THE CITIZEN ATTORNEY: A COMPLETE MANUAL FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS ON HOW TO FILE AND REPRESENT YOURSELF IN ANY STATE COURT CIVIL LITIGATION IN THE 50 STATES OF THE U.S. - Tapa blanda

Acerca del autor

Patricia Townsend has experienced self-representation in both state and federal courts. She has also represented herself in the United States Supreme Court. She has experienced first hand how courts can discriminate against pro se litigants. Why courts of law discriminate against pro se litigants to the decree they do is because most judges assume pro se litigants are ignorant of the law and cause needless time, money, and costs by filing actions in courts of law without attorney representation. It is believed lawyers do not bring frivolous actions into courts of law for they are advocates of the court and to do so would be placing their credibility in harms way with the court and its presiding judges, therefore, when a litigant is represented by an attorney, it is assumed their case must be viable. For judges to discriminate in such a matter is wrong and a violation of an individuals constitutional rights. Patricia Townsend is self taught in the law by reading the law. She has study and learned the law in all 50 states of the U.S. She has learned federal and constitutional law extensively. The most important aspects she has come to understand concerning self-representation is to file all documents with a court in there proper format, legibly, and pursuant to law and the Rules of Procedure. Self-represented litigants must have viable claims, they cannot be imagined, or for purposes of harassment. She has discovered that even when a pro se litigant brings a viable controversy into court, some judges will rule against them and enter orders their cause is frivolous and sanction them wrongly to deter them from seeking justice in a higher court. Such was the case with an action she filed concerning real property. The presiding judge in the state court action ruled against her, even when the evidence and testimony proved she was in the right by law. The presiding judge in the case acted in the absence of jurisdiction, thereby violating her constitutional rights under the