COMES NOW, ****** *. ****** *, the Defendant in the above-captioned case, proceeding pro se, and hereby moves this Court to order remedial action aimed at enhancing the support and resources available to pro se litigants within the State of Wisconsin. In support of this Motion, ****** *. ****** * states as follows:

In my endeavor to navigate the legal system as a pro se defendant, I've encountered a series of systemic barriers that have not only hindered my ability to present my case effectively but also cast a shadow on the fairness and accessibility of our judicial process. This motion stems from those experiences, aiming to highlight the significant challenges faced and propose actionable steps towards rectifying these disparities for all self-represented litigants.

The absence of clear, accessible instructions for pro se litigants, left me at a considerable disadvantage. It became evident that the judicial system's current resources do not adequately cater to individuals without formal legal training, creating an uneven playing field that favors those who engage professional legal representation. The progression of procedural hurdles underscores systemic issues facing self-represented litigants. Notably, the unscheduled cancellation of a motion hearing, purportedly due to  clerical error, and discrepancies in the e-filing service's effectiveness, have deepened the challenges. Further complications arose from inconsistent communication about hearing cancellations, including a misattributed phone number and the prosecution's inconsistent mailing practices. The latest request from the prosecution to reschedule the motion hearing, ostensibly for witness availability, adds to the mounting anxiety because the prosecution has demonstrated greater concern for policy and procedures than the constitutionally protected rights of the people. This situation highlights a broader concern: the fear of minor oversights leading to the denial of constitutional rights, placing undue pressure on those who choose to represent themselves.

This Statement of Facts underscores the urgent need for the court to address these systemic deficiencies by implementing reforms aimed at enhancing the accessibility and fairness of the legal system for pro se litigants. By sharing my experiences, I hope to illuminate the broader implications of these challenges, not just for my case, but for the integrity of the judicial process as a whole.

 A. In my pursuit of justice, I have encountered numerous procedural barriers acting as a gatekeeping mechanism, significantly restricting my access to a fair trial. While recognizing that legal professionals often offer superior knowledge—arguably a superior product—the use of procedural tactics by prosecutors to gatekeep the dispensation of justice crosses into the realm of monopolistic behavior. Such practices go beyond mere inconvenience, systematically limiting the avenues through which I can pursue justice, and highlighting a crucial distinction: while the expertise of legal professionals is invaluable, leveraging procedural complexities as a means of control undermines the principles of fairness and accessibility in our justice system.  

Monopolies exist where there is sole control over a commodity or service, limiting free competition and dictating terms and conditions to the detriment of others. While access to legal professionals is crucial in cases requiring specialized knowledge, the court’s procedural requirements and the opacity of legal processes can create a monopolistic barrier. This effectively consolidates control over legal representation and access to justice, privileging those with formal legal training. However, in situations where the primary need is understanding procedural technicalities rather than legal intricacies, it becomes the court's responsibility to ensure that justice is readily accessible to non-professionals.

1. Exclusivity of Access to Cohesive Legal Knowledge: The complexity of legal jargon and procedural nuances effectively creates a barrier to entry for individuals seeking to represent themselves. The information available to pro se litigants in criminal proceedings is scattered across numerous websites, frequently obscured by dense legal terminology. By failing to present this information in layman's terms, the legal system actively maintains the bar association's monopoly over the dispensation of justice, extending beyond merely providing a superior product to deliberately restricting access to essential legal knowledge. 
2. Gatekeeping Through Technicalities:  The legal system’s stringent enforcement of procedural technicalities, many of which remain opaque to laypersons, epitomizes monopolistic behavior. By emphasizing strict compliance with complex procedures that are not easily understood by those without formal legal training, the system effectively prioritizes procedural formality over the substantive right to justice. This practice not only disadvantages individuals seeking to exercise their right to self-representation but also reinforces the monopoly of legal professionals over the legal process. Such gatekeeping mechanisms serve to exclude those who cannot navigate these technical hurdles, thereby maintaining the legal profession’s exclusive control over access to justice.  
3. Disparity in Access: The right to self-representation is ostensibly protected by the court, yet pro se defendants are held to the same stringent technical standards as legally trained professionals without being provided the basic means for competent self-representation. This discrepancy amounts to a deliberate persecution of individuals who exercise their right to represent themselves, penalizing them for not conforming to the court’s preferred method of legal representation.  

