammar and presentation, which appear to be confusing. Perhaps this is what was intended:


 * William Penn wrote, in "The Pennsylvania Frame of Government of 1682":


 * "That, in all courts, all persons of all persuasions may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manner, and there personally plead their own cause themselves; or, if unable, by their friends. . . ."

The verbiage beginning with "That provision was no doubt inspired" appears to be commentary. So, whose commentary is it? Is it commentary by Schwartz? The confusion is made worse by the way in which the material is followed by a citation to "The People's Ancient and Just Liberties..." etc., etc. Obviously, the statement that "the provision was no doubt inspired..." is probably not an assertion from the material entitled "The People's Ancient and Just Liberties..." It could instead be commentary by "Schwartz" -- but the placement of the citations is such that it's difficult to make sense of this. Perhaps all of this is a quote from the Supreme Court case. Please clarify. Famspear (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire quote you removed including the subquotes was copied the U.S. Supreme Court decision so it is their writing you are criticizing not mine. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)


 * Dear Kay Sieverding: I think we're having a communication problem here. If the material you posted is from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, then it was not being presented properly in the article. I'll try to help you clean this up. There are two Supreme Court cases mentioned, so maybe the material is from one of those cases. Stay tuned... Famspear (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I found the material; it was indeed copied and pasted from the Faretta case, the last Supreme Court case you cited. Copying and pasting is OK in certain circumstances, but in this case it created confusion. It's not a question of criticizing the Supreme Court language; it's a question of proper presentation in Wikipedia. Stay tuned..... Famspear (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More material moved from article to here:


 * Antonin Scalia is a current member of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2008, he published "Making Your Case". In August 2008, he gave a speech to the American Society of Legal Writers and said:


 * "I do not believe that legal writing exists... That is to say, I do not believe it exists as a separate genre of writing. Rather, I think legal writing belongs to that large, undifferentiated, unglamorous category of writing known as nonfiction prose. Someone who is a good legal writer would, but for the need to master a different substantive subject, be an equivalently good writer of history, economics or, indeed, theology... it must become to clear to anyone who is burdened with the job of teaching legal writing, that what these students lacked was not the skill of legal writing, but the skill of writing at all. To tell the truth, at as late a stage as law school, I doubt this skill can be taught. What I hoped to have conveyed to my charges in those years were merely the prerequisites for self- improvement in writing, which are two things. Number one, the realization—and it occurred to my students as an astounding revelation – that there is an immense difference between writing and good writing. And two, that it takes time and sweat to convert the former into the later." ABA Journal, Scalia: Legal Writing Doesn’t Exist, Aug 9, 2008

The above material appears to be extemely tangential. Please, let's stay on topic. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotations of U.S. Supreme Court as verifiable source
[RFCstyle]

Can the Supreme Court's discussion of legal history be quoted with footnotes as a verifiable encyclopedia or is it considered to be a "primary source" that must be supported by student law review articles?

Should the Supreme Court's discussion of legal history be quoted as they wrote it or should it be shortened by an editor?

Is this request formatted properly?

16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) on 7 Sept. 2008.


 * No, it's not formatted correctly AT ALL. Please move the rest of your case law dumps to talk subpages before I remove those which are clearly inappropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how to post a RFCstyle. All of the Supreme Court cases I quoted are directly relevant to the subject and the only cases that are posted are from Supreme Courts. How can quoting Supreme Court be a "dump"? Why was it a problem to quote Justice Scalia and the ABA journal? 24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to phrase this as a personal attack, but when I look at a history of numerous edits by a single editor, I can identify a pattern. That pattern is is a series of COI-edits by a single-purpose user, who has identified him or herself as same by using a provocative signature. The edits are position-advocacy and OR. Many of them are not presented in a way that is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place to go to grind an axe. This editor does not get it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page is not supposed to be a place to discuss the subject of the article. My position that "self representation is vital for democracy" was the position of our founding fathers according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court wrote what it wrote. If you find other Supreme Court cases to include, post them. If you find other quotes within the S.C. cases I posted, post them. If you find other laws or rules, post them. But it is not good for Wikipedia to have an article that is incorrect, which is what is was before I posted here. I also posted the S.C. ruling I found that I disagree with--no right to a law library. The article asked for laws and third party publications and I posted what I had. If you find a law library article saying there is no right to self-representation, post it--I won't delete encyclopedia content you post but I object to Wikipedia spreading incorrect information 24.183.52.130 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Kay": Your quote, "I also posted the S.C. ruling I found that I disagree with--no right to a law library" sums up the problem here. Before you start editing Wikipedia articles, you need to go study what Wikipedia IS and what Wikipedia is NOT. Wikipedia articles are not the place for you publish new opinion essays. Please review ALL of the content in the "welcome to wikipedia" message posted on your userpage (dated 31 May 2008). Then hopefully you will understand why your edits to this article are not in-policy. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't publish an "opinion essay". As I said, I looked up all the Supreme Court rulings that cited 28 U.S.C § 1954. and without elaboration, quoted all of them, even though I disagree with the law library one. As I said I "quoted" them, I didn't paraphrase or interpret them. The Faretta decision elaborated on the history of pro se litigation including William Penn and Thomas Paine and I don't understand why it was a problem to have a longer quotation. I preferred to have the S.C. explain the William Penn story than to quote Wikipedia's William Penn story. In any case, even though I think the 2nd Circuit history of the reason for pro se litigation was great and it brought out reasons not listed on the page at this time, and I like the ABA interview with Justice Scalia saying that non lawyers can write well about the law, I can live with the page as it is currently written. Please don't delete the U.S. code or the Supreme Court rulings Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Without checking the tens of kilobytes of text you've posted, you say you "looked up all the Supreme Court rulings that cited 28 U.S.C § 1954. and without elaboration, quoted all of them". That is wrong.  You shouldn't have done that in the article, and, because of its size, you shouldn't have even done it on this talk page.  If necessary, you should have created a sub-page of this talk page for discussion as to which of the quotes should be selected.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay Sieverding requests arbitration
For those interested, user "Kay Sieverding" has requested arbitration. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

I have already posted some comments there. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Readability
I think that perhaps the following point has gotten lost in the discussion. An article must be readable. It is not necessary, and usually not a good idea, to quote ten sources for a point that can be established with a single footnote. It may improve the article to include one or two particularly pithy quotations on the historical importance of the right of self representation. On the other hand, quoting whole paragraphs from cases tends to diminish the impact of the quotations.

For example, if one slogs through the section on court cases, one finds the following passage: The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves". Edwards was diagnosed with schizophrenia following attempted murder by shooting charges related to an attempt to steal a pair of shoes.

