''We will not rest until every citizen understands the law and 'all defenses and objections not entered are deemed waived' is tattooed across every person's forehead!''
A "pro se" is any person who represents him/herself in court. A pro se can be either a nonlawyer — I'm not a lawyer, so I like to call myself a "nonbar" pro se — or a lawyer. I like to use the word either as a noun or an adjective. I like to call lawyers who represent themselves "bar-member pro ses". When a person appears in court "pro se" sometimes some people call that appearing "in propria persona" or "in pro per." I guess if you spoke the sentence, "I am appearing in court 'pro se'", the word could even be an adverb describing the intransitive verb "appearing". Best of luck with your self-education, and be sure to check back regularly, because I will be diligently adding useful information on an ongoing regular basis. Cheers!
Your humble webmaster is a person who won an unprecedented 42 USC § 1983 civil rights action (see John R. Wilkenson v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, et al., 634 FS 1264 (1986)) against federal government employees who were breaking the law by charging federal recreational fees for non-recreational travel. If memory serves, the decision was an 18-page decision, and the longest, winning nonbar pro se decision of which I am aware. Before I filed my first complaint in court, I went to the local law library from opening time until closing time five days a week for a year and half, learned how to do legal research and studied the law. I found it so fascinating that I would digress for weeks in areas of the law totally unrelated to the lawsuit I wanted to file. That's how I learned. I want to share the information I found with the whole world. This is my personal aggregation of law-related information which can be found on the Internet, and which interested grass roots individuals can use to help change America's culture for the better, simultaneous to fighting the rampant Big Brother police-state corruption in all levels of the legal profession and government. The only people not aware of the tyranny are those who have not had first-hand experience with America's court systems. Please do not take anything on this webpage for granted. Verify EVERYTHING on this webpage. That's how you will educate yourself. Whenever "legalese" is used as part of the self-education process, I will try to link it to the specific case, which should make your life a LOT easier than I had it. Not knowing it at the time, I was blessed to learn in a little, but quite adequate, small-town law library in which the local lawyers didn't spend much time. Most of them were lazy and sloppy, not putting the law books back on the shelf. Because I put the books back, and kept the place relatively tidy, the court clerk's personnel in charge of the library appreciated me and came to be friends with me. Because lawyers seldom came in, I would have twenty law books open at the same time, jumping from case to case. In this Internet age, with the miracle of hyperlinking, you don't have to do that. Just click on the blue links to go where you please. Many of the cases you will read have hyperlinks interspersed in the text. So you can open several windows at a time with some browsers and go from link to link much easier than I could back in 1981 when I began to learn the law.
* * * * * * * * *
Judicial Reform Amendment - This proposed amendment would go a long way toward facilitating individual freedom, restoring the U.S. Constitution to power as the Supreme Law of the Land, and correcting serious existing problems in America's morally and intellectually bankrupt judiciaries. NEVER FORGET: if the human species knew how to stay healthy and at peace, lawyers (government-granted commercial monopoly on access to justice) and doctors (government-granted commercial monopoly on pain control) would have to find some other way to make a living!
Twitter (Some technologically "with it" judiciaries are posting on twitter. It's an idea whose time has come, and your humble webmaster hopes all non-elitist judiciaries will do the same.)
(NOTE: The substance/information contained in Supreme Court cases can't be copyrighted. The Supreme Court works for "we the people". So their decisions belong to "we the people". The legal "profession" loves to say things like, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." So how is it possible to avoid being ignorant in the law if information about the law isn't freely available to all the persons who aren't allowed to be ignorant in it when they appear in court in front of a judge? That would make no sense. Court decisions are public records. You might want to read the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Compare that case to West Publishing vs. Mead Data Central,799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir 1986); Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Peters) 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425 (1888); Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 9 S.Ct. 177, 32 L.Ed. 547 (1888). See also, "Are Page Numbers Really Copyrightable? The Effect of Feist on the West Publishing v. Lexis Case, by Carl J. Kharlil.)
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Here is a partial list of what I believe are historical decisions important to read and understand for pro se self-education and general all-around good citizenship. They represent a tiny fraction of the cases I read during my 1.5 years spent in the local law library. The term "common law" is widely misunderstood by nonbar pro ses as being some "type" of law. A basic working definition is simply "all the court decisions in all the courts" throughout history. I educated myself via a massive reading and studying of court decisions. I would even get law books on inter-library loans. If you know the exact cite you can often "Google" it and come up with the case. Personally, I still resent Google for making it easier for the control-freak "Chicom" government to find dissidents, so I always suggest that people find some other search engine to use, if they are so inclined.
Immediately below are some excellent websites where you can find court decisions. Just click on the banner to get to the website. Read the instructions and enter the name or numbers of the case you are looking for and click the search button. You'll see what to do when you get to the website. Happy "surfing!"
(NOTE: Since the time I learned how to do legal research, the legal "profession" has figured out how to suck more money out of the citizenry. Technology has not operated entirely in a way beneficial to the nonbar pro se litigant. One of the most useful sets of books in the law library used to be referred to by everybody simply as "Shepard's". According to Wikipedia, "Shepard's Citations is a citator used in United States legal research that provides a list of all the authorities citing a particular case, statute, or other legal authority. The verb "Shepardizing" refers to the process of consulting Shepard's to see if a case has been overturned, reaffirmed, questioned, or cited by later cases." You don't want to hang your legal hat on an overturned case. Well, Shepard's was how a diligent researcher avoided that. Plus reading the reasoning of a case that questioned the one you are researching is a great way to learn more about the law. Shepard's looked sort of like a set on encyclopedias, and was invaluable my learning process. It was in virtually every law library worth its salt, and was free to use. Now, if you want to use that service, you have to pay LexisNexis. Swell. Here is one article which unwittingly demonstrates why books were better and more self-ownership friendly than so-called "E-book readers": you could actually buy and own them and use them at your convenience, instead of paying ever-increasing fees for à la carte access to information. Think about it.
