Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 3

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

I am in favor of taking more serious action? Is there yet a consensus in favor? Is there an admin or editor willing to risk being named in the RfAr that is sure to result? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it may be appropriate to ban Kay from editing this article, and require that she propose all changes on the talk, or as sandbox pages, and have others add them after consensus. I agree the volume of material being added is overwhelming, and Kay does not seem to be willing to conform to our normal way of doing things, so this step may be required. I'd like to see if there is a local consensus here for that idea, and if so I'm sure I'm not the only admin that would enforce this. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:Kay_Sieverding ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a different idea. I had proposed above to create a temp page for Kay to work on until she had crafted an article suitable for presentation to the community as encyclopedic in tone and style. That suggestion was obviously not taken up, so instead I have created Pro se legal representation in the United States/temp, a temp page with the content as it was before Kay started working on the page. I propose that the community work on that page as an alternative, and when it has achieved a satisfactory state, we can discuss which page to keep as "the" article on this topic (or perhaps mix elements of the two into a single finished product). In the interim, the current sprawl is quite frankly only slightly less useless than the former sprawl. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BD - seems fine to me. More importantly, the article is uselesser than ever. Do you perceive consensus in favor of stopping Kay from editing this article mainpage? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the next formal step is a user conduct RfC. I'd suggest an article RfC, but we tried that, and Kay ignored the consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please (formally) supply a link to the RfC outcome showing consensus, and a link to a recent edit by Kay where she ignored the consensus. If that's the case, I'm not seeing a user RfC as needed, actually, it's much simpler than that. There have been a lot of warnings, we'll just start enforcing that consensus. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to keep in mind that Kay is not a vandal with ill intentions, she is simply convinced that the article is incorrect in that it fails to present her point of view, and is trying to "correct" that. She has, to some extent, bent her editing to accommodate the suggestions of other editors (although this seems to have involved switching from Supreme Court case text dumps to secondary source text dumps and some amount of synthesis). She sees connections that just aren't there (i.e. the Bible supporting a right to pro se representation). But I think she's trying to get it right, and I think she can be brought around with reasoned discussion. bd2412  T 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfC can be found at Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 1. Unfortunately, it's been archived, although still linked from the RfCSoc.  It's also too specific to cover Kay's current behavior.  She may be following that to the letter, but avoiding the spirit and the Wikipedia policies mentioned there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

No Wikipedia guidelines have been linked to by Arhur Rubin and Lars. I provided the dead links. Arthur Rubin agreed yesterday that the material he deleted on the organizations were "relevant" and I found the links. I found an update to the AJS article and posted it in the comment section so that AR could verify it and I proposed an outline for the Prison Litigation Reform Act. kay sieverding (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point here, by focusing on one thing... I've given you plenty of pointers to various guidelines, style guides, policy pages and the like but you continue to present large volumes of material. You need to throttle back. You need to stop adding more material to this article until the material you have added has either been edited into some semblance of usable structure, or removed. You're not internalising that. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

minor edit
Dear Lex,

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


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

References section?
Why is there a references section on a talk page? I've never seen this done. If there are references germane to a point in a particular section, those references should be kept together with that point. bd2412 T 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common when discussing questionable references. At the moment, there's only one section with references, so the reflist could go in a subsection there, but we don't have a good way to handle multiple references sections in an article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the references should just be wrung out with nowiki tags. The section is physically entirely divorced from the relevant discussion. bd2412  T 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it would be OK, as Kay hasn't yet figured how to use citation templates, or to restore references from a deleted section. If there were more than one editor adding references here, or if Kay were to use citation templates, it would be hopeless without (at least one) references section.  I can't find any good examples of where reference sections have been used for good effect on talk pages recently, although I'm sure they're at least a dozen on my watch list.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not. References 1 and 2 are in a section I added as a copy from the main page, and reference 3 is one of Kay's.  It can no longer easily be split.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

definition "pro se practioner'
One of the web site links that someone deleted referred to "pro se practioners". Does anyone have a reference as to what that term is supposed to mean? kay sieverding (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you inserted it, you should have already known what it means. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request technical assistance creating sub page
There has been some discussion on user pages that there should be a group effort outline. I have not yet learned all the Wiki software and I don't see how to create a subpage. It was suggested that there be a subpage for a communal outline. Someone said there is supposed to be a tab on the top of the page to create a subpage, but I don't see one. Since there has been controversy as to what is or is not "relevant" to the subject, such as "organizations involved in pro se issues", "access to court", "misconduct" and "basis in common law for self-representation", wouldn't a communal page outline be useful? kay sieverding (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I don't see such a page as helpful, you can create it either by editing the URL directly (if you edit this page as a whole, you see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States&action=edit, and you edit that to insert "/Subpage_name" between the "States" and the "&action"), or you can can edit a section of this page, insert /Subpage name , click the "Show preview" button below the edit window, and click on the redlink in the preview window. I'm sure there are other methods, but I'm not entirely sure what they are.
 * Subpages of pages in article-space are deprecated. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

Reference brief acknowledging rights of self-representation
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/d20040917selfrep.pdf.