The actions of a court that actively seeks to perpetuate their monopoly not only undermine the principle of fair access to justice but also infringe upon the constitutional rights of individuals to represent themselves. By recognizing and rectifying the monopolistic tendencies in its gatekeeping practices, the court can uphold the true spirit of justice—ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their legal expertise, have the opportunity to defend their rights effectively.

B. The legal system, as it stands, affords law students ready access to comprehensive legal information presented in a coherent, textbook format. This access facilitates their understanding of complex legal principles and procedures, equipping them to effectively navigate the legal landscape. In stark contrast, pro se litigants are expected to mine through dense legislative documents and obscure legal texts to find the same information. This disparity in access to legal information constitutes a form of segregation that egregiously violates the due process rights of pro se defendants.  

Segregation refers to the practice of separating individuals or groups based on certain characteristics, such as race, gender, or social status, leading to unequal access to resources, opportunities, and rights. While the term is often associated with historical racial segregation, it can also apply to any system that isolates groups and individuals, limiting their ability to participate fully and equally in societal, economic, or political life. Segregation, by its nature, undermines principles of equality and justice, creating divisions that perpetuate disparities and hinder inclusive progress.

1. Legalese and Linguistic Segregation: This type of segregation arises when individuals who use a different language are excluded from fully participating in legal, educational, social, or professional processes due to the lack of language access services. Linguistic segregation can lead to unequal access to justice, education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, effectively isolating and discriminating against entire communities. 
2. Segregation of Legal Knowledge: Presenting legal information in formats and contexts that differ for law students and legal professionals versus pro se litigants inherently creates a disparity in accessibility and understanding, contradicting the principle that separate is not equal. Law students and legal professionals typically access legal knowledge through structured, coherent educational resources designed to facilitate comprehension and application. Conversely, pro se litigants often encounter legal information dispersed across various platforms, buried in legalese, and devoid of contextual clarity. This differentiation not only hampers the ability of self-represented individuals to effectively engage with the legal system but also exacerbates the divide between those with formal legal education and those without. Such segregation in the presentation and accessibility of legal knowledge undermines the fairness of the legal process, effectively disadvantaging those who represent themselves in legal matters. 

The current legal system's approach to pro se litigation starkly illustrates a discriminatory practice that severely undermines the due process rights of self-represented litigants. By forcing pro se defendants to navigate a labyrinth of complex legal procedures without adequate resources, the system effectively enforces a monopolistic gatekeeping that privileges those with formal legal training. This segregation of legal knowledge not only impedes the fair administration of justice but also contravenes the foundational principles of equality under the law. Addressing these disparities is imperative to ensure that the right to self-representation is genuinely accessible for pro se defendants and a tolerable experience for all involved.

———————————————————————————————————————————

This section cites the basis of the legal right of individuals who wish to represent themselves in court proceedings.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Sixth Amendment guarantees crucial rights to individuals in criminal prosecutions, including the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against them, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for their defense. While it explicitly mentions the right to counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Sixth Amendment as also encompassing the defendant’s right to self-representation.

The Sixth Amendment’s provision for the assistance of counsel underscores the fundamental importance of legal representation in ensuring a fair trial. However, the recognition of the right to self-representation also acknowledges an individual’s autonomy in their defense. To truly honor the Sixth Amendment, the court system must facilitate access to clear, comprehensive information about legal procedures, rights, and obligations. This enables individuals who choose to represent themselves to do so in a manner that does not disadvantage them compared to those who are represented by counsel. The aim is to ensure that the right to a fair trial is preserved, whether one is represented or chooses to navigate the legal process independently

28 U.S. Code § 1654 - Representation of Parties

This codifies the right of an individual to represent themselves in court proceedings in the United States.

 “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”

This statutory provision is a critical element of the legal framework that supports the right of individuals to conduct pro se litigation.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

In Faretta v. California, the Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s right to represent himself, holding that a state cannot compel a defendant to accept a lawyer when they have elected to proceed without one. This landmark decision recognizes the fundamental right of an individual to conduct their defense—a right that is personal and can be waived only by the defendant.

