From pro se representation in the United States:

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". <ref>http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.cfm</ref> <ref>http://www.uscourts.gov/library/Current_Code_with_Markup_03-03-08.pdf</ref> On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." <ref>http://www.uscourts.gov/library/codeOfConduct/Revised_Code_Effective_July-01-09.pdf</ref> The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.

[[William Marbury]] was appointed as a judge before there were any U.S. law schools or licensing of lawyers. His appointment was cancelled so he successfully sued President Madison. ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' solidified the United States' system of checks and balances and gave the judicial branch equal power with the executive and legislative branches. <ref>"The Thomas Jefferson Administrations". Presidential Administration Profiles for Students. Online Edition. Gale Group, 2002. Page 3.</ref>


[[William Penn]] represented himself successfully following his 1670 arrest with William Meade. Penn was accused of preaching before a gathering in the street, which Penn had deliberately provoked in order to test the validity of the new law against assembly. Penn pleaded for his right to see a copy of the charges laid against him and the laws he had supposedly broken, but the judge (the Lord Mayor of London) refused — even though this right was guaranteed by the law. The judge directed the jury to come to a verdict without hearing the defense.<ref>Hans Fantel, "William Penn: Apostle of Dissent," William Morrow & Co., New York, 1974, p.6, ISBN 0-688-00310-9 pp. 117-120.</ref> When invited by the judge to reconsider their verdict and to select a new foreman, the members of the jury refused, and were sent to a cell over several nights to mull over their decision. The Lord Mayor then told the jury, "You shall go together and bring in another verdict, or you shall starve". The judge had Penn sent to Newgate prison (on a charge of contempt of court). The full jury followed him, and the jury members were fined the equivalent of a year's wages each. <ref>Fantel, p. 124</ref><ref>Bonamy Dobrée, "William Penn: Quaker and Pioneer," Houghton Mifflin Co., 1932, New York, p. 71.</ref>The members of the jury, fighting their case from prison, managed to win the right for all English juries to be free from the control of judges. This case was one of the more important trials that shaped the future concept of American freedom (see [[Jury nullification]]) and was a victory for the use of the writ of [[habeas corpus]] as a means of freeing those unlawfully detained.

From Steamboat Springs CO

[[Kevin Bennett]] former city council president, served time for interstate transportation of hashish <ref> http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/...financing_issue </ref>

In June 2008, a long term resident named David Engle burned to death in a unit built in the form of a single car garage. The building had no occupancy permit but had been occupied for 20 years and changed ownership three times. It was painted turquoise and purple and was one block from the county building and the offices of the combined city county building department. It was not up to code. The local newspaper quoted the assessor as saying that there are many illegal buildings and enforcement of the regulations is lax.<ref>"The Steamboat Pilot & Today Fire death questions linger" </ref> In its meeting after Engle's death, former city council member Kathy Connell suggested a "freeze" on talking to the press so that staff does not 'paint targets on themselves'<ref>http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2008/07/01/07-01-2008-ccmn.pdf</ref>
In 2000, after a lawsuit, a city council member said "I don't think we need greater stringency in the code. I think we need greater stringency in terms of having the conditions be met". A city planning employee said "We've already been instructed by the city attorney to take a much closer look at building permits." <ref>Avi Salzman "City takes precautions after suit is dismissed" http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2000/no...ns/</ref>

Senior City Planner Jonathan Spence said "“We’ve been pretty firm with all the developers on water body setbacks,” <ref>Tom Ross "Yacht Club seeks rooftop deck" Steamboat Pilot 10/17/08 http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2008/oc...ck/</ref>
Planning allowed a 20 foot variance on a 50 foot waterfront setback requirement because a building was added to a 1941 detached garage. <ref>Brandon Gee "Rollingstone condos receive nod of approval" Steamboat Pilot & Today, 2/27/09, http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2009/fe...al/</ref>