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

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

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

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

Here are some articles discussing Wikipedia editing policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other References
http://www.pro-se-litigants.org/the_pro_se_problem

Federal Judicial Center, "Resource Guide for Managing Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation" 1996, 172 pages (Free) kay sieverding (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Text moved from article to talk page
The following verbiage from user Kay Sieverding is moved here for discussion:


 * The United States Supreme Court has called the right to "institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts" a "fundamental" right. CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN, 40 S. Ct. 402, 252 U.S. 553 (U.S. 04/19/1920)

The article is supposed to be about pro se representation only. Neither of these cases involved the issue of whether the right to proceed pro se is a right, or a fundamental right. The subject is not even mentioned in the texts, as far as I can see. Please explain why these materials were added to the article. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-script: The material quoted above had been added to the article by Kay Sieverding under, and along with, a heading worded as "Self-representation as a fundamental right". I deleted the heading at the same time I moved the material to the talk page. Famspear (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship complaint
The New York Times reports that Wikipedia forbid the editing of information about the rights of the Citizens of China. However, three Wikipedia editors have removed discussion of the rights of the Citizens of the United States from the article on self-represented access to court. kay sieverding (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * fact. I tried both a google news search, and a search on the NYT web site, and found no reference for the first sentence.  The second sentence is obviously (to anyone who understands Wikipedia policies) wrong.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article requires a New York Times registration.

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


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

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

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

To quote from the article: Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera. (para) Wikipedia's come-one, come-all invitation to write and edit articles, and the surprisingly successful results, have captured the public imagination. But it is not the experiment in freewheeling collective creativity it might seem to be, because maintaining so much openness inevitably involves some tradeoffs. (para) At its core, Wikipedia is not just a reference work but also an online community that has built itself a bureaucracy of sorts — one that, in response to well-publicized problems with some entries, has recently grown more elaborate. It has a clear power structure that gives volunteer administrators the authority to exercise editorial control, delete unsuitable articles and protect those that are vulnerable to vandalism. Kay, you have conflated two separate concepts from this article. The first is that the article on Human rights in the Republic of China was protected from editing; the second is that administrators have authority to delete unsuitable articles. This clearly incorrect synthesis from one single article raises serious concerns in my mind about your ability to correctly parse what you are proposing as reference sources. Risker (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Mr. Rubin deleted this reference several times:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Substantive Right of Access to Courts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural Due Process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The AJS also cites this case:

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

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

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

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


 * There you go again. "Natural and common law right" is one thing. "Fundamental right" is another. Do you not understand the difference? Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1920, the Supreme Court used the words "actions of any kind"
In the 19th Century, self-represented litigation was common. (There was a deleted article about the frequency of self-representation prior to the twentieth century. It was in the article for maybe a day or two, maybe around 8/20. The author was a judge. There was a link.)

The Supreme Court used the words "actions of any kind" in 1920. The justices were aware of the phenomena of self-represented litigation because it had been so common in the U.S. History and they were aware of Thomas Jefferson's letter (it looks like President Thomas Jefferson's letter regarding the right of self representation was also removed from the page)

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

In 1920, when they used the words "actions of any kind" if the Supreme Court knew about pro se litigants. According to the deleted historical article by the judge, there were a lot of pro se litigants. If the didn't mean any to include pro ses, the Supreme Court would have said so.

I think that almost all of these judges and statesmen at the time read the bible regularly. I think a lot of them had the St. James version. That uses the words "every man":

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

Will you please post a link to the Wiki Policy page and number you are on? kay sieverding (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kay, one of the rules in Wikipedia is that sources must stand for the proposition stated in the article. In the cases you cited, the Court did not rule that self-representation is a fundamental right. The Court did not rule that self-representation is a right at all (although we know of course that there is a legal right of self-representation - that's a separate point). The Court in the cases you cited was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue regarding the nature of the right of self-representation.


 * "The justices were aware of the phenomena of self-represented litigation because it had been so common in the U.S. History"?? That's your answer? Your answer is not responsive. You cannot take source A with statement A and source B with statement B and then combine them with your own discussion of the Second Book of Samuel and quotations by Jefferson, etc., etc., etc., to reach your own "conclusion C" (i.e., your conclusion that "self-representation is a fundamental right") and then stick that in a Wikipedia article. That's called "original research," and it's prohibited.


 * Worse, as I stated above, it's faulty research. The cases you cited do not stand for the proposition you apparently are trying to "prove" (i.e., that self-representation is a fundamental right).


