Pro Per Legal Assistant Service

[goffertrap]

Life_Student:

Hey, found this, although doesn't pertain much to your topic, it does mention Propria Persona! Check this out:

[§634J-1] Definitions. Unless otherwise clear from the context, as used in this chapter:

"Defendant" means a person (including a corporation, association, partnership, firm, or governmental entity) against whom litigation is brought or maintained, or sought to be brought or maintained.

"In propria persona" means on the person's own behalf acting as plaintiff.

"Litigation" means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court of record.

"Plaintiff" means the person who commences, institutes or maintains litigation or causes it to be commenced, instituted, or maintained, including an attorney at law acting on the attorney's own behalf.

"Security" means an undertaking to assure payment, to the party for whose benefit the undertaking is required to be furnished, of the party's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, and not limited to taxable costs incurred in or in connection with a litigation instituted, caused to be instituted, or maintained or caused to be maintained by a vexatious litigant.

"Vexatious litigant" means a plaintiff who does any of the following:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five civil actions other than in a small claims court that have been:

(A) Finally determined adversely to the plaintiff; or

(B) Unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing;

(2) After litigation has been finally resolved against the plaintiff, relitigates or attempts to relitigate in propria persona and in bad faith, either:

(A) The validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or

(B) The cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined;

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, files, in bad faith, unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay; or

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence. [L 1993, c 124, pt of §1]



Case Notes



Trial court's declaration of plaintiff as vexatious litigant not abuse of discretion where plaintiff failed in separate incidents to serve and/or inappropriately served separate documents on defendant, failed to produce documents to defendant's attorney and committed inappropriate service of documents, and filed at least one motion that was without merit. 102 H. 289, 75 P.3d 1180.

As a vexatious litigant must be a natural person, given plaintiff's corporate status, trial court erred in determining that corporation was a vexatious litigant under this chapter; also, as only a plaintiff may be deemed a vexatious litigant, trial court erred in determining that attorney of record for plaintiffs was a vexatious litigant under this chapter. 98 H. 95 (App.), 43 P.3d 232.

Where Hawaii supreme court had opined in a previous case that plaintiff had "engaged in a pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation" and that case and the present case were "based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence", trial court correctly determined that plaintiff was a vexatious litigant under this section. 98 H. 95 (App.), 43 P.3d 232.

[life_student]

Thanks Goffertrap!

This thread was taking a nose dive into useless until your post.

Here's some more great case law from the Farreta v California SCt. decision:

The United States Courts of Appeals have repeatedly held that the right of self-representation is protected by the Bill of Rights. In United States v. Plattner,330 F.2d 271, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit emphasized that the Sixth Amendment grants the accused the rights of confrontation, of compulsory process for witnesses in his favor, and of assistance of counsel as minimum procedural requirements in federal criminal prosecutions. The right to the assistance of counsel, the court concluded, was intended to supplement the other rights of the defendant, and not to impair "the absolute and primary right to conduct one's own defense in propria persona." Id., at 274. The court found support for its decision in the language of the 1789 federal statute; in the statutes and rules governing criminal procedure, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654, and Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44; in the many state constitutions that expressly guarantee self-representation;and in this Court's recognition of the right in Adams and Price. On these grounds, the Court of Appeals held that implicit in the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law, and implicit also in the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to the assistance of counsel, is "the right of the accused personally to manage and conduct his own defense in a criminal case."330 F.2d, at 274. See also United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12, 15 (CA2); MacKenna v. Ellis, 263 F.2d 35, 41 (CA5); United States v. Sternman, 415 F.2d 1165, 1169-1170 (CA6); Lowe v. United States, 418 F.2d 100, 103 (CA7); United States v. Warner, 428 F.2d 730, 733 (CA8); Haslam v. United States, 431 F.2d 362, 365 (CA9); compare United States v. Dougherty, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 86, 473 F.2d 1113, 1123 (intimating right is constitutional but finding it unnecessary to reach issue) with Brown v. United States, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 77, 79-80, 264 F.2d 363, 365-366 (plurality opinion stating right is no more than statutory in nature).