Kevin Bennett served on the City Council from 1993 to 2001. He was council president for the last seven years of his term. <ref>"Kevin Bennett: Council planning poorly for future" Steamboat Pilot and Today http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2006/ju...ennett_council/ </ref> In 2000, Bennetts' neighbor Kay Sieverding took him to court to get an injunction related to construction on a shed converting it to a free standing residence saying "They have removed the floor, cut holes for windows and doors, are expanding it south, and according to Wendie Schulenburg, are adding plumbing and cooking facilities as they turn it from a nonconforming garage into an illegal dwelling unit," and related to construction of another freestanding building "I do not object to the first floor of your garage, with the office reception area and bathroom. I do object to the second floor because it is over the allowed 10 percent of (your) basic primary structure, which is only about 2,160 square feet therefore you are only allowed 216 square feet." <ref>Tom Ross "City Council president, neighbor going to court" Steamboat Pilot 7/26/2000 http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2000/ju...nt/</ref> Sandy Horner, an attorney representing the Bennetts, said his clients were prepared to show they have done everything required of them by the building department and the planning department. Horner cited the city's home rule charter which gives it "exclusive jurisdiction" over its own ordinances. Horner was able to persuade the judge there is a substantial difference between the city going to District Court to seek to defend and enforce its development code, and a private resident going to court in an attempt to enforce the code. <ref>Tom Ross "Case against council president dismissed" Steamboat Pilot & Today 7/27/2000 http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2000/ju...il/</ref>

Bennetts' year 2000 construction buildings are not on the Routt County tax assessor's list. The only building on Bennetts' property at Princeton Ave listed on the property tax rolls was built in 1950, is in 1970 condition, and has total building area including garage and basement of less than 2,400 square feet. <ref>http://www.co.routt.co.us/assessor.html</ref> City Planning Director Wendie Schulenburg testified that the Bennetts' construction is in compliance with the code.<ref>http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2000/sep/06/restraining_order_issued/</ref> The City does not recognize cabins and garage apartments as buildings. <ref>Revised Municipal Code City of Steamboat Springs http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway....pid=10098&sid=6 </ref>

Kevin Bennetts' wife Jane filed a criminal complaint against Kay Sieverding saying "She started jumping up and down and screaming in the scariest voice, 'Just because you are the wife of the City Council president doesn't mean you can break the law.' I was so scared." Mrs. Sieverding was criminally prosecuted for complaining about Bennetts' guest house and the second floor over the detached garage. <ref>Gary E. Salazar "Woman in harassment case gets trial" Steamboat Pilot & Today 1/25/01 http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2001/ja...nt/</ref> The Sieverdings sued the Bennetts and the City of Steamboat Springs in federal court. The magistrate recommended that the Sieverdings' motions for summary judgment be stricken from the case "because they do not conform to the rules for filing an objection to Schlatter's recommendation". <ref>"Sieverding responds to recommendations" Steamboat Pilot & Today 11/03/03

In 2008, City Attorney Tony Lettunich asked the Steamboat Springs City Council to communicate with him using personal e-mail addresses. Council member Cari Hermacinski said "“We’re using our personal e-mails only when Tony Lettunich wants to send us something that’s attorney-client privilege,” <ref>Brandon Gee "City Council's email ethics vague." Steamboat Pilot & Today 10/26/08
Anthony Lettunich, the city attorney, also has a private law practice advertising real estate law. <ref>http://www.realestatelawyerpages.info/colorado-realestate-lawyers/steamboat-springs/lettunich-and-vanderbloemen/</ref>

tl:dr

Perhaps Kay could provide an executive summary? As it is it seems to have portions excerpted from some very badly written WP articles (maybe) showing wiki mark-up code but not linking to the articles, which seem widely diverse without connecting them them together with narrative. Other paragraphs seem to involve very un-encyclopedic events that appear to involve the poster. I'm not sure if the "censorhip" happened on wiki or by the local government. Really, I can't follow but it is unlikely that Kay came to the right place.

It was probably removed because it's clearly a rant of some sort. Wikipedia might be more fun if it were an encyclopedia of Internet rants, but the boring people who run it seem uninterested in collecting nonsense like the above.

I'd suggest you go to geocities, but I hear they closed recently. Have you considered myspace?

Assuming you are the same person as Kay Sieverding (T-C-L-K-R-D) , you know about article and user talk pages. I'd make this inquiry there, where the person or people who might know the answer are more likely to see it.

This article may be enlightening.

It all stems from a 15-year-old noisy-neighbor complaint, apparently.

http://www.websupp.org/data/DMN/0:04-cv-04317-101-DMN.pdf



Apparently they went all the way to the Supreme Court with this:

http://www.rightscase.com/No.%2007-884.pdf

The revision history for Pro se legal representation in the United States may be instructive, as will review of the talk page archives, especially archive 4: Talk:Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States/Archive_4









Kay Sieverding is not currently able to make such enquiries on WP.


Yes, that's a classic all right.

Kay, run away from Wikipedia and don't look back. Regardless of the merits of your claims I wish you no ill will and that site will only make every problem you have much, much worse.

The WR account links to WP account Oldnewsreader2, whose talk page reads:

The Kay Sieverding account was blocked by an admin called Lar.

The Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D) user page may be instructive. As might this blog post

We've not gunna forget that, Larzy.

Fuck you Lar, you pandering asshole.

Kay Sieverding is a frequent pro se litigant in the Colorado. Her underlying case is something about properties supposedly being left off the tax rolls in Steamboat Springs, Colorado at the behest of Lloyds of London. Or something.

From her post, I infer that Ms. Sieverding believes her case deserves more prominence in some Wikipedia article.

For what it's worth, Ms. Sieverding was once held in contempt by then-federal judge Edward W. Nottingham in Colorado. Judge Nottingham later resigned from his Article III appointment after an FBI investigation. I understand that Ms. Sieverding believes there was corruption involved in the handling of her case. As crazy as it sounds to me, it's something. Not many pro se litigants are judged by later-disgraced jurists.

Clearly, you're angling to be pegged as one of the "not so good".

Tsk tsk... here I thought you were one of the good ones.



It was almost 2 years ago now that I wrote that, don't forget that either.

There is a tarnished brass sign, hanging over Wikipedia and it says...
Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes

If that's what he wants, he's going to have to work harder at it than that. But why would he care what I thought of him? What matters more is whether he has valid criticisms to give. Which he does. That he occasionally flies off the handle? Who cares. Comes with the territory.

Well, his criticisms are internally consistent and presented in a literate manner, unlike some others around here, but they come from an ideological position he holds which is pretty much diametrically opposite to mine.

Really?? Does "almost 2 years ago" make that much difference? Would I now be correct in assuming you no longer view "joking" as being "disruptive" to "the project"? (FTR: there was no joking involved. Extreme paranoia and/or bald-faced lies, yes; but no joking.)

One thing is for sure, you can speak your honest mind at WR without getting a 'civility' ban.

For some reason I thought this was a bit humourous.

And this crazy shit brought me to: Prostitution in the United States#Famous johns (old version). FAMOUS JOHNS. Nevermind that some of them were not charged and never admitted it. Half of the list is completely uncited; they are not all really high profile cases; Nottingham's is clearly undue weight; Haggard's is wrong, and Tobias' is flat out contradicted even by the cited source.

I tore out the whole stupid section and added extremely brief, accurate and cited text (what a concept!) to the History section instead (diff). The damn thing shouldn't even list people who resigned because they ALLEGEDLY paid for prostitutes, but I'm not up for that battle tonight.

How unlike our own dear Wikipedia, where so many editors are judged and executed by later-disgraced admins.

What about Jimbo's alleged activity in Moscow? Sum of human knowledge, and all that, you know...

It is doubtful that Kay has any merit to her numerous claims. But I have to admit placing restrictions on a persons ability to represent themselves is disturbing. Why not just hold them to standards of the court rules and law, dismiss and sanction with costs until they lose the taste for litigation? I know she might be slow to get the news but the coercive use of plea negotiations to cut off access to courts is troubling.

No, dear, that's just the annual fundraising banner. You can disable it in Special:Preferences if you'd like.

