http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Law_of_agency

Law of agency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: ,

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and
non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act
on behalf of another (called the principal) to create legal relations with a third party. Succinctly, it may
be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal,
expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under his or her control and on his or her behalf.
The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him or her and third parties
into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

agents and principals (internal relationship), known as the principal-agent relationship;

agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals' behalf (external
relationship); and

principals and the third parties when the agents deal.

In 1986, the European Communities enacted Directive 86/653/EEC on self-employed commercial

agents. In the UK, this was implemented into national law in the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993.

In India, section 182 of the Contract Act 1872 defines Agent as a person employed to do any act for
another or to represent another in dealings with third persons.

Contents
1 Concepts
2 Brief statement of legal principles
3 Authority
3.1 Actual authority
3.2 Apparent authority
3.3 Watteau v Fenwick
4 Liability
4.1 Liability of agent to third party
4.2 Liability of agent to principal
4.3 Liability of principal to agent
5 Duties
 6 Termination
7 Partnerships and Companies
8 Agency relationships
8.1 Agency relationship in a real estate transaction
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References

Concepts
The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal
realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the
case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human
agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs
within the scope of the agency.

A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an
agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as
having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the
alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.

Brief statement of legal principles

There are three broad classes of agent

1. Universal agents hold broad authority to act on behalf of the principal, e.g. they may hold a
power of attorney (also known as a mandate in civil law jurisdictions) or have a professional
relationship, say, as lawyer and client.

2. General agents hold a more limited authority to conduct a series of transactions over a
continuous period of time; and

3. Special agents are authorized to conduct either only a single transaction or a specified series of
transactions over a limited period of time.

Authority
An agent who acts within the scope of authority conferred by his or her principal binds the principal in
the obligations he or she creates against third parties. There are essentially three kinds of authority
recognized in the law: actual authority (whether express or implied), apparent authority, and ratified
authority (explained here).
Actual authority
Main article: Actual authority

Actual authority can be of two kinds. Either the principal may have expressly conferred authority on
the agent, or authority may be implied. Authority arises by consensual agreement, and whether it exists
is a question of fact. An agent, as a general rule, is only entitled to indemnity from the principal if he or
she has acted within the scope of her actual authority, and may be in breach of contract, and liable to a
third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority. In tort, a claimant may not recover from the
principal unless the agent is acting within the scope of employment.

Express actual authority

Express actual authority means an agent has been expressly told he or she may act on behalf of a
principal.

Ireland v Livingstone [1872] LR 5 HL 395

Implied actual authority

Implied actual authority, also called "usual authority", is authority an agent has by virtue of being
reasonably necessary to carry out his express authority. As such, it can be inferred by virtue of a
position held by an agent. For example, partners have authority to bind the other partners in the firm,
their liability being joint and several, and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with
decision-making authority by virtue of their position have authority to bind the corporation.

Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549

Apparent authority
Main articles: Apparent authority and Estoppel

Apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") exists where the principal's words or conduct
would lead a reasonable person in the third party's position to believe that the agent was authorized to
act, even if the principal and the purported agent had never discussed such a relationship. For example,
where one person appoints a person to a position which carries with it agency-like powers, those who
know of the appointment are entitled to assume that there is apparent authority to do the things
ordinarily entrusted to one occupying such a position. If a principal creates the impression that an agent
is authorized but there is no actual authority, third parties are protected so long as they have acted
reasonably. This is sometimes termed "agency by estoppel" or the "doctrine of holding out", where the
principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if third parties have changed their
positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.
 Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 147, Slade J,
"Ostensible or apparent authority... is merely a form of estoppel, indeed, it has been termed
agency by estoppel and you cannot call in aid an estoppel unless you have three ingredients: (i)
a representation, (ii) reliance on the representation, and (iii) an alteration of your position
resulting from such reliance."

Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480

The Raffaella or Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale Supplies Ltd and
PS Refson & Co Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 36.

