Department of Injustice is more like it…
Pennsylvania Court Watch has posted a literally unbelievable letter(shown above)–on what is apparently letterhead from the United States Department of Justice–to a California man, telling him the following:
“…when you chose to represent yourself, you waived your right to due process, including any access to the courts. Further, a decision to go pro per results in losing your rights to investigators, law libraries, the hiring of experts and other resources that is [sic] available to a civil attorney.”
However, this is completely farcical, patently false and absurd, absolutely incorrect, and has never been true at any time. The website of California courts tells its citizenry the complete opposite of the information contained in the letter in question:
There are several reasons why people represent themselves without a lawyer:
- In criminal cases, if you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint a lawyer for you, like a public defender. But in civil cases, you do not have the right to a court-appointed lawyer so, if you cannot afford your own lawyer, you have to represent yourself.
- Some people choose to represent themselves even if they could pay a lawyer because they feel they can handle the case on their own.
- In small claims cases, you are not allowed to have a lawyer, so everyone in small claims court is representing himself or herself.
Whatever the reason, you have the right to represent yourself, to be your own lawyer in all cases in California. But just because you can represent yourself does not mean you should. It is very important that you learn about what is at stake in your case, and what you will be expected to do and know in order to handle it on your own.
It’s been clear for a very long time that courts cast a jaundiced eye on pro se/pro per litigants, but this is beyond the pale. Did we miss a Supreme Court decision like the recent ones which said police don’t have to have a warrant to search your property and that police can be ignorant of the law?
PAY ATTENTION. THIS IS CLEAR.
Rule 1.6 permits fraud in the furtherance of fraud to conceal injustice and corruption.
Most of these WTF situations can be identified as fraud .
NO PERSON CAN WAIVE RIGHTS PROTECTED AND SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
You cannot waive them because they will ALWAYS be there. EVEN if the person tricks you into waiving them, they are not waived, because any law which would permit that would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, no law, a nullity… and REPUGNANT!
Mr. Healy, your assertion is incorrect. A person can voluntarily waive their rights. One of them. Any of them. Even all of them. A person can voluntarily waive their rights.
In modern law, to abandon, throw away, renounce, repudiate, or surrender a claim, a privilege,
a right, or the opportunity to take advantage of some defect, irregularity, or wrong. See Brigham
Young University v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 74 Utah 349, 279 P. 889, 893, 65 A.L.R.
The voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right. Dickert v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 176
S.C. 476, 180 S.E. 462.
I’ve also reviewed American Bar Association Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. This rule relates to the client/lawyer relationship, and confidentiality of information. I’ve just read the rule, and I paid attention. I am unclear how you’ve equated this with permitting “fraud in the furtherance of fraud to conceal injustice and corruption.” It looks about as clear as mud.
The victim (Malik Basurto) is actually the person who “robo-signed/forged” my Assignment of Mortgage. Ironic!! Nonetheless, no one should be denied due process. Then again, it just might be Karma. Malik Basurto or the one forging his name as an Assistant Secretary for MERS (false title), signed thousands of fraudulent documents.
BTW, I do not trust the so-called Department of “Justice”. I submitted mountains of evidence regarding Bank of America and all the DOJ does is cover-up for them and milk the banks for settlements for which the victims never see a dime. The banks are the DOJ’s “cash cows” and no matter how horrible the crime committed by these bank cartels, the “pay-offs” will help them evade prison time.
Unfortunately, the person writing that article was not a lawyer, but signed it “paralegal specialist”. I don’t know what qualifications there are for one to call one’s self a paralegal specialist in the Department of Justice, but whatever they require, they should require a lot more of. It is absolutely not true that one “waives rights” by deciding to proceed in pro per. That letter never should’ve been sent and I imagine that if one pressed the agency they would get a lawyer letter correcting it. What IS true, and what is very much underscored by this same letter, is that one who does not have an attorney is at a serious disadvantage in Court.
Anyone who knows me knows I never recommend anyone represent themselves in Court. I see too many cases too regularly where the person is harmed by self-representation or (often worse yet) reliance on non-lawyer legal help from purveyors of pseudo legal nonsense. Sometimes the missteps are incurable. So, the letter, while poorly written, manages to accidentally demonstrate the point it was trying to make. Sort of.