In the UK it is possible to have someone declared a vexatious litigant. That does not stop them going to court, but it does mean that they have to have the permission of the court to file a case. Simply being litigious is not sufficient to be vexatious.

It is possible to do the same thing in the US federal court system, and I was personally acquainted with a couple of cases where that was done. I imagine it is also possible in the state courts.

Yes, that is me. There is a link on my www.rightscase.com web site that shows my original complaint. Basically I claimed retaliation for my complaints of extortion, conversion of a road, and zoning violations all related to Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs, where I used to live on the corner of Princeton and Pahwintah, where Cari Hermacinski, city council president, now lives. She tried to sell my house with half my land for $2 million. I developed a theory of conspiracy involving lawyers. I sued Elizabeth Wittemyer, former prosecutor, and my theory was that she prosecuted me without a warrant or an arrest or a statement of probable cause so that my former neighbor Kevin Bennett, city council president, could get away with building in violation of the zoning and converting the end of Princeton Ave. and who knows what else so that her husband could get a permit for a new ski area he tried to sell in the WSJ for $20 million. She bought insurance from Underwriters at Lloyds. I can prove this because David Brougham, her lawyer and also Kevin Bennetts' lawyer, sent me his bills which included a claim number. Brougham billed Lloyds for a discussion of case assignment issues and after that my case was transferred directly to Judge Naughty Nottingham without being reassigned randomly. Nottingham had already been hiring prostitutes at least weekly according to affidavits quoted by 9 News and it sounds like he might also have already been going to the Diamond Cabaret lap dance and steak club. Lloyds also paid for study of "vexatious" litigant statutes and they paid for a call to the court to discuss the status of pending motions. Lloyds is not listed on the Colorado Division of Insurance as them having any information on file. The McCarren Ferguson Act prohibits selling of insurance without state regulation but it was passed in 1948 before the Internet. David Brougham asked the USMS to hunt me down at the law library, where he told them he thinks I spend half my time, because I sued city council members, the state of Colorado and many lawyers. I know this because I got a USMS report thru FOIA.
Judge Naughty denied me a hearing on the merits and then used the USMS, violence under color of law, to stop me from getting a hearing on the merits from another judge. The only reason that Nottingham said he dismissed my case, when I asked him, was his belief that I lost in a state court on the same claims. In fact, I paid to file in the state court and then without service I filed a motion to dismiss so that I could switch to federal court.

I spent weeks researching pro se litigant issues and was then chased off Wikipedia. I was attracted to Wikipedia because I wanted to interact about legal issues to sharpen my thinking. I post those deleted comments above plus others. When Riskier, Arthur Rubin etc. think they found something I posted they frequently delete it, even if I am linking to USDOJ or the ABA. One of them said that he thought that the article on pro se litigation, a serious and complex subject, should be shorter than the article on Boston Legal, a TV show. Someone sent me an email saying that Arthur Rubin was also deleting references on alternative energy.

It is frustrating to me because so much of what is printed about me is false and I don't have a way to dispute it because I might be summarily jailed if I file in court, or my work might just be thrown in the trash.

I went to the Supreme Court twice without a hearing, like 99.5% of other filers. The second time I sued Faegre & Benson, a big law firm, for asking former judge Nottingham to deprive my rights. That case was dismissed for the sole and only reason that I was pro se. I used the ideas I developed on Pro Se Wikipedia for my appeal but it didn't work at all. I filed in the 8th Circuit with an opening brief. Faegre & Benson filed a motion that my appeal should be dismissed without any consideration because I didn't have a lawyer and two hours later the 8th Circuit did what they asked. They didn't wait for me to file an objection.

You went to the wrong place. Wikipedia is not for "interaction" or for "sharpening" (teaching). It's for writing an encyclopedia. The fact that it ends up in social squabbles only means that most of the people there can't stay on-track. However, the stated purpose remains.

You want usenet. Alt.law.revenge or something.

In fairness to the district court, it found the following:




Please look here. That's one page I wholly agree with.