Watteau v Fenwick
In the case of Watteau v Fenwick, Lord Coleridge CJ on the Queen's Bench concurred with an opinion
by Wills J that a third party could hold personally liable a principal who he did not know about when
he sold cigars to an agent that was acting outside of its authority. Wills J held that "the principal is
liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that
character, notwithstanding limitations, as between the principal and the agent, put upon that authority."
This decision is heavily criticised and doubted, though not entirely overruled in the UK. It is sometimes
referred to as "usual authority" (though not in the sense used by Lord Denning MR in Hely-Hutchinson,
where it is synonymous with "implied actual authority"). It has been explained as a form of apparent
authority, or "inherent agency power.

Authority by virtue of a position held to deter:

fraud and other harms that may befall individuals dealing with agents, there is a concept of Inherent
Agency power, which is power derived solely by virtue of the agency relation.

For example, partners have apparent authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability
being joint and several (see below), and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with
decision-making authority by virtue of their declared position have apparent authority to bind the
corporation.

Even if the agent does act without authority, the principal may ratify the transaction and accept liability
on the transactions as negotiated. This may be express or implied from the principal's behavior, e.g. if
the agent has purported to act in a number of situations and the principal has knowingly acquiesced, the
failure to notify all concerned of the agent's lack of authority is an implied ratification to those
transactions and an implied grant of authority for future transactions of a similar nature.
Liability
Liability of agent to third party
If the agent has actual or apparent authority, the agent will not be liable for acts performed within the
scope of such authority, so long as the relationship of the agency and the identity of the principal have
been disclosed. When the agency is undisclosed or partially disclosed, however, both the agent and the
principal are liable. Where the principal is not bound because the agent has no actual or apparent
authority, the purported agent is liable to the third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority.

Liability of agent to principal

If the agent has acted without actual authority, but the principal is nevertheless bound because the agent
had apparent authority, the agent is liable to indemnify the principal for any resulting loss or damage.

Liability of principal to agent

If the agent has acted within the scope of the actual authority given, the principal must indemnify the
agent for payments made during the course of the relationship whether the expenditure was expressly
authorized or merely necessary in promoting the principal's business.

Duties
An agent owes the principal a number of duties. These include:

a duty to undertake the task or tasks specified by the terms of the agency (that is, the agent must
not do things that he has not been authorized by the principal to do);

a duty to discharge his duties with care and due diligence; and

a duty to avoid conflict of interest between the interests of the principal and his own (that is, the
agent cannot engage in conduct where stands to gain a benefit for himself to the detriment of
the principal).

An agent must not accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the
principal. An agent can represent the interests of more than one principal, conflicting or potentially
conflicting, only after full disclosure and consent of the principal.

An agent also must not engage in self-dealing, or otherwise unduly enrich himself from the agency. An
agent must not usurp an opportunity from the principal by taking it for himself or passing it on to a
third party.

In return, the principal must make a full disclosure of all information relevant to the transactions that
the agent is authorized to negotiate and pay the agent either a prearranged commission, or a reasonable
fee established after the fact.

Termination
An agent's authority can be terminated at any time. If the trust between the agent and principal has
broken down, it is not reasonable to allow the principal to remain at risk in any transactions that the
agent might conclude during a period of notice.

Thus, the internal agency relationship may be dissolved by agreement. Under sections 201 to 210 of the
Indian Contract Act 1872, an agency may come to an end in a variety of ways:

4. Withdrawal by the agent however, the principal cannot revoke an agency coupled with
interest to the prejudice of such interest. An agency is coupled with interest when the agent
himself has an interest in the subject-matter of the agency, e.g., where the goods are consigned
by an upcountry constituent to a commission agent for sale, with poor to recoup himself from
the sale proceeds, the advances made by him to the principal against the security of the goods;
in such a case, the principal cannot revoke the agents authority till the goods are actually sold,
nor is the agency terminated by death or insanity (illustrations to s. 201);