Unfortunately, the poor reader is left to wonder just who Edwards is and why he is relevant. Better would be something like this, possibly in a section on "exceptions and limitations."

Both Federal and State courts have authority to refuse a defendant to represent him or herself when doing so might prejudice the interests of justice. In the case of Indiana v Edwards, the Supreme Court noted that a mentally ill defendant may be competent enough to stand trial, but not competent enough to represent himself. [citation].

Do you see how this flows better and explains the situation better? The interested reader can verify the assertion by looking up the court case, but there is no need to reproduce the exact text. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Robert

Then it should say something like

The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves". Edwards, the subject of the case, was diagnosed with schizophrenia following attempted murder by shooting charges related to an attempt to steal a pair of shoes.

The Rules of Civil Procedure can only be amended thru formal rule making. In other cases, the rules of civil procedure were amended following the decision. The Supreme Court did not give blanket authority to the court's to make psycho evaluations of defendants without written procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kay: it is a point of etiquette to sign one's own messages. SineBot is a nice backstop for those occasions when one forgets, but your persistent failure to sign your remarks yourself may cause other editors to regard you less seriously than they might otherwise.
 * As for your proposed text for the paragraph, while a slight improvement over the original, it is still not going to be nearly so clear as the text should be. The typical reader is going to say, "What case?"  The reader will then notice that you go into great detail about Edwards, his mental condition and the particular charges, and then wonder why these are not even mentioned elsewhere in the article.  The fact is that these details aren't very important.  The law would be the same if the defendant were named Jones, had Alzheimers and was charged with grand theft auto.
 * I'm not at all clear what your point is about amending the Rules of Civil Procedure, so I am at a loss how to respond. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Proper use of Supreme Court and other cases
Robert A.West (Talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Statements by Editors previously involved in the dispute;

Can the Supreme Court's discussion of legal history be quoted with footnotes as a verifiable encyclopedia or is it considered to be a "primary source" that must be supported by student law review articles?

Should the Supreme Court's discussion of legal history be quoted as they wrote it or should it be shortened by an editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) on 7 Sept. 2008. The preceding was transcribed from an improperly-formatted RfC. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

While Kay asks about "student law review articles" and Supreme Court cases, I believe that the issue involves all manner of secondary sources concerning the law, not just law review articles written by students, and all manner of court rulings. I see this as a particular application of Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of primary and secondary sources, with the special circumstance that in the United States the law is whatever the Supreme Court of the United States says it is. Thus, normal primary-source issues of accuracy and bias don't apply, so long as the question remains what the law in the United States is as of a given date. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, only Congress can amend the law and the process for revising court procedures is very elaborate and public (see Title 28 § 2074). There is a very long discussion of common law and the limits to judicial interpretation in the Supreme Court case of Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 03/27/1996).  If it was always so clear what was meant by a particular law or decision, then there wouldn't even be questions of certiorari.  Since there are, then it is unrealistic to expect Wikipedia writers to always agree on the law and to imply to the readers that there is no possible disagreement.  Why  don't we just quote the statutes and the Supreme Court, and then, add comments along the line of "some people interpret this as ...." or "some people think....." or "an argument can be made" ?   It it can be questioned whether or not a circuit court decision is correct, then it certainly can be questioned whether or not an anonymous Wikipedia editor is correct.  I don't see why it is a problem to have these articles become longer if that is what is needed to  express the various points of view.    Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Response, Final Warning:

 * "Kay:" There are several problems with your proposal. This "some people interpret" is disfavored writing on Wikipedia. Why? Because Even though law students write this way, it is imprecise writing and not up to encyclopedia standards. On an encyclopedia, if "some people" means "you," then it's ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is NOT ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA. If "some people" means a reliable published source, QUOTE THE SOURCE, don't hide it behind weasel words.


 * You would know this if you had followed my advice and read up about how wikipedia is supposed to be edited, before jumping into this article, and making a hash of it. I am not going to let you turn this article into your personal opinion-essay, and neither is any other editor. NO MORE ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert A. West's response to Kay's comment

 * You point out, correctly, that the law and rulings are not always clear, that lower-court rulings are subject to appeal, and you seem to understand that rulings may not be transparent to editors who are not legal experts. All these points are reasons not to "just quote the statutes and the Supreme Court..."  The fact that none of us can prove that we are legal experts is the reason we should not "...add comments along the lines of [various phrases]".  Those phrases are what Wikipedia calls "weasel words".  They are imprecise, and often are used to sneak in personal opinion of the editor.  There is almost always a better way to phrase things.
 * As for length of article, that is not the issue. No one is arguing that this articles should not describe different points of view where they exist, provided that they are different enough to be of general interest.  An article should digest the material and make some sort of sense out of the whole; otherwise, readers could just use Google. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

why were 2 state Supreme Court cases deleted?
As an example of the problem two direct quotations of state Supreme Court cases were removed without explanation. Why is it a problem to quote a Supreme court? The deleted citations were:

“The chief judge's directive at issue here clearly discriminates against pro se litigants solely on the basis of their pro se status and, in that respect, lacks any rational basis in fact and thus violates equal protection of the laws” Tassian v. People, 731 P.2d 672 (Colo. 01/20/1987)

"A party to an action may appear in his own proper person or by attorney, but he cannot do both." (Board of Commissioners v. Younger (1865) 29 Cal. 147, 149. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't seem relevent to the article, although you probably should ask the person who deleted them, which can easily be found by using Wikiblame. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Kay Sieverding: I was not the one who deleted the material, but I would like to make some suggestions.


 * It is permissible in certain circumstances to quote from the texts of court opinions. I and other editors sometimes do this in law related Wikipedia articles.


 * There may be a problem here, however: A reader who is not familiar with formal legal analysis may not understand whether the quotations above are rulings, or merely non-binding dicta. Further, a quotation might be a correct statement of the law in the context in which it was made -- i.e., on the facts of the case -- but might not apply on a different set of facts. The only way to know for sure is to analyze the full text of the case itself, at a mimimum.


 * In Wikipedia, the verbatim text of a court opinion may be considered to be a primary source with respect to what the law is, if the quotation is used properly. But, contrary to what many people might assume, most of the verbatim text of a court opinion does NOT consist of a ruling on a point of law. Instead, most statements in most court opinions on "what the law is" are actually non-binding dicta.