Under Construction . . .
LEGAL NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information contained at "Pro Se University" is intended to help the reader learn how to understand the mechanics of how the law works. It is believed that the information on this "Pro Se University" webpage is public information, belonging to the people of the United States. It is intended SOLELY for 1st-Amendment-protected, free-speech-based informational self-educational purposes. Whatever you do with all or any part/s of the information is solely YOUR business and YOUR responsibility. It is under NO circumstances, EVER, in ANY context whatsoever, to be construed as direct or indirect, explicit or implicit legal "advice" or "unauthorized practice" of law. Nor is it intended in any way or in any context be construed to imply that you should represent yourself in extremely complicated legal situations any more than a reasonably prudent person would do open-heart surgery on him/herself instead of hiring an expert heart surgeon. I would, however offer a useful bit of practical political advice: The U.S. Constitution is dead (see at about the 6:00 minute mark of the linked video) in America's courts. It will have to be re-empowered by self-education in law of America's grassroots citizenry. Precisely because the unspoken law in the court is "the judge can do whatever s/he pleases" — virtually 100% of the legal profession will cheerfully lie about that FACT — courts are a DANGEROUS place to go, especially for any person who has done just enough research to think s/he is competent in the law. I have news for you. Here's how the Alice In Wonderland of the law and politics really works: If you don't know the law, you lose. If you are wrong in the law, you lose. If you are perfect in — (do a perfect job of presenting in court) — the law, then the law no longer matters. It's winning the politics1 (aka public relations battle) that counts, especially when your adversary is the "stinking" fascistic2 Big Brother "government3". I say that not out of "sour grapes", but as a person who won the biggest pro se decision in court of which I am aware. Any person who disagrees with me on that point simply doesn't know what s/he is talking about. So, if I were you, and speaking as a voice of considerable experience, I would do my best to learn how to live in such a sustainable and wisdom-based way as to stay out of court. I would do my best to learn how to use technology in such sustainable and self-sufficient ways as to make the psychopathic control freaks who call themselves "government" irrelevant. Lastly, I would do my best at all times to try to remember, think and act as if everything I said on the phone, my social sites, my website, etc., were going to be recorded and used against me in court. I would do my best to start learning how to think like a lawyer. Even in face-to-face personal conversations, try to pretend that the person you are speaking with has a tiny recording device in his pocket (aka "wearing a wire", as so-called "law enforcement" officers do all the time) and is going to use your words against you in court. It's not as hard as it might seem. Just start doing your spiritual and intellectual homework. Good luck with your pilgrimage in the Wonderland of Oz the is the commercial-monopoly-on-access-to-justice legal system!
NOTE ABOUT LIBEL:
Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.”
When jurors get to decide both the facts and the law, the legal profession likes to call that "jury nullification". In the Supreme Court decision of State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 1 (1794), the U.S. Supreme Court's first Chief Justice John Jay expressed the at-the-time common knowledge — unequivocally articulated in Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution — that jurors in fact do have (as was obviously intended by the Founders) that fundamental constitutional right with which to combat lawless judicial behavior. In pertinent part, he said:
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumeable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."
Most lawyers, especially judges who commit crimes against litigants who appear before them, don't want you to have access to this crucial-to-self-ownership little tidbit of information. But now you know, and, in my opinion, you should feel morally competent and justified to use your inherent self-ownership power should the need arise.
You might be interested in reading the Daily Sentinel article, "Libel laws apply to bloggers, as well as traditional journalists," by Denny Herzog, along with my three-part — (there are character limitations on some comment strings) — reply. Denny is a retired executive editor of The Daily Sentinel.
1. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why the substance of politics = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.
2. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.
John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author
"Fascist" = scumbag4 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.
MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones (see videos below), the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions, all the while using the coercion-based police powers of "government7" to enrich themselves.
Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"1/2 - YouTube video
Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"2/2 - YouTube video
Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"1/2 - YouTube video
Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"2/2 - YouTube video
Willie Nelson: You're Either In Luck Or You Ain't P1 - YouTube video
Willie Nelson: You're Either In Luck Or You Ain't P2 - YouTube video
Inside USA- Jesse Ventura- 01 Aug 08- Part 1 - YouTube video
There are five basic groups of people: 1) fascist "liberals" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 2) illiterate lemming "liberals" who only spout meaningless "leftist" talking points, 3) fascist "conservatives" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 4) illiterate lemming "conservatives" who only spout meaningless "right-wing" talking points, and 5) illiterate, apathetic, passive/aggressive disordered underachieving loser types who feel some sick sense of personal empowerment by trolling talk strings and spouting illiterate low-IQ drivel in an effort to distract and destroy meaningful and intellectually honest truth-seeking conversation.
3. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"8. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.
4. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential. "If a government refuses to do justice to individuals, war is the consequence." ~ Edmund Randolph – See page 268 of the Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon - 473 U.S. 234 (1985) decision. To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.ShareThis