Faretta v. California underscores the importance of ensuring that individuals who choose to represent themselves—pro se litigants—are given fair access to the resources and information necessary to effectively navigate the legal system. This ruling directly relates to the need for the judicial system to provide adequate support and resources for pro se defendants. By affirming the right to self-representation, Faretta highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to not only allow for pro se representation but to also facilitate it in a manner that does not unduly prejudice the self-represented party. The case emphasizes the necessity for a legal framework that supports individuals in exercising their right to self-representation, thereby ensuring that the decision to proceed without a lawyer does not place an undue burden on the defendant, the court system, or compromise the fairness of the trial.

———————————————————————————————————————————

This section explores the established legal standards concerning monopolies, specifically the principles and regulations designed to curb monopolistic practices and promote fair competition.

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7

The Sherman Antitrust Act stands as a foundational statute in United States antitrust law. It prohibits unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the American market. Its primary aim is to maintain healthy competition in all sectors of the economy, ensuring that no single entity can dictate terms at the expense of consumers or competitors. 

A monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act consists of two elements: 

1) possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and

2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

The broader principle is that monopolistic or exclusionary practices are antithetical to the public interest. This emphasis on preventing the concentration of power and promoting fairness aligns with the need to prevent judicial "gatekeeping" that disadvantages self-represented litigants, highlighting the importance of a legal ecosystem that supports, rather than hinders, all individuals' rights to justice and fair play.

Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27

 This legislation targets activities such as price discrimination, exclusive dealings, tying agreements, and mergers and acquisitions that could substantially lessen competition or tend towards monopoly. It aims to protect both consumers and businesses by promoting fair competition and preventing practices detrimental to a competitive market.

While the Clayton Antitrust Act directly concerns commercial competition, its principles can be applied to the legal field, particularly regarding access to justice and the challenges faced by pro se litigants. The focus on preventing practices that limit competition parallels the need to eliminate systemic barriers that restrict pro se litigants’ access to justice. Applying the  underlying principles to the legal system advocates for measures ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their desire to retain legal counsel, have equitable access to the Rtools and information necessary to competently navigate legal proceedings. 

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 US 451 - Supreme Court 1992

The Eastman Kodak Company was accused of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in anticompetitive practices aimed at monopolizing the market for its equipment. Plantiffs argued that the policies of restricting  the availability of parts to third parties was designed to eliminate competition. The Court found that Kodak’s actions could harm competition by making it difficult for ISOs to compete, thereby potentially harming consumers through reduced service options. This case underscores the importance of scrutinizing practices that may have anticompetitive effects on a specific segment of the market.

The principles of this reflect the monopolistic behavior exhibited by the prosecution and the court system in handling pro se litigants by restrictioning the availability of procedural knowledge. Just as Kodak sought to limit competition and control services, the legal system’s gatekeeping tactics, by complicating the process for pro se representation through inaccessible legal information and stringent technical requirements, could be seen as an attempt to monopolize legal representation and undermine the right to self-representation. 

———————————————————————————————————————————

This section examines the legal framework surrounding segregation, equality, and the responsibility of the court in addressing the discrimination of individuals in daily interactions, professional environments, and when exercising civil liberties.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Title VI represents a fundamental commitment to ensuring all individuals have equal access to services and programs without the fear of discrimination.

The principles enshrined in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are pivotal in addressing the disparities and discriminatory practices encountered by pro se litigants. By requiring federally funded programs to provide meaningful access to all individuals, regardless of their language proficiency, Title VI underscores the government’s obligation to remove barriers that lead to segregation and inequality in access to justice. In the context of this case, it highlights the necessity of providing access services and clear, comprehensible legal resources to ensure pro se litigants are not segregated or denied their rights due to linguistic barriers.

Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency

Executive Order 13166 requires federal agencies and their recipients of federal funding to provide meaningful access to their services for individuals with Limited English Proficiency. It aims to ensure that language barriers do not prevent individuals from accessing important federally conducted or funded programs, services, or activities.