 * Further, the danger of using so many primary sources is that you run the risk of two things: First, you might be engaging in something called "original research" (which is a specialized "term of art" with a special meaning in Wikipedia) and, second (and worse), you run the risk of engaging in incorrect original research. Legal texts - especially verbatim reprints of court opinions - are highly technical, and cannot be properly understood by most people without years of study. That is not a negative reflection against non-lawyers. Similarly, in an article on, say, "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity," it would be very dangerous for someone like me (I am someone with no expertise in advanced physics or higher mathematics) to do my own original research and then try to come up with my own conclusions about Einstein's theories and the laws of physics. You may agree or disagree with that, but at any rate, "no original research" is the rule in Wikipedia.


 * Another danger of doing original research in Wikipedia is the natural tendency to want to take statement A from source A and combine that with statement B from source B and then state (or maybe just imply) your own "logical" conclusion C -- and then putting that conclusion C in the Wikipedia article, where conclusion C was not a conclusion reached by source A or source B. This is especially a danger when reading legal texts. Merely having read one or ten or even a hundred court cases does not provide the reader with the kind of understanding needed to perform proper legal analysis.


 * Please note that I am saying that the quotes you provided might be perfectly fine in the context of the article -- or they might not be. (I haven't checked the cases, and I don't really have time to do so at the moment.)


 * In short, some of your edits are subject to be removed by experienced Wikipedia editors not because the edits are bad or wrong, but because they may be perceived as violating the Wikipedia rule about "no original research."


 * I would suggest that you rely less on court cases and look for more secondary sources -- for example, places where law professors or other legal scholars have written articles, etc., about the subject, and rely more on those secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I took your advise and found some ABA articles that I cited that made the same point. Thanks for the advice. KS 24.183.52.130 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making argument, I was quoting cases. And they weren't just cases in general, they were Supreme Court cases. I saw the other day in a Supreme Court decision they said something to the effect that everything they write is quotable and may be relied on. If I find that citation again, then would it be OK to quote the Supreme Court? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

May I interject? As an outside observer (in the sense that I do not practice in the US and know nothing about its civil procedure) the entire subsection concerned with US Supreme Court quotes is inappropriate as it stands as a wikipedia article. I - as a normal reader - simply can't make sense of them. They are given no context that would help me. I strongly urge that the article be cleaned up considerably. That may mean either removing the quotes, providing proper commentary which they illustrate (perhaps moving them to footnotes) or referencing commentary in peer-reviewed journals. At the moment the article is now a complete mess and needs urgent work. I can't do much with it as its not my jurisdiction and know nothing about it. Francis Davey (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand the context--2 weeks ago the article said there was no right to self-representation. Just to get the group to allow me to quote the Supreme Court quoting the U.S. code, I had to find an article. There are very few articles in law journals about the right to self-representation. It is one thing to add content that makes the issue more clear. It is another thing to deliberately mislead the public. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article never said there was no right to self-representation. Non Curat Lex (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the record shows that on August 25th, when I started working on the article, it said:

"In civil lawsuits, there is no right to appointed counsel, nor a fundamental right to proceed without counsel."

I have very strong feelings about this, because I was put in jail for 4 months for filing pro se. On that day, I was told that I was not allowed a lawyer and was not allowed an evidentiary hearing. I was told that I could only make a 5 minute presentation and that the judge "will not listen". As a result of this, I am described all over the Internet as some sort of "wacko". Plus my original case was partially a defamation case and it was dismissed without any findings of fact so I am also burdened by the original defamatory publications. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Kay Sieverding: It is correct to say that in a civil lawsuit in the United States, there is no right to "appointed counsel." A defendant in a criminal case generally has a right to appointed counsel if he/she cannot afford one. A civil lawsuit is not a criminal case.

Some of the federal courts have appointed counsel when there are employment cases. I think D of Kansas is one. There is a right to remedy. Also, the D of N Ill has a special lawyer for pro ses. They had this lawyer for a couple of years and it sounds like it is going pretty well, according to the State of Court message. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)24.183.52.130 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that there is no "fundamental right" to proceed without counsel is a bit cryptic but, in any case, that is not necessarily the same as saying there is no right to self-representation. Certainly, the right to represent yourself in court is, like many rights, a conditional right that can be taken away if the court concludes that you are abusing the legal process.

Do you have any authority for your statement that self-representation is a conditional right? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * K.S.: I do not know what happened to you, but it has no provenance here. Unless it was reported in a quotable source, it is OR, and unreliable. Frankly, I don't believe your claim that you were arrested and jailed for four months solely BECAUSE you sued someone. Given the nature of what you've written on this article, and the attitude you have taken towards the advice dispensed on the talk page, I would not be surprised if you were jailed for causing public disturbances in a courthouse, contempt of court, or violation of a vexatious litigant statute; you are basically causing a disturbance in this article and on this talk page.


 * Next, it is is correct to say that there is no "fundamental right" to proceed pro se in civil litigation; this does not mean that there is no right. There is a right, but it can be LIMITED by the state - for example, vexatious litigant statutes limit the right of access to courts from people who are abusing the process. But apparently you do not know what a "fundamental right" is, or how it differs from other rights. (A lawyer would know.)


 * I would like to add a statement of opinion. I agree that access to the courts is vital to democracy. Everyone, citizen or not, has access, and more. However, exercising a right may have responsibilities. Attorneys know these responsibilities because their livelihoods depend on it. Self-represented parties frequently have the disadvantage of not knowing what they're dealing with, and not knowing how what they do could get them into trouble. The system is required to allow you access; it is not required to shield you from the consequences of abusing that access. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comments about your own legal problems, my understanding was that you were NOT jailed merely for filing pro se, but rather that the court concluded that you were abusing the legal process,

Actually there were no evidentiary hearings. There were no injunctions. There were no rule 11 c. 6 orders. I wasn't accused of contempt of court when the order was issued. There was no discovery so I wasn't accused of violating discovery. There was only one oral hearing, 18 months prior, and I was very very polite. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

so that the court therefore issued an order to the effect that you could no longer file lawsuits pro se, but that you could still file lawsuits if you were represented by legal counsel.

Can't afford a lawyer and I am apparently blacklisted Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is why I think the remedies clauses are relevant. I am not unsympathetic to the challenges of judges. I think courts should have on-line courses in procedure for pro ses. Incidentally, there is a manual for pro se civil complaints on one of the federal court sites. What would you think about linking to that? 24.183.52.130 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(I don't know the context of your statement that you were "not allowed a lawyer," so I can't comment on that.)

I was told in court that I would not be allowed an evidentiary hearing, a lawyer or a jury trial before I was sent to jail. But this is not about me. If you want the transcript send me an email. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On your point about not being afforded an evidentiary hearing -- generally speaking, there may indeed be no right to an evidentiary hearing in a civil case where there is no genuine issue of material fact presented in the case.

