Talk:Pro se

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pro se article.
Article policies

"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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Criticism of pro se litigation

These two articles -- [1] [2] -- 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)