and, others too many to list here...
and, others too many to list here...
miscellaneous "devils advocate" rulings also to be used in support of pro
se class rights, such as:
and, let's not forget all of the MANY prisoner pro se class rights suits
filed by inmates over the years, such as:
Johnson v. Avery
393 U.S. 483 (1969)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=483--
pro se prisoner challenged bar to assisting other prisoners in
litigation
(see also 28 U.S.C. 2242 (fed habeas can be signed "on behalf" of
prisoner...))
"This Court has constantly emphasized the fundamental
importance of the writ of habeas corpus in our constitutional scheme, 2 and the
Congress has demonstrated its solicitude for the vigor of the Great Writ. 3 The
Court has steadfastly insisted that "there is no higher duty than to maintain it
unimpaired." Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939)."
[ Footnote 4 ] "See
Note, Constitutional Law: Prison "No-Assistance" Regulations and the Jailhouse
Lawyer, 1968 Duke L. J. 343, 347-348, 360-361."
[ Footnote 10 ] "One State
has designated an inmate as the official prison writ-writer. See Note, supra, n.
4, at 359."
[ Footnote 11 ] "In reversing the District Court, the Court of
Appeals relied on the power of the State to restrict the practice of law to
licensed attorneys as a source of authority for the prison regulation. The power
of the States to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to
abrogate federally protected rights. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963);
Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). In any event, the type of activity
involved here - preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief - though
historically and traditionally one which may benefit from the services of a
trained and dedicated lawyer, is a function often, perhaps generally, performed
by laymen. Title 28 U.S.C. 2242 apparently contemplates that in many situations
petitions for federal habeas corpus relief will be prepared by laymen."
MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
"That traditional, closed-shop attitude
[
referring to attys ONLY, see just above this note in the case itself]
is utterly out of place in the modern world where claims pile high and much of
the work of tracing and pursuing them requires the patience and wisdom of a
layman rather than the legal skills of a member of the bar."
"If poverty
lawyers are overworked, some of the work can be delegated to sub-professionals.
New York law permits senior law students to practice law under certain
supervised conditions. Approval must first be granted by the appellate division.
A rung or two lower on the legal profession's ladder are laymen legal
technicians, comparable to nurses and lab assistants in the medical profession.
Large law firms employ them, and there seems to be no reason why they cannot be
used in legal services programs to relieve attorneys for more professional
tasks." Samore, Legal Services for the Poor, 32 Albany L. Rev. 509, 515-516
(1968)."
"And see Sparer, Thorkelson, & Weiss, The Lay Advocate, 43 U.
Det. L. J. 493, 510-514 (1966)."
"Laymen - in and out of prison - should be
allowed to act as "next friend" to any person in the preparation of any paper or
document or claim, so long as he does not hold himself out as practicing law or
as being a member of the Bar."
"The cooperation and help of laymen, as well
as of lawyers, is necessary if the right of "[r]easonable access to the courts"
24 is to be available to the indigents among us."
There can be no reasonable dispute that pro se litigants have free speech,
free association, and liberty interest rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to litigate on behalf of themselves as part of a group
with common interests, beliefs, and/or values - such as groups of so-called "noncustodial"
parents seeking a common goal...equal custody rights!