We disputed the magistrate's report. The judge didn't make any findings of fact. I don't know why he dismissed it. But this is not the place to discuss it. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What you believe is a genuine issue of material fact is not necessarily what the law views as a genuine issue. If, as the court concluded, you were abusing the legal process, it may well have been that this was because, as a matter of law, you presented no genuine issue of material fact. If that happened to be the case, then affording you an "evidentiary hearing" would have been a meaningless, pointless exercise -- by definition.

The magistrate said my complaint sounded like a Hornbook textbook. A lawyer who I had previously paid thousands of dollars to looked over my complaint after I filed it and found no error in it and offered ongoing free advice. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know all the details of your case, but with all due respect, your past legal problems and your "strong feelings" might be considered, in the minds of other Wikipedia editors, to have created something of a conflict of interest for you. Please take that into consideration. Famspear (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to law, we are all coming from somewhere. That's why Wikipedia has a process to allow different points of view to be heard. In the articles about presidential politics, religion and abortions, people are also emotionally involved. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay Sieverding: Above, you wrote:


 * I saw the other day in a Supreme Court decision they said something to the effect that everything they write is quotable and may be relied on. If I find that citation again, then would it be OK to quote the Supreme Court?

I think you know the answer to that question (the answer is a two letter word, not a three letter word). Please review the Wikipedia rules and guidelines regarding original research. And no, the Supreme Court does not take the position, and has never taken the position, that "everything they write is quotable and may be relied on" -- not in the sense in which you are thinking. Also, the rules regarding precedent and obiter dicta apply to all court opinions. Famspear (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked up "obiter dicta" and that was useful. The history of pro se litigation in the 2nd Circuit and the Faretta decision were very elaborate and included footnotes to history books, so that makes a difference doesn't it? Also, what do you think is the problem with including the Tassian v. People Colorado Supreme Court decision? That was the decision itself. I would really like for that to be included in this article, if I can convince you. I just don't know that I can find a law review article quoting it but I might be able to find it used as a footnote if that would make a difference to you. KS 24.183.52.130 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You want authority that access to the courts is not a "fundamental right." See Allan Ides and Christopher N. May, _Examples and Explanations: Constitutional Law, Individual Rights" (Aspen 2004), pp. 293-294 (citing United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 1973); Cf. Id. at pp. 53-120 (explaining "fundamental rights" and enumerated due process fundamental rights); Cf. Id. at 259-302 (enumerating equal protecton fundamental rights). As you will see from reading Ides and May's book (which is written in plain english -- I highly recommend my former professor's work!) "access to the courts" is a very limited right in terms of what The U.S. Constitution will interfere with or forbid.


 * Also, there are numerous examples of state laws which restrict access to the courts or even discriminate, and do not violate the U.S. Constitution. See e.g. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code [CCP] ss. 391-391.7 (Deering's 2008) (vexatious litigants) ; CCP ss. 425.17-425.18 ("Anti-SLAPP") (Deering's 2008); Former Cal. Gov. Code ss. 26827, 68087 (held unconstitutional on oher grounds in Estate of Claeyssens, 161 Cal. App. 4th 465 (2008)(finding discriminatroy filing fee structure unconstitutional because state voters had voted to repeal state death taxes). These are just a few examples to show the obvious: states can and do discriminate and impair access to the courts, constitutionally.

As far as California goes, there are discussions that there law is probably unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it. As far as "vexatious litigants" go, Australia had a vexatious litigant statute and they declared someone to be so for suing a tobacco company, one of the first. If they had such a statute in the U.S., people probably would have lost their rights for suing the Catholic church. As far as U.S. History, read the text of Farretta and you will see that self representation was the norm at the time and considered the obvious right thing to do. It wasn't an issue in 1776 and in 1789 it was made part of the U.S. code, the year before the 6th amendment.

What I would do if I was on the U.S. Judiciary committee, is make part of the filing fee a credit for taking a procedure class. I would allow 2 months tolling after filing to take the procedure class. I would make ECF as good as possible with links and drop down menus for everything, numbered causes of action etc. and allow everyone to use it. In the D of MN everyone can use ECF and they have no problems with pro ses.

If a pro se breaks a law in court, perjury, witness intimidation, corrupt persuasion, then they are supposed to be criminally prosecuted. Those same acts would be crimes if lawyers committed them and the criminal laws are clear. The equity power of the court is to be used in the minimum amount possible for the need. So if someone doesn't show up for discovery, they can be fined, or their case even dismissed with persistent violations. But people are guaranteed a remedy.

If a lawyer persistently and repeatedly violates rule 11, they can lose their bar license. But if they lose their bar license, court records are clear that they can still represent themselves. I can provide you case law showing that a disbarred lawyer is specifically allowed to represent himself. There is a case in the WI Supreme Court saying that the court does not distinguish between filings between a lawyer, a disbarred lawyer, and a pro se who was never a lawyer. What is suppose to matter is the argument, not who wrote the argument. Similarly, the argument is supposed to be received the same if the lawyer went to lower Podunk U or to Harvard.

The rules of evidence say that all people are presumed qualified to give evidence. I think what that means is that if you have been committed guilty of perjury and go to jail and when you are there you are raped, you can sue. Then the defense would challenge your testimony and point out that you were committed of perjury (impeach your testimony) but you could argue that your perjury was financial fraud and your testimony is supplementing other evidence or whatever. These same issues come up whenever a crime is prosecuted based on confession reports from other inmates. That is for a jury to decide.

In my case, my testimony was never impeached because I was very careful not to lie. I don't lie in my personal life either. In court, it makes it easy because then I never have to remember what I said and everything I write is consistent. My biggest problem is having emotions seep into my pleadings. For instance, here I woke up in the middle of the night to plead my case to Wikipedia. It is a tell. But my emotions support my claims.

Having multiple cases dismissed doesn't make it impossible to have a valid complaint. For instance, one defamation case was won. Then the newspaper defamed the plaintiff again. He sued them 13 more times until it was agreed that it was not res judicata because the defamation was in a different time period.

In my case, I believe there was corrupt persuasion in my original case and I have evidence to support that. So I filed under rule 60b(3) for relief from judgment. The defense sent me their bills itemizing ex parte conferences and the rules were not followed. For instance, I disputed the magistrate's report and I filed for summary judgment. But no findings of fact were made. The judgment did not comply with rules 52a and 54a. But everyone made fun of me when I wrote that and discounted what I wrote about procedure because i didn't have a law license. All my other actions were dismissed on the basis that I was ordered not to engage in pro se litigation. But if you look at what the defense did, it meets the description of witness intimidation and witness retaliation. That case was dismissed for the sole basis that I was not a lawyer. Not one other defense was filed nor were any errors found in my writings. I appealed that. The defense filed a motion suggesting summary disposition because I was not a lawyer. They did not file a reply brief. The panel dismissed within 3 hours. I filed an objection where I showed that our appeal did not meet the requirements for summary disposition but I was too 30 minutes late. They probably wouldn't have read it anyway. I appealed to the En Banc and quoted 4 Supreme Court filings. They denied that without reason. I filed a second petition for rehearing quoting "“there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel)” WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007)". The En Banc court withdrew their dismissal and said it was in error. I believe that they will issue an opinion stating that there is an absolute right to self representation.

