Time: Fri Sep 05 05:25:34 1997
by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA21190;
Fri, 5 Sep 1997 03:51:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 03:51:05 -0700
To: harold@halcyon.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: constitutional defenses (fwd)
"Pro Se" in Latin means "For It".
"Se" is a neuter Latin pronoun.
Cicero wrote:
"Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?"
"To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself, Cataline?"
A pleading in such a mode is technically
incorrect, because if you refer to yourself
with a neuter Latin pronoun, you are creating
the presumption that you are appearing in
your "fictitious or juristic" person (lower-case
"p"), i.e., you are there exercising your
federal citizen "franchise" or, worse, you are
acceding to their use of a nomme de guerre for
you, which they must use, if they are going to
perfect martial rule against you.
As a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America,
on the other hand, you appear as a Proper Party,
In Your Proper Person ("In Propria Persona" in Latin).
Nor can you "represent" yourself, because to
"represent" is to "re-present", which is another
way of saying that you are appearing on behalf
of someone else. Clearly, this is impossible
for you to do on your own behalf: lex non cogit
impossibilia; the law does not recognize
impossibilities. So, it is impossible to
"represent" yourself. You can only "present"
yourself to a court, you can never "re-present"
yourself to a court, because the latter must
be done by someone who has Power of Attorney
to "re-present" you, on your behalf. You can
represent others, and other(s) can represent you,
but you cannot represent yourself, nor it is
technically proper to refer to yourself with
neuter Latin pronouns, ever!! Latin makes the
same distinction between male, female, and neuter,
the latter of which is reserved for all inanimate
things, not People.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 12:51 AM 9/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>All,
>
>One of the things I've found myself guilty of at times is being so
>irate about an issue that I close my mind to any analysis which
>doesn't support my irateness. One of the things I am irate about is
>the courts and the legal system in general. So it requires some
>self-control for me to admit that a pet peeve may be at least
>partially the result of my own lack of understanding. Such may be
>the case with respect to the perceived refusal of judges to "hear
>constitutional arguments in court.
>
>Larry Becraft's comment below was, to me at least, informational and
>worth considering. I'm not saying it completely explains away the
>problem, but, if his observations are correct, then it means the
>problem is not being framed correctly and certainly needs to be
>reframed if it is to be solved.
>
>Comments or dialogue, on this topic and Larry's observations, would
>be appreciated and could be quite helpful to some of us irate folks.
>;-)
>
>Harold Thomas
>harold@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/harold/
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 13:48:39 -0500
>From: Becraft <becraft@hiwaay.net>
>Reply-to: becraft@hiwaay.net
>To: harold@halcyon.com
>Subject: constitutional defenses
>
>Dear Harold,
>
> You sent a note asking about the practice of federal judges to
>assert that "constitutional issues" can never be raised in their courts,
>which is an alleged practice I have never seen, contrary to many
>representations made by pro ses. Here is what I see is happening.
>
> When some criminal charge is made, there is time for pre-trial
>motions to be filed which can raise a variety of issues, including
>constitutional issues. I have raised lots of such issues many times and
>have never encountered the alleged attitude of judges claimed by these
>pro ses. You raises these issues pre-trial when legal arguments are to
>be raised and decided. When trial comes around, it is time for facts to
>be presented and not legal arguments. Too many pro ses get this
>backward.
>
> I have seen pro ses when charged make arguments regarding facts in
>pre-trial motions; facts are not the issue pre-trial, but legal
>arguments are and if not raised, many such argumnts are waived. But
>rather than raises legal issues pre-trial, I see these people argue
>facts which can only be decided by a jury or fact finder. Invariably,
>they disregard raising the claimed constitutional issues they have.
>
> When this improper route is followed, these people then want to
>argue legal issues when trial is ready to start. Obviously, a judge will
>at that stage reject legal arguments which should have been raised
>pre-trial, and this is done not because they don't want to hear
>constitutional issues, but because those should have been raised
>pre-trial and were not many such issues are waived when the pro se
>follows this erroneous course. When trial comes, it is time for facts,
>not legal arguments.
>
> Legal issues are resolved by the court in advance of trial; if no
>such issues are raised and trial is then set, raising such issues is
>untimely the day of trial. It is then that judges will make the
>statements attributed to them and such statements are erroneously deemed
>by the pro se as an assertion that constitutional issues cannot be
>raised. Juries under our current method of operation decide disputed
>issues of fact and not constitutional issues, which are decided by
>judges.
>
> I imagine that I will get lots of flack for making this statement,
>but it is true regardless of what the pro ses claim.
>
> Larry Becraft
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail