Full 16-page RECOMMENDATION of the American Bar Associations’s Task Force on Access to Civil Justice, “Report to the House of Delegates.”
As of August 7, 2006 civil plaintiffs are now on equal standing with criminal defendants on the right to court appointed counsel! So says the ABA.
[INCIDENTAL INFO: Coincidences have played a significant role throughout my entire life such that I sincerely have a belief that Devine Intervention cannot be ruled out. “So I believe.”]
And so it is again with this coincidence with the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Access to Civil Justice, et al, urging, “federal, state, and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low income persons in those categories of adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody, as determined by each jurisdiction.”
In a speech at the 1941 meeting of the American Bar Association, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge observed:
“Equality before the law in a true democracy is a matter of right. It cannot be a matter of charity or of favor or of grace or of discretion.”
If Justice Rutledge’s self-evident statement required proof, the past 130 years of legal aid history have demonstrated its truth. Not only has equality before the law remained merely a matter of charity in the United States, but that charity has proved woefully inadequate. The lesson from the past 130 years is that justice for the poor as a matter of charity or discretion has not delivered on the promises of “justice for all” and “equal justice under law” that form the foundation of America’s social contract with all its citizens, whether rich, poor, or something in between. The Task Force and other proponents of this resolution are convinced it is time for this nation to guarantee its low income people equality before the law as a matter of right, including the legal resources required for such equality, beginning with those cases where basic human needs are at stake. We are likewise convinced this will not happen unless the bench and bar take a leadership role in educating the general public and policymakers about the critical importance of this step and the impossibility of delivering justice rather than injustice in many cases unless both sides, not just those who can afford it, are represented by lawyers.
Howard H. Dana, Jr., Chair
Task Force on Access to Civil Justice
Now it is the legal standard that pro se civil plaintiffs do, in fact and law, have a right to counsel on equal standing with criminal defendants. This comes at a time when I am preparing to move my Civil RICO Act case from DC to Arkansaas. I received a letter dated August 1, 2006 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Arkansas, Office of the Clerk, Little Rock, Arkansas stating:
Pro se litigants are not entitled to have counsel appointed to represent
them in a civil action. A judge has the authority to appoint counsel in
exceptional circumstances. If yhou want a judge to consider appointing counsel
to represent you, you may file a motion for appointment of counsel. In the
motion, you should explain why you think you need an attorney and any efforts
you have made to obtain counsel.
I can just imagine knocking the judge for a loop with my “Motion for Civil Gideon Representation Appointed by the Court” I am now preparing, taking a break to send this email.
The significance of this means that the judge will be less likely to jerk me around the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as was done in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with the anti-gun Judge Reggie B. Walton.
This event levels the playing field for me as an unrepresented civil plaintiff, and as a U.S. merchant seaman under 28 U.S.C. 1916.
Now begins a new era in Second Amendment jurisprudence!! U.S. Supreme Court HERE I COME!!!
NOTE TO: Wayne LaPierre, Allen Gottlieb, and all other Second Amendment suit-&-tie head honchos. Will y’all now give me a look-see for publicity, Op-Eds, and commentary? Hey Stephen Halbrook! Wanna give me a try?
My case might be considered a case of first impression because I am a merchant seaman view the Second Amendment through the Common Defence clause and through the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?