It should be pointed out that several of the people commenting in this thread are either lawyers, law students, or former law students, therefore all part of the conspiracy. Their comments should therefore be disregarded.

I'm not a lawyer, though I play one on TV...

Still, I have to concur with what GBG said earlier on, though he didn't get specific enough. The problem with trying to "use" Wikipedia in this fashion is that if you're noticed, and in effect caught, anyone opposing you will simply assume you're trying to manipulate the "historical record" for your own ends. That fact that Wikipedia allows you to, and to some extent tempts you into, doing this is part of the culture of irresponsibility, but that isn't how a judge is likely to see it.

I'm not saying the Colorado judiciary isn't corrupt - like many judiciaries, I'm sure it probably is. But by "using Wikipedia" Ms. Sieverding has only given them ammunition against her, and whatever impact she might have on the site in the long term is likely to be non-existent, or minimal at best, as she's already discovered, I believe.

If current trends continue, this effect is likely to become more pronounced, paradoxically as the number of attempts to do it (in various ways and on various subjects) increases. It should be noted that Wikipedia will continue to have plenty of people willing to bash you, block you, and defame you long after it loses the people who would prefer to cooperate and collaborate with you, assuming the latter is even what you want.

I realize I'm being a little abstract here, though, for which I apologize. The main point is simply, get out now, before you inflict more damage on yourself.

Or, in other words, the court actually ruled "tl;dr"

CHL, you brighten me day.

[Sieverding responded on 12/08/09] My Colorado 02-cv-1950 complaint was very detailed about who did what. I had multiple defendants and only one filed a motion for more definite statement, which I responded to, and then he did not file another. None of the others would say what it is they thought was confusing. There were no rule 11 c. 6 orders and there were no motions hearings. I tried to simplify matters by filing for partial summary judgment and then I filed motions for default when they didn't respond to the motions for partial summary judgment. They billed for more than 20 phone calls to the court to discuss my motions for partial summary judgment but they wouldn't discuss them with me. No facts were admitted. I also filed a motion for a hearing on injunctive relief. The magistrate's clerk called them and told them they wouldn't have to reply. That was in their bills. The magistrate said that my complaint sounded like a Hornbook text book. The magistrate ordered the defendants to ignore my summary judgement motions.

-----
[someone else posted] In fairness to the district court, it found the following:


[Sieverding responded on 12/08/09] The interactions did help me and I think what I filed in court was good enough. It it wasn't adequate, they would have responded on the merits. Faegre & Benson assumed the role of prosecutor in an indirect contempt hearing even though that was forbidden by the Supreme Court in Vuitton. Nottingham did not even request the US Attorney prosecute. Then as prosecutor, their ex partner Chris Beall said in court that I was not allowed an evidentiary hearing before being sent to jail. The 10th Circuit ruled that I was not entitled to legal counsel before being sent to jail unless I was accused of a crime. Beall said that when there is a charge of indirect contempt summary procedure is used. However, my husband and I were polite so former judge Nottingham could not use summary procedure and he did not even claim that there was contempt in the presence of the court. Therefore Rule 42 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applied and contempt could only be prosecuted as criminal contempt with full procedure. See the Federal Judicial Commission Deskbook for Federal Judges. They skipped that. Beall asked Nottingham to put my husband in jail to force me to do what he wanted. He asked Nottingham to order attorney fee shifting with motions, motion hearings, or rule 11 c. 6 orders. Beall asked Nottingham to issue warrants for my arrest that did not state a federal offense. That was prohibited by the Non Detention Act, 18 USC Section 4001. I was never in official detention as defined by 18 USC § 4081 but I was incarcerated without an arraignment or a bail hearing or criminal information and the U.S. Attorney claims to have no records or files on me at all. The procedure that was used is not in the U.S. code nor published in the Federal Register.