The case everyone sites as the worst pro se litigant is about Martin T. something. He was a prisoner who sued judges some 25 times and he called them names in his pleadings. I think what they should have done is used his prisoner funds to edit the name calling out of his writings.

You have to really consider the consequences of removing someone's right to use the courts for redress of differences. One man wrote that it is like having a bull's eye painted on one's back. In my case, my biggest problem is defamation. This totally interferes with my life both social and economic. My defendants told me that they can publish anything they want about me and there is nothing I can do to stop them.

They thought I would commit suicide, I think. But I am a 53 year old MIT grad who is locked in a pattern of intellectualizing and problem solving. So I resorted to service by publication and accused them of various things I won't post here. If they sue me, then I can present my counter claims.

All the laws are linked. An injunction against self-represented litigation cannot be legally enforced because rule 5 requires the clerks to docket and Canon III requires the courts to listen. Jailing to deter filing in court is Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law and Witness Intimidation, both of which are felonies. Res judicata is an affirmative defense that requires the party claiming it to point to the record where an issue was actually decided. In my case, nothing was decided.

If you look at international law, you will see in the U.N. Covenant, the constitution of Germany etc. that people cannot legally be incarcerated except for what is recognized as a crime. If you restrict litigation to those who have lawyers, you will find that lawyers around the world will deprive services, or provide bad service, to various sub groups such as those of the wrong color, wrong religion, wrong sexual orientation etc. That is why I believe that self representation is vital to democracy.

I think that because of the increasing economic problems, that there will be an increase in self represented litigation and that the courts will just have to deal with it. I think that expanded ECF and on line education is the way to go.

The Internet has forever changed the practice of law. Change isn't necessarily bad and in any case, it is impossible to make the Internet go away. If you look at graphics, a field also changed by computer technology, it wasn't so bad. The old jobs of manually laying out graphics and then taking using photo processes, disappeared. New jobs, designing video games and computer graphics movies, appeared. Law is supposed to be about the needs of the public, not the needs of lawyers. I think that what will happen is that there will be a lot more cases and instead of lawyers handling the entire case from start to finish, that they will be involved in many more cases supplementing and advising self represented parties. I think there will be a boom in jobs in legal education directed towards the public--how to divorce, how to adopt, how to write a will, how to write a complaint, etc. I predict they will get around the bottleneck of federal judge supply by hiring many magistrates and that if ECF is freely available and transparent, people will trust magistrates. I hope that the U.S. creates a legal services peace corps and preaches around the globe the virtues of remedy in court instead of thru violence. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dicta is more likely to be quotable than holdings - it is OR to identify what the holdings even are - but also, you've pretty much proven that you can't.As for a complaint that reads like a hornbook, well... that would not be a compliment, not to me. But if you like hornbooks, or practice guides, why don't you try quoting those first.  Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kay Sieverding: Above, you stated:


 * In my case, my testimony was never impeached because I was very careful not to lie. I don't lie in my personal life either. In court, it makes it easy because then I never have to remember what I said and everything I write is consistent. My biggest problem is having emotions seep into my pleadings. For instance, here I woke up in the middle of the night to plead my case to Wikipedia. It is a tell. But my emotions support my claims.

I think this highlights another part of the problem you are having here in Wikipedia. Earlier, you wrote: "But this is not about me [Kay Sieverding]. If you want the transcript [of the legal proceedings,] send me an email."

Well, this talk page discussion is not supposed to be about you, Kay. Yet, of course it unfortunately really is about you, in part. If I recall, you yourself introduced the point about your own legal problems when you wrote that you "have very strong feelings about this" because you were "put in jail for 4 months for filing pro se."

No, we don't want a copy of the transcript of your legal case. We simply responded to the effect that you should consider whether your own past legal problems and your related strong feelings -- the problems and feelings that you yourself brought up -- might be affecting your editing here.