This Court's past recognition of the right of self-representation, the federal-court authority holding the right to be of constitutional dimension, and the state constitutions pointing to the right's fundamental nature form a consensus not easily ignored. "[T]he mere fact that a path is a beaten one," Mr. Justice Jackson once observed, "is a persuasive reason for following it." We confront here a nearly universal conviction, on the part of our people as well as our courts, that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so.
...

The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," who must be "confronted with the witnesses against him," and who must be accorded "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." Although not stated in the Amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation -- to make one's own defense personally -- is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment.*fn15 The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.

FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 06/30/1975)

It's a trip that the California Supreme Court denied Faretta the right of Self-Representation despite the clear language used in the California Constitution at the time of trial that a defendent had the right "to appear and defend, in person and with counsel." Cal. Const., Art. 1, § 13

[DCLXVI]

It is a great case. I believe Farretta was allowed to make his own defense. It is a classic case one that most all judges are familiar with.

[goffertrap]

You're Welcom Life_Student.

[DCLXVI]

more from the case.


a. The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be "informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation," who must be "confronted with the witnesses against him," and who must be accorded "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." Although not stated in the Amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation--to make one's own defense personally--is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment. The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.
The counsel provision supplements this design. It speaks of the "assistance" of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defense tools guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant--not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master; and the right to make a defense is stripped of the personal character upon which the Amendment insists. It is true that when a defendant chooses to have a lawyer manage and present his case, law and tradition may allocate to the counsel the power to make binding decisions of trial strategy in many areas ... This allocation can only be justified, however, by the defendant's consent at the outset, to accept counsel as his representative. An unwanted counsel "represents" the defendant only through a tenuous and unacceptable legal fiction.Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by life_student

It's a trip that the California Supreme Court denied Faretta the right of Self-Representation despite the clear language used in the California Constitution at the time of trial that a defendent had the right "to appear and defend, in person and with counsel." Cal. Const., Art. 1, § 13

Check the REGISTER OF ACTION. This is an administerial tracking of the arraignment and other proceedings. It will have a blank for the attorney's name and a box for "Pro Se" if the defendant appears without an attorney.

There is no provision for Pro Per.

GofferTrap is doing you no favors by citing a Hawaii case and even so, you better check the date that was opined.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Check the REGISTER OF ACTION. This is an administerial tracking of the arraignment and other proceedings. It will have a blank for the attorney's name and a box for "Pro Se" if the defendant appears without an attorney.

There is no provision for Pro Per.

GofferTrap is doing you no favors by citing a Hawaii case and even so, you better check the date that was opined.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Really David? How about you go over to the government site for Hawaii and look? Or would that be asking to much?

Funny, I use "in Propria Persona" in all my paper work. But, it doesnt work cause david said so.

Clearly this David understands very little when it comes down to law. Or maybe he's just being sarcastic. I'm not laughing. Still, not impessed in the least.

[PANICPASS]

What PPLAS says about sovereignty is very true. Very few people have it because very few people want it :



We don’t mean to sound pessimistic but we have to be honest. People, in general, are too dumb (ignorant), fearful, faithless, lazy, dependent, and impecunious today to be sovereign. This may sound harsh but it is true!

Based upon the above, PPLAS does not embrace or advocate sovereignty (political-legal sovereignty). Sovereignty must first exist within the person. Another (person or entity) cannot make you sovereign. Every human being is born sovereign. Your outward and legal-political sovereignty reflects your inner sovereignty. If you are ruled outwardly (and you are), then you are also ruled within, by lower desires (dark, low energy).


