Dear Non Curat Lex  According to Wikipedia  The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it bears the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents httpenwikipediaorgwikiLegalpositivism  You are using the term legal rule to describe Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also impact pro se litigants For example The State of California Judicial Counsel has through published materials addressed the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to selfrepresented litigants  The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits even if it requires excusing inadvertance by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal While this creates double standardyour unsupported unflagged statement The Judicial Counsel justifies it based on the idea that Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth not just playing referree A lawsuit is not a game where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits It suggests the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial and says There is only one reported case in the US finding a judges specific accommodations have gone too far  Do you mean that the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents  Why are you describing my insertion of the following  citations as controversial edits and what difference does it make that it is controversial Wikipedia is supposed to be able to deal with controversial subjects such as presidential elections  Did you find the references to be inaccurate  Why exactly did you delete the following  The wording  which requires a judge to accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding    the right to be heard according to law is used in many state codes including Alabama  Canon III a  httpwwwalalincnetjicdocscanspdf  Idaho Canon III a httpwwwjudicialcouncilidahogovcodepdf  Indiana Canon III b httpwwwingovjudiciaryrulesjudconductindexhtml   Kentucky  Canon III a  SCR httpwwwsunethicscomkycodejudconducthtm  New JerseyCanon III a  httpwwwjudiciarystatenjusrulesappendicesappjudhtmP NevadaCanon III b  httpwwwlegstatenvusCourtRulesSCRCJChtml Wisconsin  SCR  g httpwwwwicourtsgovscruleschappdfPennyslvania  Canon III a  httpwwwpacodecomsecuredatachapterchaptochtml Virgina  Canon III a httpwwwcourtsstatevausjirccanonshtmlcanon  Rhode Island  Canon III a  httpwwwcourtsstateriussupremejtdcodepdf  Washington StateCanon III a  httpwwwcjcstatewausGovprovisioncodecanonshtm West VirginiaCanon III a  httpwwwstatewvuswvscaJICCodejchtmUtah  Canon III b httpwwwlawuheduLibrariesethicsJudicialjudiccanonscanonhtml   Why did you insert the qualifier while this creates a double standard and not flag it  My understanding is that all a court will do is make sure the rules are understood  As clear in the reference if a complaint should be dismissed because of statute of limitations for instance there is no difference between the results based on whether it is filed by a lawyer or not  I see no Wikipedia justification for your choice to delete the state judicial canons even if Risker and Arthur Ruben also want them deleted  By saying that the state judicial canons are controversial edits you are admitting that they are relevant  Just what are you threatening to do as appropriate action because I flagged your unsupported statements and reinserted the  references to the state judicial codes