Similarly, you are now saying that you "woke up in the middle of the night" to "plead" your case "to Wikipedia." Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to plead your case. I respectfully suggest that what you are doing might be what we refer to in Wikipedia as "soapboxing". It's a violation of the rules. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly, soapboxing tends to make Wikipedia worse. "Do everything you can to make Wikipedia better, and avoid making it worse:" That is the sum of all the policies, all the guidelines and all the essays.  I stress this because I don't want you to feel that you have run afoul of arcana or arbitrary rules.  Our goal is to write clear, informative prose from a neutral point of view.  Everything that anyone here has asked you to do, or to refrain from, has been the result of years of experience and thousands of hours of discussion about what makes good articles and productive discussions and what makes for bad articles and unproductive discussions. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual
The section on resources for the pro se litigant, while potentially valuable to someone who is considering doing this, runs afoul of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a how-to guide. I have, accordingly, removed the section. If this same information is available elsewhere on the web, an external link may be useful and appropriate. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, Mr. West, but the section on resources for the pro se that you removed was only one paragraph. Furthermore, the section on resources for the pro se was there probably for years but it was only removed when I inserted links.  If you look on Wikipedia for baseball and football, there are several pages each on how the game is played. To me, this seems like censorship.  Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One paragraph may well be one paragraph too many. We edit based on consensus. Given the resistance to most of your changes, you need to make the case for them, carefully, and convincingly, or they will not stand. Wikipedia is not censored. Making the charge that it is really won't make your case. However, Wikipedia is edited, by those who are in tune with the project (read the resources you were pointed at, please, and internalise them), to be an encyclopedia. Not a how-to manual, or a polemic. Long lists of resources or instructions are not encyclopedic. Your example of the inclusion of the rules of baseball is not an apt analogy. You need to start carefully contemplating how to be effective, or you may well find yourself in a position where you can make no contributions at all. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only one paragraph. I think it was 15 lines. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec, to Kay). Wrong.  You replaced the unsourced short paragraph with the long quote you I referred to on your talk page, apparantly copied from a legal services web site, then started adding (probably inappropriate) citations to the elements within the quote.  Quotes, per Wikipedia guidelines, are not wikilinked nor independently cited.  Furthermore, you have a strange idea of what a sourced statement is in regard Wikipedia.  But that's a matter for another post. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on resources for pro ses was already there. I just added to it. I wrote what I added, I didn't copy it. When you accused me of copyright violations and asked me to prove that it wasn't copied, I inserted the footnotes. But I did find that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual so if you want to delete the section, fine. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kay, you are 100% correct that the paragraph was there before and was a how-to guide before. I infer that you rather naturally assumed that a section that pre-dated your involvement with the article must be within guidelines.   It is my opinion that the section was not appropriate before you edited it, and that your edit did not cure the defect.   I boldly deleted it.  Since, after reading WP:NOTHOWTO, you appear to agree that the deletion was proper, then Wikipedia has been improved and we can move on.  Please don't forget that the removed material is permanently available in the edit history if you wish to use it for some other purpose, such as transcribing it to a discussion group, or writing a Wikibook.  Robert A.West (Talk) 06:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Pro ses do need the information though. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHOWTO is clear. No how-to. Raggz (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, however, a separate Wiki specifically for how-to information. It is called WikiHow.  The removed information should be right at home there, and there is no objection to having a link from a Wikipedia artile to a relevant how-to page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus - ARCHIVE TALK PAGE?
This talk page is highly cluttered. Some of this needs to stay up because not everyone who is, or might be, involved has had a chance to read it. However, I would like to move for PROMPT archival, say, by the end of the month? All who agree..? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, provided there is some move to tidy up. Francis Davey (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tidying will be non trivial since Kay has done a lot of interleaving (viz. one person inserting things in between another persons' paragraphs, without keeping straight whose is whose) and a lot of unsigned work, and a lot of changing of previously signed material. These are all things that go against the norms of good talk page behaviour. Before the archive, I'd like to see Kay change away from these habits, or the new talk page will continue to be a hash. So, Kay, again, please read the material you've been pointed at to read. Read up on proper talk page etiquette, and stop interleaving, stop changing the substance of your comments in major ways well after you first made them, stop forgetting to sign. These things are all matters of common courtesy. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, specifically, Kay, spend some time studying the talk page guidelines carefully. Please pay close attention to the good practices section (with particular emphasis on being concise), the notes on editing others comments and on editing your own comments. Following these widely accepted norms will make things pleasant and productive for everyone. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to see the confusing effects of the interleaving corrected -- before the page is archived. I will try to get to it myself -- e.g., moving Kay Sieverding's comments, and putting things back in chronology so the reader can more clearly see who wrote what, and the order in which things were written. I just can't get to it right now. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem w my signing. I have the user page and I put in the squiggles. What I am wondering is if it is a MacIntosh or Safari problem. Right now I am using a different computer. The changes I made to previous comments were very minor. KS 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm on a mac using Safari and I put in four squiggles and it all seems to work. Are you sure they are squiggles? Francis Davey (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move
"Pro se" is a rather abrupt title, particularly because it is an adjective. How about moving this to Pro se litigation, or Pro se litigant, or Pro se representation? bd2412 T 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Pro se litigant" would sound good, in my opinion. Famspear (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How about making it more general say "Representation in Litigation" and having "self-representation", "attorney-representation", "limited-attorney-representation" and "minor-representation"? The subject anyway is "litigation" not "litigant". "Pro se" is slang and is not used in any law that I am aware of. Another subject is attorneys representing themselves. In my litigation, there was an attorney who represented himself and his motion was docketed as "pro se".

If we did it this way, we could list the advantages of attorney representation and discuss cost and payment options.

P.S. I'm sorry about the "interleaving". I did change the box on the signature page. I think maybe something clicked when my user page was turned off and then on again. Do you really think this signature is bad? Aren't there people calling themselves Republicans, Democrats, Right to Lifers, Environmentalists etc. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with re-titling the article. But I think we need to make sure we keep "pro se" and "pro per" for redirects. People do use Wikipedia as a dictionary - and some people use it as a law dictionary. This won't affect those redirects, will it? Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article stands separately (we can and should have an article on the representation of minors, given the issues unique to that problem). The redirects would definitely stay (all the redlinks in my opening line should redirect to the ultimate title as well). On a side note, I was a pro se litigant once myself, many years before I went to law school. And I won my case. :-) bd2412  T 04:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The advantage of keeping the "pro se" in the article is that it signals a US-bias to the article which is then proper (since we are talking about a term of art in a particular set of jurisdictions which share much in common - including the continued use of Latin 8-) ). "self representation" is an article that ought to cover all jurisdictions (if such an article existed). If you move what is here, there it won't and will produce something ungainly and less useful. A general article on self representation in court is going to be pretty useless, all it can say is: sometimes you can and sometimes you can't and there are rules about it usually. The best it could do is point to specific pages everywhere else. Francis Davey (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with moving to Pro se litigation. This is a clearer title, while retaining the advantages that Francis Davey points out.  Self representation just seems less clear to me.  And, while we are introducing ourselves a bit, I am a strong believer in the right and duty of citizens to learn about the law as it actually is, and not as some idealized theory would make it.  This enables us to be better consumers of legal services and to do a better job as electors of those who make, enforce and interpret the laws.  Robert A.West (Talk) 10:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding some of the comments above, the term pro se is not "slang." It's a formal legal term, and it's used all the time in court documents, including formal court opinions containing case law. The term might be found in some statutes or court rules as well; I haven't checked.