The collective American citizenry are subjects of the Matrix, its government (federal, state, and local), and their own lower desires today and rightfully so. One cannot be a slave and so-called “sovereign” at the same time. It has been said that those men who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants and clearly Americans are ruled by modern tyrants (posing as government) which only bears witness that Americans or people collectively are not and have not been governed by God in a very long time. The tyranny within (on a spiritual, mental, emotional, and psychological level) has manifested as a tyranny without on the external or outer level. Therefore, we say that the political leaders (Rulers), e.g. politicians (senators, congress people, judges, etc.) are solely an outward projection or the manifestation of the collective consciousness of the collective people. Basically, you get the government and leaders YOU DESERVE!

The scheme to dumb down the American people (via sex and lower desires, junk/fast food, chemicals, public schooling, television and radio, religion, Hollywood movies, degenerative music, manufactured national crisis and disturbances, etc.) was a huge success. People don’t like to read today. The laws of the land are written in law or code books and if you don’t like to read, you damn sure are not going to want to read a law book, especially since the code writers specifically write the laws or statutes in such a complex and obfuscating way that the average person doesn’t stand a chance of understanding what the law is or says. This is done on purpose so you will have to hire a code breaker (called an “attorney”) to interpret the law (statute) for you because you are a dummy (incompetent), euphemistically (in law) called a “client.”

Sovereignty should not be advocated today due to the collective state American citizens are in. The American people collectively are incompetent and thus heavily dependent on a government most deplore and condemn.

In addition, the past sovereignty movements hurt the cause of sovereignty. The so-called leaders were too money hungry, arrogant, ego-stricken, and spiritually blind. The conviction and imprisonment of many of the sovereign movement heavyweights and leaders, e.g. Lynn Meredith, Irwin Schiff, Larkin Rose, Dave Hinkson, et al. really dealt a blow to the solar plexus of the sovereign (and tax honesty movement) movement.

Government has successfully tarnished the name and image of the sovereignty movement. A simple Inter-net search of “sovereign,” or “sovereignty,” will bear witness to this. These people are linked with such groups as the “Militia,” “domestic terrorists,” and “anti-governmentalists.”

Sovereignty will never come back to this once great and mighty nation until government acknowledges it and restores it which in our humble opinion will never happen (unless the majority of citizens wake up and reclaim their sovereign status back). Sovereignty is a threat to big business and corporations, which now runs the nation and the world. Courts are now set up to primarily handle disputes between corporations, and people secondarily.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Really David? How about you go over to the government site for Hawaii and look? Or would that be asking to much?

That was my point - Hawaii. There are judicial distinctions about Hawaii according to Title 28.

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Funny, I use "in Propria Persona" in all my paper work. But, it doesnt work cause david said so.

Then you use "in Propria Persona" in Hawaii. Like I said...

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Clearly this David understands very little when it comes down to law. Or maybe he's just being sarcastic. I'm not laughing. Still, not impessed in the least.

Too bad for you. Yesterday you seemed to be having a lot of fun here with what you thought were jabs at all of us. I guess all that ROFLOL was disingenuous.

Thanks for that bit about the district courts of Hawaii.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Funny, I use "in Propria Persona" in all my paper work. But, it doesnt work cause david said so...

Clearly this David understands very little when it comes down to law. Or maybe he's just being sarcastic. I'm not laughing. Still, not impessed in the least.

After a while it sunk in what a great point you are making for me here.

You are saying that your "in Propria Persona" status is being recognized whenever you go into court. I say no; it is not and therefore it cannot be. (I just had to get another laugh there.)

Logically though, all seriousness aside, what you are saying is that there is no REGISTER OF ACTION like I said to stir up your little insulting tizzy. Or maybe you are saying that the register of action does not make a cut and dry choice between an Attorney Name and Registration # or in the alternative a box "Pro Se".

Lacking an attorney, whenever you show to any hearing Propria Persona, the only thing getting over the bench is that you are Pro Se. So GofferTrap; there you have it. Deny it all you want. It just makes me chuckle that the only thing you can do about the truth is tell people I do not know much about law for pointing it out. It gives me a warm reassuring fuzzy to know that the truth is powerful enough to set anyone free, even you.


Regards,

David Merrill.