5. By the agent renouncing the business of agency;

6. By discharge of the contractual agency obligations.

Alternatively, agency may be terminated by operation of law:

7. By the death of either party;

8. By the insanity of either party;

9. By the bankruptcy (insolvency) of either party;

10. By frustration of the agency agreement.

The principal also cannot revoke the agents authority after it has been partly exercised, so as to bind
the principal (s. 204), though he can always do so, before such authority has been so exercised (s. 203).
Further, under s. 205, if the agency is for a fixed period, the principal cannot terminate the agency
before the time expired, except for sufficient cause. If he does, he is liable to compensate the agent for
the loss caused to him thereby. The same rules apply where the agent, renounces an agency for a fixed
period. Notice in this connection that want of skill, continuous disobedience of lawful orders, and rude
or insulting behavior has been held to be sufficient cause for dismissal of an agent. Further, reasonable
notice has to be given by one party to the other; otherwise, damage resulting from want of such notice,
will have to be paid (s. 206). Under s. 207, the revocation or renunciation of an agency may be made
expressly or impliedly by conduct. The termination does not take effect as regards the agent, till it
becomes known to him and as regards third party, till the termination is known to them (s. 208).

When an agents authority is terminated, it operates as a termination of subagent also (s. 210).

Partnerships and Companies

This has become a more difficult area as states are not consistent on the nature of a partnership. Some
states opt for the partnership as no more than an aggregate of the natural persons who have joined the
firm. Others treat the partnership as a business entity and, like a corporation, vest the partnership with a
separate legal personality. Hence, for example, in English law, a partner is the agent of the other
partners whereas, in Scots law where there is a separate personality, a partner is the agent of the
partnership. This form of agency is inherent in the status of a partner and does not arise out of a
contract of agency with a principal. The English Partnership Act 1890 provides that a partner who acts
within the scope of his actual authority (express or implied) will bind the partnership when he does
anything in the ordinary course of carrying on partnership business. Even if that implied authority has
been revoked or limited, the partner will have apparent authority unless the third party knows that the
authority has been compromised. Hence, if the partnership wishes to limit any partner's authority, it
must give express notice of the limitation to the world. However, there would be little substantive
difference if English law was amended: partners will bind the partnership rather than their fellow
partners individually. For these purposes, the knowledge of the partner acting will be imputed to the
other partners or the firm if a separate personality. The other partners or the firm are the principal and
third parties are entitled to assume that the principal has been informed of all relevant information. This
causes problems when one partner acts fraudulently or negligently and causes loss to clients of the
firm. In most states, a distinction is drawn between knowledge of the firm's general business activities
and the confidential affairs as they affect one client. Thus, there is no imputation if the partner is acting
against the interests of the firm as a fraud. There is more likely to be liability in tort if the partnership
benefited by receiving fee income for the work negligently performed, even if only as an aspect of the
standard provisions of vicarious liability. Whether the injured party wishes to sue the partnership or the
individual partners is usually a matter for the plaintiff since, in most jurisdictions, their liability is joint
and several.

Agency relationships
Agency relationships are common in many professional areas.

employment.

financial advice (insurance agency, stock brokerage, accountancy)

contract negotiation and promotion (business management) such as for publishing, fashion
 model, music, movies, theatre, show business, and sport.

An agent in commercial law (also referred to as a manager) is a person who is authorized to act on
behalf of another (called the principal or client) to create a legal relationship with a third party.

Agency relationship in a real estate transaction

Real estate transactions refer to real estate brokerage, and mortgage brokerage. In real estate brokerage,
the buyers or sellers are the principals themselves and the broker or his salesperson who represents
each principal is his agent.

See also
Agent of Record
Agency in English law
Corporate officer
Employee
Entertainment law
Independent contractor
Literary agent
Ostensible authority
Principalagent problem
Cestui que
Registered agent
Hawala

Notes
1. International Principle: Trans-Lex.org, Restatement of Agency (Second) 1. Agency; Principal;
Agent. "(1) Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one
person to another that the other shall act on his or her behalf and subject to her control, and consent
by the other so to act. (2) The one for whom action is to be taken is the principal. (3) The one who
is to act is the agent."

