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.
[Laws, 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:
PRO SE. 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 for 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
Propria Persona v. Pro Se.doc

- 1 of 2 -

Courtesy of Phil Daniels

Propria Persona v. Pro Se

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.

Propria Persona v. Pro Se.doc

- 2 of 2 -

Courtesy of Phil Daniels

the Bar of the State of Texas.