The Lloyds Lawyer David Brougham said in court that he was wondering around the office area of the federal court house in the District of Colorado showing an associate how things are done and former magistrate Schlatter came out of his office and talked to him about my case. Schlatter said in court that he drinks with lawyers and has meetings with lawyers in his office. The Diamond Cabaret lap dance club is only three minutes, .88 mile, from the federal courthouse. AP interviewed the manager of the Diamond Cabaret and he confirmed that Nottingham was a repeat customer known to the employees so I think the USMS was escorting Nottingham to the strip club and to brothels as part of their 24/7 judicial security service. USDOJ OIG had already warned USMS that their systems controls were so weak that they could be used for fraudulent use and that one person could create an entire prisoner file without an audit trail, supervisory approval, or verification of source documents. I think Nottingham and his guard did use the USMS PTS systems to create a record for me without verification of source documents and that this was part of a widespread criminal conspiracy in which insurance companies pay protection to judicial employees. I think the insurance companies have been paying court clerks and other judicial staff for so long that so many people are implicated that USCOURTS doesn't want any questions asked because it goes far beyond Nottingham and I.

As a federal judge, Nottingham's take home pay was about $2,500 per week. According to affidavits he was paying one prostitute $250-300 per week and he was calling and paying multiple prostitutes. His 3rd ex wife was going thru his credit card bills, that is how she found the 9/05/05 Diamond Cabaret AMEX charge. But she didn't find other charges except for on-line porn. Therefore, I think the insurance companies, their lawyers, and/or defendants were paying for Nottingham's lap dances, prostitutes, and other entertainment. I think the Denver Players had lawyers' credit card numbers on file and used them for Nottingham's illegal entertainment.

[Sieverding responded on 12/08/09] Unless I am murdered or kidnapped and tortured, I couldn’t be more damaged than I already am. The reason I haven’t been sued for defamation is that I haven’t defamed anyone. I verified thousands of pages of court filings under penalty of perjury but was not charged with perjury. Posting links to articles about Kevin Bennetts’ buildings built in 2000 and then links to tax rolls showing that the total building area is the same in 2009 as it was in 1950 isn’t manipulating the historical record it is revealing the historical record. In 02-cv-1950 I suggested that Bennett may have blackmailed former judge Joel Thompson because he might have known Thompson's girlfriend was under DEA investigation because I had heard from three sources that Bennett was a drug dealer. Magistrate Schlatter said I should lose my right to represent myself because I brought up allegations of drug related corruption and that that drug related corruption was somehow impossible but in 2009 Kevin Bennett admitted he had been imprisoned for interstate transportation of illegal drugs with intent to sell. I had to go to the blogs because it was the only way to counter the defamatory and in correct publications about me.

I think Wikipedia should modify its software so that nothing that is properly supported can be deleted at all. What difference does it make how long the articles are when there is no incremental cost of publishing?

I know all that - nobody is saying, necessarily, that your facts or your positions are wrong. All I'm saying is that by using Wikipedia, you'll create the perception that you're manipulating the historical record - what Stephen Colbert calls "wikiality."

Society has increasingly begun to view this sort of thing with suspicion and (for want of a better word) contempt, which is leveled both at Wikipedia itself and the people who edit it. They still click on the links to it, for the same reason they still go to Wal-Mart to buy deodorant and cheap disposable diapers, but just like most Wal-Mart shoppers, they're wishing the whole time they could have something a lot more worthy of respect for the same price.


We could argue (and have argued) about that for weeks and months and years on end, but the two basic points (IMO) are that fake-encyclopedia articles are supposed to be readable (i.e., not too long or overstuffed with jargon, legalese and irrelevancies), and also that publicly-editable web-based fake-encyclopedia articles have to be maintainable (i.e., not too many or too much, given a dwindling supply of free labor to keep them "readable"). The more Wikipedia fails at the latter, the worse things will get with the former, and the worse things get with the former, the more likely it is that they'll lock down the whole thing - which will be a good thing for most people, though maybe not you personally. Sorry if that sounds confusing... it's basically a downward spiral leading to ad-supported read-only status, and they're doing very little to stop it.

An order requiring a pro se litigant like Kay is effectively a complete loss of access to the courts. Even if she had endless resources I can't imagine an attorney taking her case on. She presents the ultimate challenge in client management and control. A client that is questioning your every decision along with the legitimacy of the very proceeding and who only has an attorney because she is compelled to have one is not something lawyers will clamor for. The sad thing is there may be a grain or two of legitimate grievance somewhere in the reams of paper and screeds.