2. Andrea Tosato, An exploration of the European dimension of the Commercial Agents Regulations
(2013) LMCLQ 544-565 [1]

3. International Principle: Trans-Lex.org

4. International Principle: Trans-Lex.org, Restatement of Agency (Second) 27: "Except for the
execution of instruments under seal or for the conduct of transactions required by statute to be
authorized in a particular way, apparent authority to do an act is created as to a third person by
 written or spoken words or any other conduct of the principal which, reasonably interpreted, causes
the third person to believe that the principal consents to have the act done on his behalf by the
person purporting to act for him."

5. [1893] 1 QB 346

6. e.g. GHL Fridman, 'The Demise of Watteau v Fenwick: Sign-O-Lite Ltd v Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co' (1991) 70 Canadian Bar Review 329

7. Restatement of Agency (Second) 8A. Inherent Agency Power. "Inherent agency power is a term
used in the restatement of this subject to indicate the power of an agent which is derived not from
authority, apparent authority or estoppel, but solely from the agency relation and exists for the
protection of persons harmed by or dealing with a servant or other agent."

8. Pandia - Principles of Mercantile Law, 8th edition, by Ramkrishna R. Vyas.

9. Law Commission Report 283 (Archived)

References
LS Sealy and RJA Hooley, Commercial Law: Text, Cases and Materials (4th edn OUP 2009)

vte Law

Core subjects Administrative law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Deed Equity Evidence
International law Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public law Restitution
Statutory law Tort

Other subjects Agricultural law Aviation law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Competition
law Conflict of laws Conservation law Construction law Consumer protection Corporate law Cyberlaw
Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial regulation Health
law Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights
International slavery laws Labour law Law of war Maritime law Media law Military law Probate Estate
Will and testament Product liability Public international law Space law Sports law Tax law Trust law

Sources of law Charter Constitution Custom Divine right Human rights Natural and legal rights
Precedent Case law

Law making Ballot measure Codification Decree Edict Executive order Proclamation Legislation
Delegated legislation Regulation Rulemaking Promulgation Repeal Statutory law Statute Act of
Parliament Act of Congress Treaty

Legal systems Civil law Common law Chinese law Legal pluralism Natural law Religious law Canon
law Hindu law Jewish law Sharia Roman law Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Yassa

Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Feminist Law and economics Legal formalism
History International legal theory Principle of legality Rule of law Sociology

Jurisprudence Adjudication Administration of justice Criminal justice Court-martial Dispute

resolution Fiqh Lawsuit/Litigation Legal opinion Legal remedy Judge Justice of the peace Magistrate
Judgment Judicial review Jurisdiction Jury Justice Practice of law Attorney Barrister Counsel Lawyer
Legal representation Prosecutor Solicitor Question of fact Question of law Trial Trial advocacy Trier of
fact Verdict

Legal institutions Bureaucracy The bar The bench Civil society Court Election commission Executive
Judiciary Law enforcement Legal education Law school Legislature Military Police Tribunal

Category Index Outline Portal

Categories: Agency law Business law Legal professions

*** *** ***

http://www.law.uh.edu/assignments/spring2013/30114-first.pdf

LAW OF AGENCIES

*** *** ***

Rod Class on Talkshoe at The Turiya Files, topic 1678860 -

CureZone
curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1678860
Cached
2 posts - 1 author
The link to the AIB recording of the Friday night conference call: ... -Discusses Strawman a bit,
and - no doubt the judges across this land that are having ... His group will try to post the hard to
 find video the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE video. Its suppose to be a real eye opener on how
the Justice department keeps the court ...
*** *** ***
http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1678860

The link to the AIB recording of the Friday night conference call:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

Rod Class on Talkshoe

Forum: The Turiya Files
turiya
The link to the AIB recording of the Friday night conference call:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

[Comments in brackets are mine.]