 * That does not necessarily mean that you are "wrong" in your conclusion. It does mean that you are faulty in your research, and that you are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read or re-read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the rule:


 * Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.


 * Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.


 * Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In essence, Kay, you are interpreting the use of the phrase "actions of any kind" to mean that the Supreme Court, in the cases you cited, was ruling that "pro se representation is a fundamental right." That is not what the Court ruled, and that is certainly not what the Court was saying. The "analysis" you provided is not only improper as legal analysis, it's a violation of the Wikipedia rule I have quoted. Famspear (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that pro se litigation is a substitute of "actions of any kind". One of the references you deleted was

http://www1.law.nyu.edu/pubs/annualsurvey/documents/60%20N.Y.U.%20Ann.%20Surv.%20Am.%20L.%20453%20(2005).pdf.

There is a discussion of history of the bar and the self-representation in there.

Please source this statement "In the United States, self-representation is permitted in most instances" and show sources as to when it is not permitted.
The statement "In the United States, self-representation is permitted in most instances" is not sourced. Can you source that and write a precise statement as to when pro se litigation is not allowed? I think you should divide that into civil and criminal. I don't think it is necessary to discuss corporations. Please list people and types of people or types of actions in which self-representation is not permitted. kay sieverding (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. per your instructions I removed that statement from the article, because it was unsourced. I also removed the unsourced statement that pro se litigation is common in small claims court. I believe it is universal in small claims court.kay sieverding (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why were these references removed from article
The Massachusetts Bill of Rights, passed in 1780, included " Article 1 XI.--Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws. XII.--No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his council, at his election." [5]

The New Hampshire Bill of Rights, passed in 1784, Article 1 Section included "XIV. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he may receive in his person, property or character, to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws. XV. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, and counsel." [6]

The Indiana Constitution of 1951 Article 7 Section 21. included "Every person of good moral character, being a voter,shall be entitled to admission to practice law in all Courts of justice." [7]

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the U.S, wrote a letter saying: "“We of the United States think experience has proved that it is safer for the mass of individuals composing society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent. Hence, with us, people being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors. I believe that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves is the essence of a Republic.” [7]

The Colorado Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance issued a recommendation of “do not retain” for Judge Adele Anderson, a judge in Pueblo County. Anderon was one of two out of 83 judges who was not recommended for retention. The Commission’s decision was based on a survey conducted to evaluate Judge Anderson’s performance. Respondents to the survey included members of law enforcement, attorneys, litigants, jurors, criminal defendants, courthouse personnel and crime victims. One of the bases for the Commission’s decision was that some survey respondents noted Judge Anderson’s “demeaning and harsh treatment of individuals appearing in her court without legal counsel.” See the Commission’s recommendation at [12]

The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a judge for failing to respect the rights of pro se litigants. Inquiry Concerning Judge Fred L. Heene, Jr., No. 153, October 13, 1999. This seems to be the only case in which a judge has been disciplined for the judge’s treatment of unrepresented individuals. [13] kay sieverding (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not remove them but you might want to review WP:WEIGHT This level of detail strikes me as undue weight on one particular subfacet. Why don't you craft one or two tight sentences that clearly and succinctly make the point you are making, give them however many references are needed to support them, and propose them here, on the talk, for criticism. If the total proposal is more than 500 chars, you're not getting what we are saying about building the article up slowly, with well crafted, clearly germane and easily understood additions. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why were these ABA and military source references removed from article?
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

§1.16(a)(3) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, which exists in each of the Service’s rules of professional responsibility, “recognizes the long-established principle that a client has a nearly absolute right to discharge a lawyer.”

Military Treaties referring to self-representation

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) both allow for self-representation before the tribunal. Statute of the ICTY, Article 21(4)(d); Statute of the ICTR, Article 20(4)(d). The rules of procedure governing the Nuremberg military tribunals provided that “a defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense.”The 1695 [Treason Act]. . . provided for court appointment of counsel, but only if the accused so desired. Thus, as new rights developed, the accused retained his established right ‘to make what statements he liked.’ The right to counsel was viewed as guaranteeing a choice between representation by counsel and the traditional practice of self- representation. . . . At no point in this process of reform in England was counsel ever forced upon the defendant. The common-law rule. . . has evidently always been that ‘no person charged with a criminal offence can have counsel forced upon him against his will.’ [26]Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides that a court trying an accused for law of war violations “shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence.” Geneva Conventions (1949), Additional Protocol I, Article 75, para. 4(a). The United States considers Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to be applicable customary international law. William H. Taft, IV, The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features, 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 319, 322 (Summer 2003)(“[the United States] regard[s] the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled.”) [27]

The ABA rules of professional conduct are American Rules, since it is the American Bar Association not the French Bar Association or the Swedish Bar Association.

