Continua as to 'Pro Se ligation....

 By


Sampson I.M Onwuka (2014)


Outline of a review


 (1a)
 
Review of Lois Bloom and Hershkoff presentation on the ‘Plaintiff Pro Se’ and Gaps in the delivery.


The Analysis of the essay…..

Review of Lois Bloom and Helen Hershkoff presentation on the ‘Plaintiff Pro Se’ and Gaps in the delivery can only merit the attention of those seeking to consider better ways of handing Pro Se litigations, for it seems that the number of new litigants seeking Court orders have multiplied, that none of these cases ever makes it to the Court let alone getting the attention of the Court and the Judge. What needs to be said about the U.S Constitution and its interpretations has been said and more than once. The rest is a question of administration and how the law works, perhaps an introduction of technology in the process of law or constitution of United States are the reasons why there is such a backdrop in the influence of the Court. There is need for buildings for Court administration.


There is need for live coverage in all the Court houses in United States and perhaps elsewhere. It will not impugn on the good faith of the judges or cast with aspersion on their dispatch of office.


There is need for increased knowledge of legal rights and legal literature which attorneys and the bench will either like the public to know or explain what you don’t know. There is need for improved rights to speedy trials and declension to public opinion, for it seems that we however isolate the public from the Court as a way to grant judicial trust to the best of them, the Court as part of the judiciary arm of government gradual poll together as an oasis of black water.


If the executive arm of the government is under twenty hours spotlight - like the rest of us who need not apply - public opinion regarding the legislative should not diminish with the judiciary. We should explain that in very informed age such as this, there are better means of disseminating Court house activity, various ways of getting to meet the LAWs of the country, and various ways of understanding your judges who may or may not be persuaded someday to hang thee.


We may classify some of the assumptions in the papers presented by Lois Bloom by citing that a review of Supreme Court cases may be reduced to the history of the Courts, for instance the ages of Marshall Court, the Taft Court, the Warren Court, the Burger Court and in the immediate past, the Rehnquist Court, but these courts are not defining examples of what happens in deeper azure of local courts and in county courts were the law and courts. In coming to grasp with some of the basic assumptions about the outlines of these incarnations, the primarily knowledge of immediate and private Americans and those in the court is how well basic ideals of the Court is reflected in the actual conditions of the Court and how it operates.

(1b)

  Andrew Jackson’s Farewell address concerning the great moneyed corporations, that "Unless you become more watchful and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government has been given or battered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations." A fitting farewell for a general that attacked and freed men and slave forts and holding, hide-outs and battered to protect their interest…..


Exception or near exception to this rule is in terms of 'immunity' of Plaintiffs, such 'immunity' equally calls for 'early dismissal' of any such instance of necessary immunity and that it involves; Rule 26 (a) (3) (A) (iii), Federal Rule of Evidence 402 & 403. Since the defendants were not granted immunity by the State of New York, or protected by any federal privilege, they were notionally bound by Fed Civ. 55. Prove of this immunity would be the Defendant's motion for 'Summary Judgment' during the course of the Court deliberation or during Pretrial which in New York is trial. 3



The Plaintiff is by the circumstances of reason and the inability of both parties to reach a compromise awarded the Amended Complaint was directed towards the body of the issues concerned, that the Plaintiff discussed themes from the incident by reverting to the claims as he stated in his earlier Amendment. That he was not saved by the body facts alone, there was no the issue of Court proceedings at the District Court level and above all, there are now matters of law. Amendment Rules; 1946, that the near lack of Rule 51 is not a preserved by Rule 52, especially the 'exceptional circumstances of time'. Pursuant to Rule 55, the Plaintiff moves to exclusionary default to Judgment which only the Judge can grant.


Primitive Course of the deliberations for Pro Se Plaintiff and a response to other literature on the subject and numinous intent and stages of Psychological enactment of procedure in spite of the original intent of the framers.


The developmental psychology of victim’s mistrials it increases with prejudiced hope of answerable deliberation and Court process which from the outsiders is relatively sacred with leniency for determining what happened from what happened. It implodes after the initial revelations of the Court process concerning inactivity of the Court towards even the least definitions of the Constitutions, an injurious allegation occlusion that is hardly the case since it is only the case.


Pro se making it to the Supreme Court is a very cocky personality sure of what happened or that he or she needed to demonstrate as their issue to the Court. The question is why do even try, why would a pro se even try to present a case or an allegation at the Court? Perhaps it is one of these cases of ego and self-complex, part of human dialectic and logos that believes in its heroics that somehow good always triumph. This is not the case; in fact the irony of minima film success starring a certain Charleston Heston as Ben Hur is that it fulfills our expectations, whereas these conjectures in real life are perhaps ever perhaps hardly the case. I was reading all that I could about Judicial procedure and court processes, about Proper doctrines of res judiacata Judgment (Rule 52) and estoppel by Judgment is evident in a certain letter sent to me by the Judge, where in dealing with article 1915 (e) (2)(B) (ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P.41 (b), which had to do with Rule 26 of US court procedure, concerning voluntary showing of evidence to 14 days with and without limits.


That Courts are mandated to throw away any case - especially pretrial cases - after 30 days if the Plaintiff could not bring in the evidence in the course of the actions or actors so stated, that impunity of immunity only plays forward from here when there other non-liabilities matters arising from the 4
probabilistic. If from these lines that infer specie literature such as Kafka, there is not raising so gale a point about the wondrous judicial exercising, it is a common place argument that freedom is human inner and tireless reaching, yet with freedom either comes the law or a process of redressing leading in and perhaps further into matters of security. But from the vaster seas of these inner seeking, are questions that may never be answered and for more trial free from self-measure of good and justice or justifying process, we can see the reasons for attorney.


I shall gradually depart the overture by citing that freedom and the law make a fool of us, since we are never free from law. Freedom is the law and we are never free from the law except below the City or perhaps the silent grave where there are fewer and fewer litigations. Departing the law or the process of Law, there's death made sinister for the Pro se and less real for the Court. For it seems that only those left with some knowledge of the law or its academic process may sponsor the hope and the courage to push the boundaries of personal ability to a different dimension, where the false hope from fictitious hero take stage and the court seem eager to cure of this problem by early and summary dismissal of even a justly initiated suit.