-Within the first few minutes Rod Class throws his two cents into the RAP mix.
-CARL comes in later with his updates regarding a bankruptcy case in Michigan
involving some farm land.
-An Alaskan IRS case. Three counts - looks like it may be dismissed.
-Jeffrey Brown Case, District of Virgina Court
-RUDI briefly discusses the two traffic violations dismissed. Right to Travel coming up
in Georgia
[This group offers seminars that helps/assists people with filing of their paperwork.]
-CARL comes back with further RAP info involving Grand Juries. [It should be noted
that Rod Class & company have been previously contacted by RAP about holding Grand
Jury trainings at $200 a pop, $300 per couple. So these folks (Rod Class & company) do
have an interest in promoting these Grand Jury trainings, to make sure they are going to
happen.]
-Discusses Strawman a bit, and - no doubt the judges across this land that are having
meetings and discussions on this stuff in how to deal with these issues and people in
their courts.
-CARL gets on Dr. Dale Livingston and gives his critique on him - Rod adds that the
reality of the situation is that the legal system is operating in fraud and these guys are
still going to toss your asses in jail regardless of what you think about you and your
STRAWMAN.
-JEANETTE comes in with PUBLIC DEBT document they have found involving
CUSIP numbers that are added on court documents.
-HARVEY raises the questions about Rod's right to travel issue in North Carolina and
Rod responds as to what he plans to do in the upcoming weeks. T
-Ohio, there are three different statuses DOT (federal side), Commerce side and the
private side.
-There are no laws. Everything that they use against us has no standing.
-HARVEY, rebutting assumptions and presumptions with regard to standing. [Seems
that because public officials are projecting their status of being a "public official" onto
the rest of the people of each State].
-MARTIN's theory [which to me has some merit, at least something to look at] - we
came into the world with nothing.
Why do people keep laying claim to things that they don't own. Birth certificate comes
with liabilities. Once we learn how to dissolve conflicts, then things will change. Of
course, Carl wants nothing to do with what Martin is saying. Because it is supportive of
Dr Livingston and TT].

Another guy comes on later to debate what Martin has put forth but my time runs out at
this time... Have to stop listening now but will come back to this later.

*** *** ***

TS-922769 11 28 14 thanks to the people

*** *** ***

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm

Revolting Judges
Fearful of a growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and
even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have
banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending
 themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro-se litigants.

Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges

JUNE WISNIEWSKI

The Anti-Government Movement Handbook [PDF] is a training manual for judges

and court staff against pro-se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for
the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing
With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff,
published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course
Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale,
Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.

The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State
Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, The Rise of Common Law Courts
in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the
Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond. The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a
non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to
develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training
organizations.

This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court
clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history
and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training
curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when
dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions. My contact at the
conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make
preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.

Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a
reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director
of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who
distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as a
nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity. The Coalition is like
a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

I originally found out about this course by watching a videotaped session of the 1996
combined conference of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference
of State Court Administrators (COSCA), held in Nashville, Tennessee in the summer
of 1996 and called Impact of the Common Law Court Movement on the Courts.
More than 50 state supreme court justices and state court administrators attended the
Tennessee conference. The CLC session was taped with a grant from SJI. Keynote
speakers were Michael Reynolds, senior intelligence analyst for the SPLC, and James
Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, U.S. Department of
Justice.

The panel discussion included Susan Hansen, senior reporter with American Lawyer,
Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (past president of CCJ), Utah
Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, and Judges Jeffrey Langton and
Gregory Mohr from Montana. The taped session was more than three hours long. At
the end of the session, one of the speakers mentioned that there was funding for
additional CLC conferences. I immediately called ICM, located at NCSC in Virginia,
and asked about the additional CLC conferences. My contact told me that a
Scottsdale conference was going to take place in about three days. Since those two
conferences, there have been additional conferences sponsored by SJI with other
organizations.