This reinforces the argument that just as the government must ensure services are accessible to individuals with limited English proficiency, so too must the legal system ensure that pro se litigants have access to comprehensible legal information and resources. Applying this executive order’s mandates to the legal domain, it becomes evident that denying comprehensible access to legal resources or failing to accommodate pro se litigants’ needs could be viewed as a form of linguistic segregation, impacting their ability to effectively participate in and navigate the judicial system.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

The ruling in Brown v. Board of Education underscored the fundamental principle that segregation is inherently unequal, a declaration that extended beyond the confines of public schooling to challenge all forms of racial and social segregation. This landmark decision highlights the critical importance of equal access to public resources and institutions, including the legal system.

My struggle against procedural and informational barriers in the legal system highlights a broader issue of unequal access to the tools necessary for effective participation in one’s defense. The legal system, by not providing comparable ready access to basic procedural knowledge and resources for pro se defendants, perpetrates a form of segregation. This not only undermines the principle of equal protection under the law but also diminishes the capacity of individuals to seek justice on an equal footing with those who have formal legal training.

Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968)

In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, the Supreme Court mandated that school systems must take affirmative steps to eliminate segregation, declaring that “freedom-of-choice” plans are not adequate if they fail to result in meaningful desegregation. This case built on the foundation laid by Brown v. Board of Education, emphasizing action over nominal compliance with desegregation efforts.

The insistence on proactive measures to dismantle segregation offers a compelling parallel to the need for reform in ensuring pro se litigants’ access to justice. The case underscores the obligation of legal institutions to actively dismantle barriers that hinder equal participation in the legal process. This translates to the need for the legal system to not only acknowledge the rights of pro se litigants but to actively facilitate their access to clear, comprehensible legal information and resources. 

Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973)

The Court held that if school authorities have been found to practice deliberate segregation in a significant portion of the system, there is an assumption of system-wide segregation requiring the district to prove that its actions did not create or maintain segregation elsewhere in the district.

This underscores the pervasive issue of systemic bias, which extends beyond the confines of legal mandates to include the unintended consequences of policies and practices that impede equal access. It highlights the critical need for deliberate action to address and dismantle the barriers that create disparities in the legal process. This supports the initiative for systemic change to ensure that access to legal resources is not only universally available but also tailored to be comprehensible and actionable for all, regardless of their legal expertise. 

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)

The Supreme Court held that the failure to provide language instruction to approximately 1,800 students who did not speak the language constituted a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court determined that denying these students a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public system based on their inability to speak the language effectively discriminated against them based on their national origin.

The Lau decision underscores a broader principle of non-discrimination and equal access to public services, which can be applied to the legal system’s treatment of pro se litigants. By not providing pro se litigants with legal information in a form that is accessible and understandable, the court may inadvertently create a barrier that discriminates against individuals based on their level of legal knowledge or education. This parallels the situation in Lau, where lack of accommodations based on language proficiency led to unequal access to education. Similarly, failing to make legal resources accessible to all, regardless of their legal expertise, can be seen as a form of segregation that undermines the principles of fairness and due process.

In the pursuit of fostering a more equitable and accessible legal system for pro se litigants, the following measures are respectfully requested:

1. Comprehensive E-Filing Guidebook: Develop and distribute a comprehensive guidebook on e-filing procedures, presented in plain language. This guidebook should include, but not be limited to, detailed explanations of filing requirements, documents that must still be mailed despite e-filing, and step-by-step instructions for correcting filed documents. The goal is to demystify the e-filing process and ensure all pro se litigants have the necessary knowledge to participate effectively in the judicial process.   
2. Database of Standardized Motion Templates: Establish an accessible online database containing standardized templates for a wide range of motions. This resource will serve to streamline the process for drafting and submitting legal documents, providing a solid foundation upon which pro se litigants can build their cases.   
3. Hearing Procedure Guide: Offer a detailed guide outlining the procedural flow of different types of hearings, including the sequence of events and the roles of participants. This guide should aim to prepare pro se litigants for what to expect in court, reducing the anxiety associated with the unknown and enabling more effective participation.   
4. Grievance Resolution Pathway: Clearly define the steps for grievance resolution within the court system, offering a clear pathway for addressing issues that may arise during the legal process. This includes outlining how pro se litigants can seek redress when faced with procedural obstacles.  