 * Wherever we move the article, let's not move the article over to my house (insert appropriate "sound effects" here)! I'm in south Texas, and we have a hurricane bearing down on us. Friends, after Friday if we lose power, I may not be participating on Wikipedia for many days. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, regarding the term "pro se" as a formal legal term: The term is found, for example, in Rule 5.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Famspear (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe, however, that BD2412 is correct to point out that pro se is an adjective. Thus, 5.2(b)(6) speaks of, "a pro se filing".  Article titles are normally nouns, hence "pro se litigation" would be a preferable title.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, Mr. West, with your comment "I am a strong believer in the right and duty of citizens to learn about the law as it actually is, and not as some idealized theory would make it"? I believe strongly that we as citizens have a right to rely on the written law. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to rely strictly on written law, move to a civilian jurisdiction. This is, for better or worse, fundamentally inconsistent with the Anglo-American rule of law. See H.L.A. Hart _The Concept of Law_. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant civil law jurisdiction? Civilian jurisdiction would be in contradistinction to military juridiction, would it not? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am refering to the civil law system. In the international and comparative law lexicon of commoners like myself, their system is known, shorthand, as "civilian." Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant exactly what I said. There are lots of written laws, few of which are completely self-explanatory, and none of which act in complete isolation from one another.  The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches and guarantees "due process of law".  The meaning of those terms is still being worked out.  If I care about rights, I shouldn't be satisfied with just reading those words, but I should gain a fair idea how those rights work in practice.  Congress made it a crime to dump toxic waste into navagable waters:  Is a judge likely to let one off the hook if one dumps the waste into the river just above the head of navagation?  What about dumping into a tributary of a navagable river?  If I care about clean water, I will be far more effective if I have a reasonable understanding of how environmental laws work in practice.  I may think that five members of the Supreme Court went insane in December, 2000, but I would be insane to deny that the result is the law of the land.  I hope that makes my point clearer, and I hope that I have not wandered too far off the topic of this page.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried searching on google on both "pro se" and "self-represented" and I found many more web sites under the latter term than the first. Here is a U.S. judiciary site that came up under "self-represented" that did not come up under "pro se". http://www.lb8.uscourts.gov/pubsandservices/publications/pro_se_200803.pdf Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, but a page called "self-representation" might end up being about the US only, which might cause confusion. "self-representation (US)" might do the trick. I don't want a page that goes the way of most wikipedia law pages which are (I am afraid) in most cases appallingly bad because none of us knows enough law across multiple jurisdictions to get them right, but people insist on putting their own unlabelled knowledge on pages. This page is not so bad in that most of it is clearly marked "US only" which is very helpful. Rules on representation differ so widely that a general page on the subject that covers the world is going to be little better than a disambiguation page. Francis Davey (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have remarked on many pages before, Google was not designed as a tool for quantitative analysis of usage, and is not particularly good at it. Out of curiosity, I tried the search and got the following results.
 * "Self represented":   185KiloHits
 * "Self-represented":   114KiloHits
 * "Self representation": 344KiloHits
 * "Pro se":           2,560KiloHits
 * This is exactly the opposite of Kay's result. Inconsistency is one of my objections to the Google Test for anything beyond identifying non-notable topicsl.  Of the hits on self representation, a significant number concerned writers and performing artists who opted not to employ an agent, which suggests that the Latin title is more precise and therefore preferable. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, also that "self representation" yields unrelated results, such as this page, which about a philosophical concept of the way that we portray ourselves to the world. bd2412  T 01:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One reason that "pro se" might get hits is simply the inclusion in the term in published case decisions as opposed to law review articles. Because of the importance of international law, and the move towards consistency in international law, and the fact that the U.S. ratified the U.N. International Convent, I think it is important to include international law. Did you know that the U.S. government pays the ABA $16 million per year to participate in international law conferences? The reason I know this is that I wrote to the ABA and asked for their financial statements and they sent me their tax returns. How about a hybrid name like "Self-represented (pro se) litigation"?

This weekend I am going to try to find time to go to the UW law library to look up the latest on self-representation.

On another subject, I looked up Barbara Schwartz and she, a living person, said that she does not want to be in Wikipedia so I deleted her OK? Here is a July 2008 interview: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2008-07/msg01802.html Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not okay. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Schwartz
Among the noteworthy pro se litigants, there was a properly-sourced reference to Barbara Schwartz. Her desire not to have any of her activities be included in Wikipedia is not relevant: her numerous filings make her worthy of non-trivial news coverage, irrespective of whether one likes or dislikes them. Wikipedia policy requires only that her activities be reported neutrally. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Just adhere STRICTLY to WP:BLP. NO unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia written policy regarding living persons is

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

What Barbara Schwartz said in the interview with her local newspaper includes:

"I never asked for any public attention. I just asked the government for some records in which I am truly interested. Actually, I am a very private person. I never called the press...here are different versions of Wikipedia articles on me. I contributed to none of them. The Wikipiggy gang banned my IP numbers. ... They did not allow that I provide factual information about my own person and life...Wikipedia administrator Fred Bauder made in March 2007. He asked to delete the article on me with following words: [This article is an] "embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be respected".

I can definitely relate to Ms. Schwartz's concerns because I also consider myself to be a private person, however, fraudulent information was also published about me with the intention of hurting me and the publishers would not let me correct it. I am to the point that I am seriously considering changing my name, although that also presents problems.

Despite my interest in self-represented litigation, I never heard of Barabara Schwartz until I read it here.

I don't believe that a discussion of her adds anything to this article. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this also:

"Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Deletion review This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history." so it sounds like the Wikipedia administrators decided not to have an article about her. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument misses the the point. It was decided (in a manner not consistent with written policy and procedure, but probably the reasonable action, all things considered) not to have a biographical article about her.  That is a far cry from deciding that she cannot be mentioned at all in Wikipedia.  The relevant policy section is WP:ONEEVENT.  The relevant analogy is Bristol Palin, who does not and should not have an article of her own, but is mentioned in one paragraph of the biography of Sarah Palin.  I believe that the large number of pro se lawsuits renders Barbara Schwarz sufficiently noteworthy within the context of this article for the short mention we are discussing.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are really wrong about this. First of all, to post her name at all (which is misspelled) will attract posters and Wikipedia has already stated that it cannot control the accuracy of articles about her. Second, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. There is no discussion here of scientology and she is not prominent in the affairs of society. She stated in the article that she does not consider herself to a public figure and that it is difficult for her to counter false reporting about her. The same thing is true for myself--when defamatory articles were published about me, I had no way to effectively counter them.

