Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

- Unauthorized Practice of Law

Expand Messages
  • rd
    For your information, regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law for pro se litigant . Hoppy Cock! THE RIGHTS TO PRO SE CLASS ACTIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      For your information, regarding the "Unauthorized Practice of Law" for pro se litigant . Hoppy Cock!



      THE RIGHTS TO PRO SE CLASS ACTIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS:

      (Note: we attempt to *only* deal with decisions from the United States Supreme Court, the highest rule of all, but there are many, many other cases from the various 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals that support these principles, too)


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EXAMPLES:


      Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar
      377 U.S. 1 (1964)
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=377&page=1
      -- state injunction prohibiting "nonlawyers" representing others VACATED & REVERSED
      (POINTS TO NAACP v BUTTON below)
      includes, among many other strong supporting statements, "Laymen cannot be expected to know how to protect their rights when dealing with practiced and carefully counseled adversaries, cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , and for them to associate together to help one another to preserve and enforce rights granted them under federal laws cannot be condemned as a threat to legal ethics."


      N.A.A.C.P. v. Button

      371 U.S. 415 (1963)
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=371&invol=415
      -- "Held: (a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 428."
      (POINTS TO "STANDING TO ASSERT" AND "FREEDOM TO ENGAGE" RIGHTS BELOW)
      (POINTS TO OTHER *SETS* OF CASES THAT PROTECT CLASSACTIONS BY GROUPS V. STATES)
      (POINTS TO OTHER *SETS* OF CASES THAT PROHIBIT GOVT FROM DENYING NONLAWYERS, especially at [371 U.S. 415, 438-445])




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      group standing to assert (litigate) the corresponding rights of its (class) members



      NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson
      357 U.S. 449, 458-460
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=357&invol=449#458



      Bates v. City of Little Rock
      361 U.S. 516, 523 , n. 9
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=361&invol=516#523



      Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP
      366 U.S. 293, 296
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=366&invol=293#296



      and, others too many to list here...


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      freedom to engage (litigate) in association for the advancement of group (class) beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:



      Gitlow v. New York
      268 U.S. 652, 666
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=652#666



      Palko v. Connecticut
      302 U.S. 319, 324
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=302&invol=319#324



      Cantwell v. Connecticut
      310 U.S. 296, 303
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=310&invol=296#303



      Staub v. City of Baxley
      355 U.S. 313, 321
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=355&invol=313#321



      De Jonge v. Oregon
      299 U.S. 353, 364
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=299&invol=353#364



      and, others too many to list here...


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      miscellaneous "devils advocate" rulings also to be used in support of pro se class rights, such as:



      Sierra Club v. Morton
      405 U.S. 727 (1972)
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=727
      adverse ruling against group (class) done ONLY because they "lacked standing, and had not shown irreparable injury"


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      and, let's not forget all of the MANY prisoner pro se class rights suits filed by inmates over the years, such as:



      Johnson v. Avery
      393 U.S. 483 (1969)
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=483
      -- pro se prisoner challenged bar to assisting other prisoners in litigation
      (see also 28 U.S.C. 2242 (fed habeas can be signed "on behalf" of prisoner...))
      "This Court has constantly emphasized the fundamental importance of the writ of habeas corpus in our constitutional scheme, 2 and the Congress has demonstrated its solicitude for the vigor of the Great Writ. 3 The Court has steadfastly insisted that "there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired." Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939)."
      [ Footnote 4 ] "See Note, Constitutional Law: Prison "No-Assistance" Regulations and the Jailhouse Lawyer, 1968 Duke L. J. 343, 347-348, 360-361."
      [ Footnote 10 ] "One State has designated an inmate as the official prison writ-writer. See Note, supra, n. 4, at 359."
      [ Footnote 11 ] "In reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals relied on the power of the State to restrict the practice of law to licensed attorneys as a source of authority for the prison regulation. The power of the States to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). In any event, the type of activity involved here - preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief - though historically and traditionally one which may benefit from the services of a trained and dedicated lawyer, is a function often, perhaps generally, performed by laymen. Title 28 U.S.C. 2242 apparently contemplates that in many situations petitions for federal habeas corpus relief will be prepared by laymen."
      MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
      "That traditional, closed-shop attitude [referring to attys ONLY, see just above this note in the case itself] is utterly out of place in the modern world where claims pile high and much of the work of tracing and pursuing them requires the patience and wisdom of a layman rather than the legal skills of a member of the bar."
      "If poverty lawyers are overworked, some of the work can be delegated to sub-professionals. New York law permits senior law students to practice law under certain supervised conditions. Approval must first be granted by the appellate division. A rung or two lower on the legal profession's ladder are laymen legal technicians, comparable to nurses and lab assistants in the medical profession. Large law firms employ them, and there seems to be no reason why they cannot be used in legal services programs to relieve attorneys for more professional tasks." Samore, Legal Services for the Poor, 32 Albany L. Rev. 509, 515-516 (1968)."
      "And see Sparer, Thorkelson, & Weiss, The Lay Advocate, 43 U. Det. L. J. 493, 510-514 (1966)."
      "Laymen - in and out of prison - should be allowed to act as "next friend" to any person in the preparation of any paper or document or claim, so long as he does not hold himself out as practicing law or as being a member of the Bar."
      "The cooperation and help of laymen, as well as of lawyers, is necessary if the right of "[r]easonable access to the courts" 24 is to be available to the indigents among us."




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      There can be no reasonable dispute that pro se litigants have free speech, free association, and liberty interest rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate on behalf of themselves as part of a group with common interests, beliefs, and/or values - such as groups of so-called "noncustodial" parents seeking a common goal...equal custody rights!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.