The content on this website is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
After eight years struggling to be heard in the Rhode Island courts as a Self-represented litigant, Justice Belongs to Everyone was created to raise awareness about a two-tiered justice system and bring together self-representative litigants to overcome hidden barriers in the court process. If you want to be treated fairly when representing yourself, this site offers insights, tools, and strategies to help you advocate for yourself, protect your rights and find justice. Over 75% of civil cases have one self-represented litigant. These are parents, tenants, workers, and elderly residents navigating a complex legal system without support. When court procedures, judicial discretion, or inconsistent practices block their ability to be heard, constitutional rights are weakened. Justice Belongs to Everyone is a Rhode Island initiative dedicated to strengthening access to justice, promoting judicial accountability, and ensuring that constitutional
rights are protected for all residents.
U.S. Supreme Court Petition Filed
This case study exposes the deeper, systemic barriers that self-represented people face – from ignored evidence to courts refusing to hear their claims, simply because they don’t have a lawyer.
We believe:
Strengthening access to justice strengthens democracy itself.
Spotlight on Due Process Violations
New data reveals a troubling pattern: courts across the country are consistently failing people who represent themselves — denying them fair hearings, overlooking valid claims, and applying the rules unevenly.
Justice isn’t about who wins, it’s about whether the process is fair, every voice is heard, and the truth has a chance to emerge.
Everyone has a constitutional right to be treated with dignity and respect – regardless of wealth, status, or background.
From Rhode Island’s Judiciary to the U.S. Supreme Court
The Case Study here is a self-represented litigant who spent years navigating the Rhode Island court system, only to be denied a trial despite following every required step. This case reveals how courts often dismiss valid claims, ignore evidence and use procedural loopholes to silence those without lawyers, while looking the other way when opposing counsel engage in unethical tactics designed to tire out a Self-represented litigant through attrition. On July 7, 2025, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court was filed, asking the Court to hear the case and restore basic due process rights for self-represented Americans. The petition challenges not just a local decision but the system itself. This Case raises urgent national questions.
Know what to expect, what to demand, and what to question when you’re representing yourself in court.
Addressing Bias to Ensure Fair Trials
Legal tools and resources can help people navigate the system, but they mean little when a judge is biased. A biased judge can ignore evidence, dismiss valid claims, and misuse procedures, making fair trials impossible. The real issue isn’t a lack of tools. It’s a system that doesn’t hold judges and opposing counsel accountable.
Essential Resources for Navigating Court on Your Own
If you’re going to court on your own, the right tools can make a big difference. We’ve collected helpful resources to guide you through the process, sharing personal experience that may help impart a clear picture of the litigation journey. They may guide you through the process.
Insights, real stories, and hard truths from the fight for fair access to justice.
For eight years, this case proceeded as a valid civil action. Discovery was conducted. Motions were heard. Orders were enforced. The factual record was developed sufficiently to permit settlement or trial. All parties agreed to a trial date. At that stage, due process required adjudication on the merits. After preparation for trial three months later the case was terminated. Not by settlement. Not by trial. Not by findings of fact or conclusions of law. It was dismissed by judicial fiat—through the exercise of discretion untethered from the evidentiary record and insulated from meaningful review.
To prepare for oral argument, I attended over 20 appellate hearings, many with Self-represented litigants. When one Self-represented appellant explained her actions in the Lower Court to be because she is Pro se, the Justice loudly responded: “WE DON’T CARE.” This shocking moment reflects the underlying problem;
SRLs are dismissed, unheard, and denied the basic dignity afforded to represented parties. Represented parties are allowed to multiply proceedings to exhaust unrepresented opponents, while courts decline to impose meaningful limits. When exhaustion succeeds, dismissal follows. When dismissal is appealed, deference replaces review. This practice raises fundamental constitutional concerns.
Democracy is under pressure from factions that thrive on confusion, distrust, and the slow erosion of shared rules. Strengthening access to justice is how we push back. The rule of law endures only when justice is accessible to all. Strengthening access to justice renews that promise and helps democracy stand firm against those who would erode it.
We aim to educate the public, press, and policymakers about how due process is denied to self-represented litigants—and to fill the gap where Rhode Island has refused to establish a Commission for Access to Justice.
Strengthening access to justice in Rhode Island isn’t just local reform, it’s how we rebuild faith in our democracy. When courts work for everyone, democracy grows stronger.
Access to justice is how the rule of law stays real.
When courts treat every person, represented or self‑represented, with fairness, they protect the foundation democracy stands on. Without equal, impartial justice, the rule of law erodes, and when the rule of law erodes, democracy itself begins to crumble. The rule of law endures only when justice is accessible to all. Strengthening access to justice in Rhode Island renews that promise and helps democracy stand firm against those who would erode it.
At the national level, we are watching major challenges to the rule of law, including leaders who push past legal limits and weaken long-standing constitutional norms. At the same time something similar is happening on a smaller scale in Rhode Island’s courts, where people who represent themselves face a system that gives judges the choice, not the obligation, to protect basic constitutional rights. Because of this, the scales tilt toward people who can afford lawyers, and cases can be decided based on status instead of merit, weakening the rights to due process and equal protection.
It’s easy for this local problem to get overshadowed by the national crisis, but that’s exactly why it matters. The health of our democracy depends on what happens in everyday courtrooms just as much as what happens in Washington. The small version of the problem is connected to the big one: if we allow rights to become optional in local courts, we make it easier for them to be ignored on the national stage. Protecting the rule of law at the micro level is integral to protecting it everywhere.
“Every right withheld must have a remedy.” The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) confirm, access is not legislative grace, but a vital safeguard. “While one without counsel cannot reap an advantage from that fact, nor should the party with counsel be able to reap benefit from that status.” See Kasson State Bank v. Haugen, 410 N.W.2d 392,395 (1987).
So, we ask you:
In a democracy where the right to petition the court is enshrined in our Constitution; why have we made it so hard for people to be heard unless they can pay for it? And what happens to the rule of law when justice becomes a luxury good?
The Due Process Clause guarantees not merely the right to file pleadings, but the right to a meaningful hearing before deprivation. The Equal Protection Clause forbids systems that are neutral in theory but discriminatory in effect. Judicial discretion operating to disadvantage one class of litigants; those without counsel, it ceases to be neutral and becomes biased. Ninety-five percent of civil cases settle before trial, because the cost of trial, financial and emotional, is prohibitive. For the unrepresented, settlement is often surrender, not for lack of merit, but because attrition has worn litigants down. I was compelled to proffer a Dismissal Agreement under the weight of abusive tactics and attritional pressure. Being subjected to abusive tactics for eight years while attorneys are paid to terrorize you so you will dismiss your claim, isn’t access to justice, it’s exploitation
Help others learn, connect, and advocate by sharing your story.
Our stories can bring about powerful change. If you’ve faced the court system without a lawyer, your story could educate and inspire others and contribute to the equal justice we all deserve.
If you’ve faced challenges with access to justice or had a unique experience with the legal system, we’d love to hear from you. By sharing your experience, you can help us raise awareness and support others who may be going through similar situations.