The chances are that this may not be a bad thing. Who knows what the dispute is (the implication is that even the court couldn't really work it out) but perhaps the problem is not access to the courts, but the inability to communicate sensibly in the first place. The sad thing might be that whoever is on the receiving end might have been a reasonable person willing to come to some reasonable agreement, but was unable to in the face of unreasonable behaviour. A legitimate grievance of any note does not need 78 pages to explain it - that's more than a Wikipedian policy talk page. It does sound like she was given advice on how to proceed and failed to grasp how to follow it.

This happens in criminal cases. At some point in the proceedings, the defendant gets an unshakable notion that his counsel is throwing the case (which might even be occassionally true in Chicago, for all I know). It takes some persistence to convince the judge to let you argue your defense pro se and it's almost always a stunningly bad idea (ineffective assistance claims tend to go out the window, for one, because the trial judge continually asks the defendant whether they are competent to represent themselves so that they aren't reversed for allowing it). Once convicted, public interest law types will look at any requests with reluctance, especially if they knew the original attorneys and are a surprised by the hatred invariably directed toward them.

Even when there's a good post-conviction case, they have to think long and hard about taking such an unruly client. I doubt many find pro bono representation, even if they are potentially more meritorious than other requests.

I agree, it's hard.


I did think of that when posting the excerpt, but I believe the Abd arbitration was much more voluminous.

In fairness, legal complaints are sometimes that long or longer, but it's usually a somewhat smaller kernel of facts followed by pages and pages of boilerplate covering every possible statute and legal argument.

Yes, she needs a writer. Could be a lawyer or somebody else. But that's the problem with narcissists: they won't use specialists because they don't trust them, and don't think they need them. So they get screwed again and again by the system and reality, and soon they become paranoid narcissists.

All this against the background of the deliberately inaccessable mess that is law or medicine or dentisty or accounting or car repair. There's plenty to be paranoid ABOUT, in this world, even if you're NOT a narcissist.

The best answer for dealing with complex situations turns out to be to use specialists to the fullest, and yet distrust them at the same time. The "general contractor job" of running a team of "subject matter experts" in a way that neither offends them nor puts you at their mercy, turns out to be one of the more difficult arts in life. And yet totally necessary! If you can do it, you can win. You can even do magic, like some of the better film directors (think James Cameron). If you can't do it, you fail in one of the two classic ways: 1) You alienate your specialists, and then "the system" or reality eats you, or 2) You put yourself totally in the hands of your specialists, and they then either fail you directly in one of many ways, or else they don't talk to EACH OTHER, and you drop through the cracks of what should have been an effective collaboration (centered around YOU), but wasn't.



I've won a few times big at these games, and also lost in every possible way. Most people who've lived to middle age and run their own affairs have had the same experience. But if I had one piece of advice to the Graduating Class about this stuff, it would be: 1) Always use one or more experts, and 2) Be your own secretary, because otherwise the experts will let you down anyway.

Suddenly I miss abd.

Why wouldn't my claims have merit? I used 28 USC Section 1983 as a basis and I had supported direct economic damages of $400,000 plus personal damages for 4 people. All I asked for was the standard procedures but I was denied them. What do you mean "dismiss and sanction with costs until they lose the taste for litigation". The US code does not authorize attorney fee shifting without a statutory basis and none was stated. There were no Rule 11 c 6 orders. I was providing evidence and quoting laws and statutes up one side and down the other. The "coercive use of plea negotiations to cut off access to courts" was not just troubling, it was criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, which Risker apparently wants to cover up.

There are lots of complaints that are more than 100 pages particularly complaints regarding conspiracy because fraud must be specified with particularity (Rule 9b). The one oral hearing showed that the magistrate understood clearly that I was complaining of retaliation for my complaints of zoning violations, extortion, and conversion of the road in front of my home. The magistrate said there was "immunity" for all of that and the defendants quoted him. I complained of defamation at a press conference by a prosecutor after dismissal of a criminal prosecution, a situation that the S.C. specifically said did not qualify for immunity, and the magistrate said she had "immunity" anyway.

