|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
This subdocument is 6408 Version 1.000 Saturday, July 31, 2004. Upgraded: Saturday, July 31, 2004.
Liberality in construing the briefs of pro se lay litigants.
State lacks general roving jurisdiction. Only the King has general roving jurisdiction. You give the a court jurisdiction by filing legal papers with them. In criminal cases they get jurisdiction by the complaint of a victim.
This page is www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6408.html It appears in my book.
Issue #1: Liberality in dealing with Pro Se litigants:
1. "The trial judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish." Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987)
2. "Pro Se Litigants pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than lawyers" Haines v Kerner, Warden of Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard (1972) www.lawyerdude.s5.com/haines.html 404 US 519 (1972)
3. ".the greatest veneration one can show the rule of law is to keep a watch on it, and to reserve the right to judge unjust laws and the subversion of the function of the law by the state. That vigilance is the most important proof of respect for the law." Nadine Gordimer, Speak Out: The Necessity of Protest lecture. [1971]
4. Defendant appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that his points and authorities relied upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits", Sanders v United States, 373 US 1, at 16, 17 (1963); and addressed with "clarity and particularity", McCleskey v Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, at 1470-71 (1991); and afforded " a full and fair" evidentiary hearing, Townsend v Sain, 372 U.S.293, at p.1 (1962). See also Pickering v Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 151 F.2d 240 (3d Cir. 1945).
5. Pleadings of the Defendant SHALL NOT BE dismissed for lack of form or failure of process. All the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and:
"And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof. And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe (a)" Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20, 1789.
6. "Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25
7. "Nemo prasens nisi inteligat," or "One is not present unless he understands," 2 Bouvier's Law Dic. 136, title Maxims"
8. HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
9. ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
10. WILLIAM MCNEIL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21, 61 U.S.L.W. 4468. Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is certainly not a "trap for the unwary." It is no doubt true that there are cases in which a litigant proceeding without counsel may make a fatal procedural error, but the risk that a lawyer will be unable to understand the exhaustion requirement is virtually nonexistent. Our rules of procedure are based on the assumption that litigation is normally conducted by lawyers. While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and have held that some procedural rules must give way because of the unique circumstance of incarceration, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (pro se prisoner's notice of appeal deemed filed at time of delivery to prison authorities), we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. As we have noted before, "in the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 826 (1980).
11. BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that " pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.
12. HUGHES v. ROWE ET AL. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163, 49 U.S.L.W. 3346. Petitioner's complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded" are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-521. And, of course, the allegations of the complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).
Issue #2: Absence of jurisdiction and other Administrative arguments:
1. One problem is that few people can recognize the difference between a "court" and an "administrative tribunal". See Administrative Law which tells us:
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal 596; San Christina, etc.Co. v.San Francisco (1914) , 167 Cal. 762, 141 P. 384.
2. "It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear an the record of the court." Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22.
3. "Where a person is not at the time a licensee, neither the agency, nor any official. has any jurisdiction of said person to consider or make any order. One ground as to want of jurisdiction was, accused was not a licensee and it was not claimed that he was. " 0'Neil v Dept Prof. & Vocations (1935) www.lawyerdude.s5.com/o’neil.html 7 CA 2nd 398; Eiseman v Daugherty 6 CA 783
4. "A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency." AISI v US, 568 F2d 284.
5. "...judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise) , act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.)
6. ",...their supposed 'court' becoming thus a court of limited jurisdiction' as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West's 1977) FRC v G.E. 28I US 464; Keller v PE, 261 US 428.
7. "When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting an administrative officer and not as a judicial capacity; courts in administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially. but, merely administerially." Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. l54 SE 583, 7l ALR 604.
8. "It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agency's enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him." Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501
9. "It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person and property of its subjects is not law." Hurtado v. California (1884) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Hurtado.html 110 US 515 (1984)
10. "Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463
11. "Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent." Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.
12. "A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence”. California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918.
13. Review of administrative proceedings by a court does not change an administrative proceeding to a civil proceeding. Porter v. Michigan State Bd. of State Examiners in Optometry (1972) 199 N.W.2d 666, 41 Mich.App. 150.
Version 1.010 Crass Promotional Links: Upgraded Friday, June 23, 2006 Upgraded October 4, 2006.
Telephone Lawyerdude: 541 476 8954. Email: Dlawyerdude@Gmail.com Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com
This subdocument is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5734.html Click it to get the latest version.
Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html
Do you have questions? Join our Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger.
Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.
1. My Flow Chart including links to a dozen proven winning motions: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7930.html
2. Table of Contents to my $29 book. You can use your debit/ credit card to buy it:
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7697.html
3. How to Win! Getting started: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7260.html
4. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.fu.gq.nu/6025.html
5. Over 100 actual winning motions from 22 winning pro se litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
6. What has been newly posted by Lawyerdude: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
7. My Demurrer page: Perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
8. Briefs 101. How to write a Memorandum of Law: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
9. Lawyerdude’s Empowerment page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
10. What performance you should expect from your criminal defense counsel: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
11. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
12. Charlie’s Transcripts. Learn how to charm the judge and win your case: http://ronfox.250free.com/charlie.html
13. Learn the law ! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
14. Eighteen actual Section 1983 federal complaints: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
15. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
16. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
17. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?
18. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
19. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
All about Lawyerdude Palaschak
20. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
21. My winning argument regarding the 1st amendment where I argued the Law to the jury without interruption: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html
22. Raid at the Good Nite Inn based on mistake of law by District Attorney: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/brosnan.html
23. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
24. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html
25. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html
26. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
27. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
28. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html
29. My home page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
My biggest fattest briefs:
30. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
31. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!
32. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
33. Lawyerdude's briefs: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list
34. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
35. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html
36. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
37. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
38. Lawyerdude's links page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
39. Lawyer’s Manifesto: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html