User talk:Mneumisi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is my talk page.
Mneumisi is my user name. If you try, you can probably find out what my real name is, but I don't go around blabbing it.
I generally try to follow a few different articles related to US law and legal practice, and sometimes other aspects of Wikiworld.
Contents |
[edit] Regulatory Offences
I would have to disagree with your suggestion to remove absolute liability. In Canada at least, regulatory offences are a well-defined area of the criminal law that is divided into the two categories of liability. There is no regulatory agencies involved, rather they are criminal prohibitions just like the rest of criminal law and can be found described in any Canadian criminal law text. -- PullUpYourSocks 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the US, or at least where I went to lawschool, it is simply a criminal violation without mens rea.Maybe there needs to be two articles for US and Canadian law.Manney 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pro Se
I wonder who the hidden identity of Mneumisi is, a famous lawyer perhaps? Anyway, I can think of no reason to remove my comment about the pro se these days not getting much recognition in court proceedings, and believe me, I know. I created a website for the use of pro ses to link them with self-help facilities (johnclarkprose.com). It also shows how lawyers consistently take advantage of pro ses, sometimes with the approval of the judge. My website is not promoted here. I just want to point out that I know from bitter experience, and it needn't be that way.
At any rate, the entry as it existed appears to suggest that pro ses going forward unrepresented are doomed to failure, and should hire a lawyer.
I won't put my insertion back, but I hope to hear from others on this talk page. It is one of the most misunderstood and under discussed and burning issues of the day. Something should be said to ameliorate the subject on the page as it presently stands. It presents an anti pro se pov. The alternative would be to remove the observation that hiring a lawyer is best, and just state facts and not opinions. JohnClarknew 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, famous no, but in full disclosure I am a lawyer. One thing I have seen in my job, both in observation and through experience, is that pro se litigants and defendants are constantly taken advantage of primarily because litigation requires a huge body of knowledge. For example, there are many rigid deadlines and requirements for pleadings that a person probably couldn't know if they didn't spend a lot of time (in my case full time) following them. In that regard, I don't disagree with your point that the system as it is set up discourages or penalizes people who just want to take care of their own business and not give up the rest of their life or pay a lawyer.
- I do believe in NPOV, however, and your point is well-taken that it is not a good position for an encyclopedic article to advocate one position over the other. To that extent I have edited pro se extensively to try and remove bias as much as possible, and add a few much needed citations.Manney 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My hat is off to you, Manney. The entry is now very acceptable, good even. Just asking, are you male or female, US or Canadian? I'm both, citizenship, that is. Hey, look at my site. It's all performance art, really. Mine's not over yet, and I am giving up the rest of my life. Wanna do some pro bono work for me? I currently have an appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Contact me through my site. JohnClarknew 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you to merge all of the other related stubs and articles into Pro se. Bearian 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner
– ClockworkSoul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Yeast as this week's WP:AID winner
AzaBot 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