SJI sponsored a conference with the American Judicature Society in Scottsdale,

Arizona in November, 1999 that was closed to the public and the press. There will
also be an ICM course in Orlando, Florida on February 5-7, 2001 called Increasing
Access to Justice for pro-se Litigants, with that organization's perception of what
access means.

Constitutionalists in Court was held in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area in

the summer of 2000 by the National Judicial College (NJC) of Reno, Nevada, and the
same course was held again November 13-14, 2000, also at NJC in Reno. This course
discusses the history of protest movements affecting the judiciary, identifies typical
challenges and ways to handle them, anticipates courtroom security needs, and plans
solutions and strategies.

NJC, together with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), conducted a survey,
developed material for their courses from SJI materials and grants, and published a
brief report called Right-Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and
Jurisdiction of the Court in 1998. This course and report contains a preemptive plan
against pro-se litigants and others who may disagree with the court, including the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Native American protest groups, religious
organizations, and anyone else who may take issue with a court decision. The
information from NJC is so controversial that NJC has banned its course and
conference materials from the public, but their library and the SJI repository is open
to the public.

I originally started researching judicial training organizations in 1996 after I was

denied an inheritance by the New Jersey court system when my parents died and was
also denied entrance to a conference and course materials at NJC in May, 1996,
called The National Conference on the Media and the Courts: Working Together to
Serve the American People. The media conference was closed to the public. Only
one New Jersey judge, Martin Kravarick, attended that conference. Judge Kravarick
was elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA), a judge's
organization under NCSC. AJA publishes a quarterly journal called Court Review,
available in your local law library, by subscription, or through interlibrary loan.

I first found out about the judicial movement against pro-se litigants and the CLC
movement by reading Kravarick's President's Message in the Fall, 1996 issue of
Court Review. I called Judge Kravarick for more information on what the CLC
movement was all about, and he gave me some additional contact information. I
called Mike Reynolds of SPLC, and he told me there were four conference
proceedings and that the conference was taped. I waited over three months to get a
copy of the tape, Impact of the Common Law Movement on the Courts. That tape
is available through interlibrary loan from NCSC along with the training manuals
mentioned above.

Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they
have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno. In New
Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton. You can
check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find
out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at
http://www.statejustice.org, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State
Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars. If you don't like the courses and
materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly
 to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the
public, and I'm sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web
site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their
newsletters.

The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges'
organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ,
COSCA, ICM and others. I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have
attended four judges' conferences. The most controversial and harmful material
against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that
compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.

In the training manuals mentioned above, there are two sections in each book where
the writers advise judges and court personnel such as court clerks and guards on how
to handle pro-se litigants using a step-by-step process. The writers of these manuals
reveal a court that is biased and has a dangerous point of view about justice and equal
access in the court system.

Copyright 2001 June Wisniewski

The Author: June Wisniewski is a legal researcher and journalist in Reno, Nevada, and can
be reached at renojune@judicialterrorism.com. She has written a number of articles on
judicial subjects and is author of the book, The Coffin Chasers: An Aggrieved Litigant's
Journey Through the Corrupt World of Probate. The source of this article is the January 5,
2001 issue of the Idaho Observer (http://proliberty.com/observer/20010105.htm). The text
has been modified by reformating and other nonconsequential editing and is noted as such
at the request of the author. The subject matter is the basis of another book by Wisniewski,
Unequal Justice: The Inside Story of the National Judicial College.

Note 1: The vulnerability of pro se's to the hostility of judges is exemplified by the fate of
Elena Sassower in 2004. See also: Sherman Skolnick's Big Court Fix.

Note 2: In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a manual, Countering the Critics;
Q&E Guide [PDF], that instructs judges on how to respond to complaints about the lack of
accountability and other "hot-button" issues they are likely encounter from critics of the
American court system.
Note 3: On March 11, 2008 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a new set
of rules for processing misconduct complaints against federal judges [PDF]. This
document also contains instructions for filing complaints against judges.

*** *** ***