A Pro'se's Blog - The Pro'se Problem & You

Part 1: INTRODUCTION
Part 2: THE CORRUPTION CYCLE
Part 3: Pro'se Problem is Funded by Unsuspecting Taxpayers

NOTE: "Pro'se" is defined as "without attorney representation." A pro'se litigant / plaintiff represents herself / himself without lawyer representation.

Part 1: INTRODUCTION
The goal of basic justice is fundamental to a civilized society. Without the collective fair-mindedness of justice, corruption must overtake our institutions, because citizens will then become oriented-to and grow to accept corruption. Therefore, routine corruption must feed on itself. Yet, very many of us do not realize that the pro'se problem in our courts is one of our biggest social challenges. And you may ask, "WHY?" Well, because solving the pros'se problem will directly and indirectly address many other social ills, including today's dire condition of governmental unaccountability. The pros'se problem has resulted in a flawed justice system that generates ongoing corruption and consumption of taxdollars throughout our government. This "fraternal acceptance" and "group think" of unethical behavior is unsuspectingly funded by taxpayers, exemplifying the problem's effects upon the "whole of society."

Wherefore, the problem can only be corrected by adeqate public attention. Hence, the question is begged, "Do most of us really want a civilized society?" The answer, we must believe, is: "Yes, we do want a decently civilized social environment." Otherwise, our values and ethics will continue to degrade into the abiss of Sadom & Gamora, leading to environmental decay. -- Our children are indirectly affected by the pro'se problem by watching how we, the adults, accept the absence of values.

It's commonsense that the proper "adjudication" of court cases, based upon the 14th Amendment, would be cheaper for taxpayers, because fewer governmental agencies and corporations will commit offenses when they know that judges will not rule biasly in their favor. They'd be forced to recognize the power of the rights of average people, and not so easily take the meaning of justice for granted. Fewer cases would be filed, and they'd be disposed-of in much shorter time-periods.

Part 2: THE CORRUPTION CYCLE
In 2005, PPLA's sampling of civil cases filed in federal court (Louisville) show that approx. 30% of all cases are "pro'se." Then, approximately 95% of the pro'se cases are denied full access to court proceedings, as they are then dismissed (with prejudice). It does not matter how solid the evidence for pro'ses, judges will unlawfully dismiss their cases by not addressing the issues in their complaints. They operate an unlawful policy of not allowing pro'se and non-corporate citizens (w/ attorneys) access to the courts, state and federal. They will only yield to lawyers of corporate defendants and governmental agencies (to effectively function as an oligarchy). IN FACT, pro'ses typically only file lawsuits when significantly damaged by corporate and / or governmental defendants. However, these defendants are routinely set free by the courts to violate again (see the Bellsouth ad contracts issue in Part 3, below). So long as the courts exhibit this wholesale culture of ruling biasly against pro'ses, then all other court rulings must also be arbitriary, and thus the system is seriously flawed. This may seem paradoxical, but cases where the prevailing (winning) parties are represented by attorneys must then also be "chosen" at the judge's discretion for applying the law. The courts have not disputed this charge from PPLA's study.

    The Judicial Paradox
To put another way, by judges choosing to NOT follow the rule-of-law in 30% of their cases, being pro'se, then they are also choosing on whether to be "fair" in attorney-represented cases. In either direction, their rulings must result in being unlawfully arbitrary, in violation of the 14th Amendment that requires equal application of the law in all cases. With the pro'se problem, judges decide "when they'll be fair," that taints all of their cases, because they ignore the 14th Amendment, which is the basis of Our judicial system. This paradox is the beginning of a judge's folly, the systemic, cyclical corruption of which the courts are plagued, today.

Though you may have solid legal claims and be represented by an attorney, your lawyer cannot be assured of the outcome of the case, because the judge typically selects by unlawful discretion. He chooses when he will properly apply the law. So, the system can only give arbitrary justice.

No one can escape this diabolical problem. The naive claim that we are the land of the free is, indeed, absurd when applied to U.S. courts. Though low-income folks and racial minorities may be the ones mostly "selected" by judges to not prevail in law, upper-income plaintiffs can be sure that their cases are measured by the same "absence of fairness." The courts will usually rule biasly for government agencies and businesses. With the pro'se problem, there is no society-based justice, because the inherently arbitrary, and thus, corrupt judgments touch all of our lives.

Judges do not have this right to choose when to apply the law, and they violate the Constitution with impunity. As shown, it begins with the unlawful policies against pro'se litigants, and then poisons the entire justice system.

Part 3: Problem Funded by Unsuspecting Taxpayers
Taxpayers fund this system of gross human rights violations. These costs include that many pro'ses cannot pay the filing fees and court costs. So, they must be waived by the courts and paid by taxpayers. Those who do pay the fees are essentially ripped -off, because the courts won't rule in their favor. In addition, most court dockets are bogged down by pro'se cases, because judges will not properly assign them legal representation when required, that would otherwise expedite the cases. And since most pro'se lawsuits are dismissed, the cases linger in appellate courts while the guilty defendants (usually government agencies and businesses) are set free to violate again. | | | (HERE'S A STARK CASE-IN-POINT: in Cobble vs Bellsouth Telecommunications, Pro'se Cobble was capriciously denied prosecution of his case that identified unlawful advertising contracts of Bellsouth. Cobble's issues were not even disputed in the federal courts, as the string of judges collaborated to ignore the evidence. So, now, these illicit contracts continue to be perpetrated onto the public by Bellsouth.)

Hence, it is the public at-large that ultimately suffers from this systemic injustice, and taxpayers that unsuspectingly pay for prosecuting these costly and lingering circumstances within our courts. On the other hand, with proper adjudication of cases, as a deterrent, civil offenses would decrease, that would respectively decrease the costs operating the courts.

An Evolved / Forced Strategy for the Pro'se Problem
It has come to the sad state of affairs in America where lawmakers are elected and then ignore the needs and welfare of The People.. They now cater to corporations and for bigger government. To this end, groups such as the American Family Association (of Kentucky) and the Family Rights Foundation have taken the lead in a new concept. They submit and publicly promote legislation for the benefit of families. Upon these legislative bills becoming popular, then legislators will be forced to again start paying attention to the needs and protection of The People.

On the heels of that strategy, the PPLA will be introducing legislation to be known as the
Pro'se Litigants Protection Act (also see Legislation & Policies) to help address the pro'se problem. Sections of the PLPA include:
    1. Removing self-regulation from judges. (Self-regulation poses an inherent conflict-of-interest that shield judges from being prosecuted when they violate the law.)
    2. Remove administrative fee barriers for low income people.
    3. Remove judges with an violation.
    4. Require the Supreme Court to review proportionally filed pro'se cases.
    5. Bar the arbitrary sealing of case files.
    6. Make forma pauperis applications confidential.
    7. Require mandatory evidentiary hearings for pro'se cases (civil and criminal).

Like everyone else, pro'ses pay taxes to have their rights recognized. To not do so is 1) tax-extortion (stealing from pro'ses), 2) violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, and 3) gross human rights violations. And yet, it's ironic, since it is the U.S. who claims to be the ethical leader in human rights protections.