Propria Persona v. Pro Se

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scooterdog

New Member
When challenging the personal jurisdiction of the courts in which complaints
are filed, we must take care that we do not commit an act, or omit to act,
ín such a way as to give the court personal jurisdiction. If we ask the
court to do something, or allow the court to do something that it can only
do on the hypothesis that it has jurisdiction of the person (us) before it,
the jurisdiction will be deemed admitted. Any further argument against the
jurisdiction would be frivolous under these circumstances and the court
would proceed accordingly.

When we appear specially to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, we
appear in our own person (In Propria Persona). Black's Law Dictionary, 5th
Ed., defines the term "In Propria Persona" and reveals the necessity to
appear in this fashion on special appearance:

IN PROPRIA PERSONA. In one's own proper person. It was formerly a rule
in pleading that pleas to jurisdiction of the court must be plead in
propria persona, because if pleaded by an attorney they admit the
jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is
presumed to plead after obtaining leave, which admits jurisdiction.
[Lawes, P1.91]

A plea to the jurisdiction asserts that the court before which the cause
is brought is not the proper court to take cognizance of the matter. See
Cyclopedia of Law, 2nd Ed. ( 1922 ) , Title "Plea" .

Many litigants have been appearing Pro Se rather than in Propria Persona.
Both Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., and Cyclopedia of Law, 2nd Ed. define
Pro Se as:

For Himself; in his own behalf; in person.

It should be noted that the definition does not read "in his own proper
person" but "for himself," giving the connotation that while we act pfor
ourselves, we are a separate person defending ourselves as a defendant.
This would require the same leave of the court that the use of an attorney
does, admitting jurisdiction of the court.

The courts, as well as the state, continually refer to us as Pro Se
litigants, even when we make it clear that we appear specially and "in
propria persona." If we do not object, by our own omission we admit the
jurisdiction.

By being a Pro Se litigant we may also subject ourselves to the same rules
lawyers are required to follow, since the court considers us as a lawyer
acting for, or in behalf of, our own proper persons. Your court rules may
very well reveal this as does the Dallas Civil District Court of Texas.

Rule 5.6 at p. 589:
The terms, "Counsel," "Lawyer," and "Attorney of Record," as used in
these rules shall, in the event a party appears pro se, i.e., without
counsel, apply to individual litigants in the same fashion as if they
were members of the Bar of the State of Texas.

So, as a Pro Se litigant in this Texas court, the party is considered a
member of the Bar requiring leave of the court to prosecute the case, which
would admit the jurisdiction of the court, and cause him to be treated as a
franchised officer of the court.

Many have appeared in Propria Persona and argued the right of counsel of
choice, demanding that the court allow them to use whatever counsel they
prefer, whether a member of the Bar or not, to argue their case. This type
of argument is wholly inconsistent with a special appearance in Propria
Persona - in fact, it is in complete contradiction to the nature of the
party's appearance. If you are appearing in your own proper person how
could you, at the same time, demand to be represented by counsel without
retreating from your original position? While we do not waive our right to
counsel,we also make it clear that we are not using counsel in the special
appearance.

The cold hard truth is, we have to be prepared to stand alone before these
courts with our Creator as our witness and counsel, and no other. If we
depend upon another man to handle our case before the court, we are only
trading one master for another. We must know the issues and the procedures.
Who else would hold our best interest closer to their hearts?

We use the Latin term "In Propria Persona," but this is not absolutely
necessary. It must be made clear that you appear according to the
definition of this Latin term - that is, in your own proper person as
yourself; not merely for yourself.

A final point of interest on the matter: The 1859 Bouvier's Law Dictionary
doesn't even contain a definition of Pro Se, but does have a definition of
the term "Pro" which means "for". I suggest you compare the definition of
"for" with the definition of "as". I think you will find that appearing FOR
yourself means quite a different thing than appearing AS your own person.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top