I don't see how the McBrien decision complies with the Rules of Evidence limiting the introduction of character evidence. This wasn't supposed to be a competency hearing. After this decision, she will probably never be able to get a job again.

I think the courts should list all the possible causes of action they recognize to guide pro se litigants and put them on notice that if they check other they will have a difficult time. If a recognized cause of action is checked, then the defendants shouldn't be able to file a tolling motion to dismiss without an Answer per Rule 8. Defendants shouldn't be allowed to file a motion to dismiss that doesn't recognize the categories in Rule 12, which has no "other" or "misc'.

When a pro se litigant files, the courts could offer an extension of time and route the plaintiff into a pro se class, where they would be told what to expect and how to best present their case. If their case is to be dismissed, I think the courts should always make sure that the plaintiff understands why and that the court complies with Rule 52a. The Court could of just said that she didn't list a recognized cause of action and left it like that without implying that she was mentally ill.

Marvin Heermyer, who bulldozed Granby Colorado and committed suicide by cop, is an example of a plaintiff who didn't understand why his case was dismissed. I read that he paid over $50,000 to Dietz law firm in Boulder. I was interested in his case and read what I could about it and I didn't see why his case was dismissed or why the law firm would have taken his $50 K if his case was that weak.

By statute, mediation is to be offered in all civil cases not involving prisoners but the courts routinely deny pro se litigants that service. A mediator could potentially route plaintiffs towards other government services. For instance, the man who killed the relatives of Judge Lefcoe in Chicago, a terrible act, was really only looking for medical hospice care. His big concern is that his jaw was dissolving after what he thought was a botched operation. The operation may have been botched, there was no discovery, his case was dismissed based on "immunity" of the county doctors. A mediator might have found a safe place for him to die, a hospice.

When other pro se litigants read about pro se litigants being ridiculed, and in my case, jailed without a criminal charge for the offense of not having a lawyer, it makes them afraid to file in court. Probably that is what the so called tort reform groups want.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin gave an interview in which she said that her concern was that people would avoid court and try to settle things themselves.

I filed in Routt County, CO court for an injunction to get my former neighbor, the City Council president, to confine his construction to that which was allowed by the zoning. It was ruled that even though I was an adjoining neighbor I didn't have standing to enforce the zoning. I had a long distance lawyer giving me advice at that time, because I was told that I wouldn't be able to find a lawyer in Steamboat, population 9,000, who would go against the city council president. The long distance lawyer advised me that an appeal was pointless because the buildings would be completed before the appeal was finished and they would never order the extra buildings torn down once they were built.

I thought that I could find an alternative forum by passing out flyers alleging government corruption. Since supposedly tens of millions of uncollected developer fees are missing, the extra three buildings were never added to the property tax rolls, the former city council president has now publicly admitted that he served time for conspiracy to sell hashish but didn't divulge that to the voters, and the Routt County assessor said that there are many illegal buildings in Steamboat and enforcement of the regulations is lax, I believe that my perception of government corruption was correct. (These representations are made on the basis of articles in the Steamboat Springs Pilot and the Routt County assessor's web site.) No effort was made by anyone at the time to dispute the accuracy of my flyers alleging government corruption. At the time, I thought that my passing out truthful flyers was risk free, but without a statement of probable cause I was criminally prosecuted and a restraining order was issued on me without identification of a statutory basis.

If I had persisted in trying to resolve things out of court, my belief is that someone would have ended up dead, probably my adolescent son or my husband. We have no guns and are gun control advocates but there was a bullet through our window that the police refused to investigate. A potential buyer of our property later emailed to me that when he was on what sounded like our land, what sounded like our neighbor threatened to shoot his children. I worried that our neighbor might bait my 14 year old son or my husband into a fight and then shot them and claimed self-defense.

Court should be a safe place where you never have to worry as long as you tell the truth and don't commit any crimes. The worst possible outcome should be to have your case dismissed or lose in front of a jury. Litigants shouldn't have to worry that their reputation will be ruined because they filed a lawsuit as long as they are truthful. Litigants shouldn't have to worry that they will be slapped with the other sides attorney fees as long as they tell the truth. (I verified every sentence under penalty of perjury and not one misstatement was identified but, without a motion hearing or any Rule 11 c. 6 orders, former judge Naughty Nottingham told me to pay the other sides' law firms, and some extra law firms who didn't even appear in the action, $102K causing me all sorts of problems). Litigants shouldn't have to worry about being jailed either as long as they don't commit any crimes. (Nottingham jailed me for 5 months without an appearance by a US Attorney or a finding that I committed a federal offense).

People are now constantly telling me about how they would never go to court no matter what but would settle the matter themselves. A throwback to dueling. The current mistrust of the judiciary doesn't help anyone and stops disputes from being resolved. The disputes don't go away, they just fester.

We can't go back in time to before the publicity about former judge Naughty Nottingham, the Pennsylvania judges who jailed kids for money, Judge Porteaus, etc. A big percentage of the population apparently believes that pro se litigants never get justice and that almost all judges are on the take and almost all lawyers are corrupt. I "face-booked" with an MIT engineering grad who had a reputation at MIT for being really smart about an idea I had for recognition of honest lawyers, and he responded to the effect that there are no honest lawyers. Despite my years of misery in court, I find it hard to believe that all lawyers are dishonest and all judges are on the take or hate all pro se litigants.

What is the plan of the USCourts to make the average person, who can't afford $500,000 for a lawyer conducted lawsuit, think that the courts are safe and that that is where they should go with their complaints instead of dueling it out?

Kay, you're wrong. If you can't find a lawyer, chances are your case isn't worth anything and you're just wasting everybody's time.