"Presumptively erecting the New York Times barrier against all plaintiffs seeking to recover for injuries from defamatory falsehoods published in what are alleged to be reports of judicial proceedings would effect substantial depreciation of the individual's interest in protection from such harm, without any convincing assurance that such a sacrifice is required under the First Amendment. And in some instances such an undiscriminating approach might achieve results directly at odds with the constitutional balance intended. ….Our decision in (Gertz) should make it clear that no such blanket privilege for reports of judicial proceedings is to be found in the Constitution.	It may be argued that there is still room for application of the New York Times protections to more narrowly focused reports of what actually transpires in the courtroom. But even so narrowed, the suggested privilege is simply too broad. Imposing upon the law of private defamation the rather drastic limitations worked by New York Times cannot be justified by generalized references to the public interest in reports of judicial proceedings. The details of many, if not most, courtroom battles would add almost nothing toward advancing the uninhibited debate on public issues thought to provide principal support for the decision in New York Times. See 376 U.S., at 270; cf. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 (1966). And while participants in some litigation may be legitimate "public figures," either generally or for the limited purpose of that litigation, the majority will more likely resemble respondent, drawn into a public forum largely against their will in order to attempt to obtain the only redress available to them or to defend themselves against actions brought by the State or by others. There appears little reason why these individuals should substantially forfeit that degree of protection which the law of defamation would otherwise afford them simply by virtue of their being drawn into a courtroom. The public interest in accurate reports of judicial proceedings is substantially protected by Cox Broadcasting Co., supra. As to inaccurate and defamatory reports of facts, matters deserving no First Amendment protection, see 418 U.S., at 340, we think Gertz provides an adequate safeguard for the constitutionally protected interests of the press and affords it a tolerable margin for error by requiring some type of fault… Russell Firestone alleged in his counterclaim that respondent had been guilty of adultery, but the divorce court never made any such finding… Petitioner may well argue that the meaning of the trial court's decree was unclear, but this does not license it to choose from among several conceivable interpretations the one most damaging to respondent. Having chosen to follow this tack, petitioner must be able to establish not merely that the item reported was a conceivable or plausible interpretation of the decree, but that the item was factually correct. We believe there is ample support for the jury's conclusion, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida, that this was not the case. There was, therefore, sufficient basis for imposing liability upon petitioner if the constitutional limitations we announced in Gertz have been satisfied. These are a prohibition against imposing liability without fault, 418 U.S., at 347, and the requirement that compensatory awards "be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury." Id., at 350. As to the latter requirement little difficulty appears. Petitioner has argued that because respondent withdrew her claim for damages to reputation on the eve of trial, there could be no recovery consistent with Gertz. Petitioner's theory seems to be that the only compensable injury in a defamation action is that which may be done to one's reputation, and that claims not predicated upon such injury are by definition not actions for defamation. But Florida has obviously decided to permit recovery for other injuries without regard to measuring the effect the falsehood may have had upon a plaintiff's reputation. This does not transform the action into something other than an action for defamation as that term is meant in Gertz. In that opinion we made it clear that States could base awards on elements other than injury to reputation, specifically listing "personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering" as examples of injuries which might be compensated consistently with the Constitution upon a showing of fault… she had not been found guilty of adultery… But without some finding of fault by the judge or jury in the Circuit Court, we would have to attribute to the Supreme Court of Florida from the quoted language not merely an intention to affirm the finding of the lower court, but an intention to find such a fact in the first instance… that deference is predicated on our belief that at some point in the state proceedings some factfinder has made a conscious determination of the existence or nonexistence of the critical fact. Here the record before us affords no basis for such a conclusion.” TIME v. FIRESTONE (03/02/76) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The mere fact that the press was attracted to appellants' activities does not make them public figures. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 135, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411, 99 S. Ct. 2675 (1979), "those charged with defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making the claimant a public figure." See also Rollenhagen v. City of Orange, 116 Cal. App.3d 414, 172 Cal. Rptr. 49 (1982) ("a publisher should not be able to define the scope of the privilege by its own determination of what it chooses to publish."). [41]   	We do not believe that DiLeo mandates a finding that appellants are public figures. DiLeo actively sought press coverage of the controversy surrounding his his termination from the police force. Although DeWitt twice initiated contacts with reporters, he probably would have preferred no press coverage at all. [42]    	We are reluctant to make too easy a finding that one is a public figure. Up to this point, we have been focusing on the free expression rights of the press and have been concerned with the chilling effect that libel actions have on the press. There are, however, competing first amendment concerns. Just as too easy a finding of liability on the part of a newspaper has a chilling effect on its expression, too easy a finding that someone has become a public figure by virtue of responding to unfavorable publicity can have a chilling effect on the expression of a private figure. A private figure subjected to unfavorable publicity should not forfeit protection from defamation as a price of his response." Diversified Management Inc. v. Denver Post Inc., 653 P.2d 1103 (Colo. 11/15/1982) Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is all irrelevant surely? She is cited here in a one paragraph remark about a statistic which is notable and sourced. What the US courts might think about it has absolutely no relevance to me or to anyone outside the US (hint: most of the world). Francis Davey (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * First of all, I apologize for the misspelling. That was careless of me.
 * Second, you (Kay) are spending a lot of time arguing a point not at issue: whether Barbara Schwarz is a public figure. That determination has no relevance to whether she can be mentioned passim in this Wikipedia article.  Many non-public figures are mentioned in Wikipedia articles where their actions are of interest.
 * Third, you are correct that her scientology activities are not mentioned, but that fact militates for inclusion rather than against it. The interesting thing is that she has lodged a remarkably large number of FOIA requests (I wonder if she holds a record of some sort) and has chosen to represent herself when litigating the administative actions.  Her record of success or failure would also be interesting.  The reason for the FOIA actions is less important.
 * Fourth and finally, I see nothing remotely defamatory in the text. There is no characterization of her actions whatsoever.  There is a good argument that we should not include one, except possibly to neutrally report her win-loss record if we can find it.  If anyone tries something of the sort, I will probaby revert it, unless you get there first. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

She has a right to privacy. The implicit assumption in the posting is that she did something wrong but there is no characterization as to what that is. It is like someone publishing that a person will be tried for a crime but not posting that the charges were dismissed. Wikipedia has already officially admitted that it cannot control the accuracy of discussions about her. Her inclusion adds nothing to the article.

What about Sean Harrington and his KNOWYOURCOURTS web site? Here we have a public figure, who published his own legal filings and his own photos and a biography and wrote a very elaborate web site. He is also cited by name in articles about his Judge Nottingham complaint and he gave voluntary interviews to those publications. Why not include him as a famous pro se litigant? Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How in the names of all the Founders do you arrive at the conclusion that mentioning her remarkable number of FOIA requests carries a negative implication? One could at least as readily conclude that she is a vigilant defender of our right-to-know against a culture of governmental secrecy.  As for Sean Harrington, I know nothing about him, but if you feel you have proper (i.e. third-party, as opposed to self-promotional) sources showing that he is notable in relation to this subject, then be bold and include him. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've undone that. The text on Sean Harrington's issue indicates that he is not a 'notable pro se litigant', but merely one who has a concern about a federal judge. The judge, Edward Nottingham, is notable, and the allegations against the judge merit inclusion in an article on the judge. But the litigation itself is too detached from an encyclopedic discussion of what pro se litigation is. bd2412  T 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Practically all judicial complaints are dismissed so it was significant that Harrington's has not been. Also the KnowYourCourts web site is very elaborate. What would be involved in creating an article about Judge Edward Nottingham?

You're not going to delete the state constitutions and constitutional provisions are you? It is a lot of work typing them all in. I made a special trip to the U of WI law library to get info for this article and have been working on this most of the day. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created a stub article on Edward Nottingham which relates the issues of the action and references a print newspaper source for them. I have no intention of deleting the state constitution provisions, they are useful, and exactly the sort of thing that an article on the topic should contain. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)