The primary source was written by two U.S. lawyers, submitted to a U.S. Court, and concerned treatment of foreign nationals on U.S. soil. The same laws theoretically apply to U.S. citizens who are captured abroad. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See the response to the last section. Also, please use either the IP, or your login, but not both. Using both confuses matters and makes it look like there is more support for your position than there actually is. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
Can this page be protected or semi-protected until folks can come to a resolution on how to deal with Kay's determination to edit in his/her so-far typical style? Kay's editing pattern seems to have been strangely uninfluenced by the unanimous criticism so far. Avruch  T 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Kay for 72 hours. Protecting the article would prevent other good faith editors from editing in a consensual manner; there is only one editor who seems to be having a problem with that, and so the problem is being addressed at its source. Risker (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. Sensible. I wasn't sure where you were at with the blocking escalation, and I hadn't seen one yet, so I thought in the absence of a block that semi-prot at least would help. Were you planning on blocking the IP as well? Avruch  T 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

= fundamental right talk page and Old Testament source==

I posted these cases on the talk page of fundamental right

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

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

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

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


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

I was using the Bible as a historical document showing the development of common law rights. The Bible was the first published book and was widely read at the time the U.S. was formed. The Bible was influential. kay sieverding (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * I have no opinion whatever on whether Pro se, or self representation, is a fundamental right or not. None. I also have little or no interest in the question itself, and no ties to anyone who does.
 * What I have an opinion about, is how things have been proceeding with this article. Badly. What I have an interest in is whether this article can be edited in a harmonious, constructive and consensus driven way... what I am seeing leads me to believe that if the pool of editors actively editing includes Kay, (absent a significant change in approach, by Kay) that the probability of that is significantly lower than if it excludes Kay. Since my main interest is in the encyclopedia as a whole, not any particular user's point of view, the solution is clear.
 * Kay, either change your approach or you will be excluded from editing this article. You have been warned multiple times. Do you understand that you may well lose your editing privs, Kay? Yes or no? ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

You already have excluded me from editing the article.

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

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


 * The number of policies and guidelines you (Kay) have violated is probably more than the number I've read. There have been a number of times you have been informed of multiple guidelines your contributions violate, and you fix the contributions to satify one of the guidelines, and say you've solved the problem.  This is wrong.
 * Actually, I think the notable pro se section, including the one you deleted because she didn't want to be listed, probably should be included. I suspect the reason no one objected as that everyone notices the other things you've done which were clearly inappropriate and objected to.
 * As for citation guidelines, you have never followed the citation guidelines. You've copied HTML from some other citations.  But you've never used cite templates, nor has the HTML been correct.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You didn't want people to see this:

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

You don't want people to see this:

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

You don't want this

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

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

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

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

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

you won't acknowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you repeatedly deleted this reference

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

You deleted all the discussion about the Rules Enabling Act.

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

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

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

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


 * To reply to some of your specific misunderstandings,
 * The viewpoint of 4 editors should prevail over the viewpoint of 1 (you).
 * Many (more than the 4 who have actually reverted your edits) have objected to your edits; you usually replied by making a technical correction or two, leaving the overall unencyclopedic character or irrelevance of your essays to the topic (or the section of the topic) intact. (Many of your sections would have been relevant to an "access to courts" article, if probably edited to include secondary sources.  However, that article is not this one.)  You have never met Wikipedia citation guidelines.
 * Thanks for reminding me about the "Notable pro se litigants" section. It should clearly be retained, but trimmed to what is reliable.
 * I never said it was against Wikipedia policity to quote the Supreme Court; I just said it was a primary source, and, at least in opinions dealing with living people, per WP:BLP, we need secondary sources. As you are interpreting the Supreme Court decisions in a manner not obvious from their wording, we need a source that that interpretation is relevant.  You may be interpreted the sources correctly, but determining that would require published input from legal scholars, per WP:OR.
 * You're confusing the actions of the multiple editors who have removed your essays. Some of us have also removed each others essays as being inappropriate on Wikipedia, so you need to distinguish the individual editors who removed your text.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin is correct. I see that you tried to do the same things at Fundamental rights, Kay. Don't do that, please. We have all tried to explain what the issue is, over and over, and you are not getting it. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times link you say talks about "out of control Wiki editors deleting info about Human Rights in China" does not discuss deletion of information about human rights in China; it talks about the fact that the article was, at the time of writing, protected against editing, and is used as an example of an article closed for editing to prevent improper information from being added. This reference source was easily checked, Kay, and your complete misinterpretation of it gives rise to questions about how you have interpreted other reference sources you have quoted. Risker (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Risker

The NYT's article says "Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera....But as the article grows, and citations slowly accumulate, Mr. Saewyc said, the article becomes increasingly accurate...." It seems that the removal of citations is a problem. My perception is that the removal of citations has been a problem with this article. I did check the Christina Aguilera article. It was interesting to me that that article was 86K, all about just one person. kay sieverding (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC) a