I don't have anything against lawyers. My old boyfriend went to law school when I was dating him and I helped him with his homework. I thought about going to law school in 1981 but figured I would have to take a cut in pay to work as a lawyer. My husband and I paid over $50,000 to lawyers for patent applications and securities law work. My husband got 5 patents and we made a lot of money on them. The only reason I ended up pro se in Nottingham's court is that the lawyer that I had been using, William Hibbard, said he would not represent me if I sued Jane and Kevin Bennett's lawyers because he was concerned about retaliation to his law firm. I wanted to sue Bennett's lawyers not just them because I figured that if I didn't, the Bennetts would just blame their lawyers, and because I thought Kevin Bennett would die, since he had reported liver problems, or go bankrupt and I wouldn't be able to collect from him.

It is difficult to write without an independent eye. That is why lawyers usually have proof readers. One strange fact is that there are a lot of writers who are not lawyers who market their legal writing and editing services to lawyers (see ads in ABA journals) but pro se litigants cannot hire the very same people. Anytime anyone writes a complaint regarding lack of due process, a long document results because both the process and the lack of due process must be specified.

In my DC complaints, the current president of the ABA, Carolyn Lamm, was the chief defense counsel. Why would they have hired such an expensive lawyer if my complaint was so frivolous? She misquoted the 5th Circuit to imply that Rule 60 cannot be used in an independent action after one year. Why would Lamm have misquoted a case if my complaint was so frivolous?

Magistrate Schlatter and others stated that my complaint against the bar associations was totally implausible but the bars don't have "immunity". The Colorado Bar Association is a totally private organization. In Feb 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a pro se complaint against the Quebec Bar Association for failure to protect and the next month my similar claims were dismissed without a ruling that complied with Rules 52a and 54a. That was part of what was deleted from "Pro Se Wikipedia". See Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36

So you think that changes to the Judicial Canons regarding the rights of pro se litigants, Canadian Supreme Court decisions regarding pro se litigants, William Penn and William Marbury, and conspiracy to violate the zoning and not pay property taxes by public officials in Steamboat Springs CO are something that the public shouldn't know about or that a small group of "editors" should decide are uninteresting? And what was the point of taking former judge Naughty Nottingham off the "famous johns" list?-- The 10th Circuit themselves reported that Nottingham was using multiple prostitutes, calling them from his court computer, and asking at least one to lie to investigators and 9 News interviewed parties showing Nottingham was seeing prostitutes for years. Why would that not be interesting but a woman who has begged Wikipedia not to include her and who never held or ran for public office should be ridiculed?

It's funny, because you want people to read your voluminous writing, but refuse to read others' far more succinct writing! It's like irony, or something!

To the best of my knowledge all of my claims were correct. I asked former judge Nottingham why he dismissed my case and his only explanation was that a case that I dismissed without service and without responsive pleadings so that I could switch to federal court should cause claims preclusion. That is contrary to the Supreme Court decisions which require a decision on the merits for claims preclusion.








How do you know what I do or do not read?


I don't know who abd is but I searched this article and the only use of "lots of stuff" was by you, not me.

I posted information about years of prostitution use by former federal judge Nottingham, pro se litigation, and a federal drug conviction and violation of zoning ordinances by a public official on Wikipedia. I sourced this information properly. A small group of editors deleted the information I posted even though it was properly sourced. Apparently this is because they are mostly under employed lawyers who are threatened by pro se litigation. They might also be paid by someone to censor Wikipedia. I suggested an article, or report, on prisoner pro se litigation and in the talk section of "pro se litigation in the United States" provided a proposed outline and sources. The same group said they would write a report on prisoner pro se litigation. It has been over a year and nothing has been written on the subject since the small group decided that I should be banned from Wikipedia. I'm asking why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=280525775
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

You weren't "censored"... you were edited for length and topicality.