By implementing these measures, the court will significantly reduce the barriers facing pro se litigants, aligning the practice of self-representation with the constitutional values of fairness, access to justice, and respect for individual rights. This approach recognizes the evolving landscape of legal representation and the necessity of adapting our judicial system to meet the needs of all its users, regardless of their professional legal knowledge. The aim is not to lower the standards of legal proceedings but to elevate the capacity of those who represent themselves.

In conclusion, this motion seeks to confront and dismantle the barriers that currently impede pro se litigants’ access to justice within the State of Wisconsin. By advocating for the implementation of comprehensive support and resources, this motion underscores a commitment to the principles of fairness, equality, and the right to self-representation enshrined in our legal system. The proposed measures aim to bridge the gap between those with legal training and individuals who navigate the judicial process independently. It is imperative that the court system evolves to accommodate the changing landscape of legal representation, ensuring that all individuals are equipped with the tools necessary for effective participation. This motion does not seek to compromise the integrity or standards of legal proceedings; instead, it strives to uplift the capabilities of pro se litigants, affording them the dignity and respect their pursuit of justice deserves. By acknowledging and addressing the current shortcomings, the court can foster a more inclusive and equitable legal environment for all its constituents. Through the adoption of these measures, the court has the opportunity to reaffirm its dedication to the foundational values of our democracy and to enhance the overall efficacy and accessibility of the judicial process.

Respectfully Submitted,

****** *. ****** *

Pro Se Defendant 

I, ****** *. ****** *, solemnly affirm under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief:

Throughout my legal proceedings as a pro se defendant, related to charges regarding a victimless crime, I’ve faced numerous systemic barriers. These challenges underscore broader issues within our judicial system that hinder equitable access to justice for individuals opting for self-representation.

The enforcement of criminal statutes in cases where no identifiable victim exists represents a significant overreach of governmental authority, directly inhibiting my pursuit of liberty. This approach to victimless actions as criminal activities raises fundamental concerns about the government’s role in personal behavior regulation. When such actions do not infringe upon others’ rights, their criminalization starkly contradicts the principles of liberty, autonomy, and justice. I assert the necessity for a critical reevaluation of laws penalizing victimless actions, aiming to realign them with our societal core values.

My engagement with the court’s processes, notwithstanding my conviction that the criminalization of these actions unjustly breaches constitutional rights to liberty and happiness, reflects my esteem for what our judicial system could represent. This involvement is not an acknowledgment of the court’s jurisdiction over this matter but an appeal for its self-reflection and reform to truly facilitate self-representation as a feasible and supported choice.

The obstacles I’ve navigated—ranging from e-filing complications and unclear procedural directives to the lack of comprehensible legal resources—expose a disparity in our judicial framework. These impediments not only erode legal proceedings’ integrity but also deter the exercise of the constitutional right to self-representation. Further, it’s imperative to confront the moral discord within our judicial system that outwardly supports self-representation while imposing procedural hurdles that effectively discourage it. This contradiction not only compromises the court’s integrity but also signals a profound disregard for individual autonomy and rights. True justice mandates resolving these issues through the adoption of policies that genuinely empower individuals to competently engage with the legal system, making self-representation practically meaningful.

Moreover, I’ve observed prosecutorial practices that prioritize procedural over substantive justice, inducing significant stress and disillusionment. Recent prosecutorial communications, ostensibly regarding a witness-related rescheduling, appear designed to exploit my procedural unfamiliarity. The stress induced by the prospect of failing to respond appropriately within a specified period highlights not a dereliction of rights but the difficulty of obtaining essential legal knowledge absent formal assistance. This stress could be mitigated if I were provided access to the same procedural knowledge as the prosecution, enabling me to independently identify potential procedural loopholes.

This affidavit underscores the urgent need for reforms to dismantle the hurdles facing pro se litigants. By sharing my experiences, I aim to catalyze substantive changes within the legal system, striving for a framework that is more inclusive, equitable, and accessible to all.

Respectfully,

****** *. ****** *