SECRET CANON 11 PRO SE'S, THE POOR AND INDIGENTS
- 11(A) The Protection Of The Public
- 11(A)(i) We hold the need to protect the public from the
dangers of self representation far outweighs the fair impartial administration of Justice. To protect
the public from the dangers of self representation we shall:
- 11(A)(i)(1) approach the Pro Se, poor or indigent's complaint from this
objectively protective and compassionate position, "Is there anyway I can deny this
- 11(A)(i)(2) use Judicially prudent unbiased techniques
to intimidate, frustrate, anger, nit pick, postpone, play with or in any other way rid
ourselves of a Pro Se,
poor or indigent litigant.
- 11(A)(i)(3) assist the Pro Se, poor or indigent in a
resolution by bending or ignoring the rules on ex parte communications.
- 11(A)(i)(4) nurture an unfriendly environment in a
dignified and polite manner.
- 11(A)(i)(5) minimize or ignore Judicial, Court or Attorney errors
while magnifying any errors of the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.
- 11(A)(i)(6) politely move on to the next case before
the Pro Se, poor or indigent is finished. This will assist eliminating them later with
arguments such as Res Judicata.
- 11(B) Disposition Before Written Decisions
- 11(B)(i) It is best to be rid of a Pro Se, poor or indigent
litigant before having to render a decision requiring written legal analysis.
- 11(B)(ii) If forced to render a written opinion on a
Pro Se , poor or indigent case, we will stick to or switch to the arguments that validate
our desired position.
- 11(B)(iii) In Pro Se poor or indigent cases, we prefer
unpublished opinions. This makes it easier to perpetuate non sequiturs and pseudo-justice
while maintaining the illusion of due process.
- 11(C)(iv) We hold "giving the dog a bone"
occasionally is good practice and gives us some ammunition when our integrity is
- 11(C) The Superiority Of Bar Members
- When dealing with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant, we shall
always give credence to members of the Bar's arguments, regardless of how absurd or off
point they are.
- 11(D) The Superiority Of The Status Quo
- In cases involving the system, member of the bar or the status quo versus the Pro Se, poor or indigent
litigant make sure the system, member of the bar or the status quo prevail regardless of
how you must ignore or pervert the issues .
- 11(E) Irrebuttable Presumption Of Pro Se Ignorance
- We hold the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant does not
or can not understand the complex issues of litigation.
- 11(F) Methods For Smart Alec Pro Se, Poor Or Indigent
- If a Pro Se, poor or indigent does understand the issues we
- 11(F)(i) repeatedly bait them to go off point or
- 11(F)(ii) convince them they don't understand or
- 11(F)(iii) diligently look for and focus on a point
they don't understand clearly or
- 11(F)(iv) continue until they err, running with the
error to make a touchdown.
- 11(G) Attitude Toward Naive Pro Se, poor or indigent
- We shall always take a patient but condescending attitude
with a Pro Se, poor or
indigent litigant that is so naive as to demand and expect fair, impartial Justice and the law applied as written.
- 11(H) The Inability To Practice Law
- Our inability to give legal advice or advocate is restricted
to Pro Se, poor or
indigent litigants, not members of the bar, the fictitious corporate person or the State.
- 11(I) The In Forma Pauparis Hearing
- We hold when questioning a litigant attempting to file In
Forma Pauparis regarding what they own to never reveal the legal definition of
"own" is to have and hold title. This effectively eliminates the unresourceful and
ineffective and our ass is covered.
- 11(J) The Judicial Nightmare
- The nightmare of having the public believe they have a chance
of receiving justice without a lawyer must be avoided at all costs. The Courts are best
operated as a "members only" organization.