This Handbook is designed to help people dealing with civil lawsuits in federal court without legal representation. Proceeding without a lawyer is called proceeding "pro se1," a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself," or sometimes "in propria persona," meaning "in his or her own person." Representing yourself in a lawsuit can be complicated, time consuming, and costly. Failing to follow court procedures can mean losing your case. For these reasons, you are urged to work with a lawyer if possible. Chapter 2 gives suggestions on finding a lawyer. Do not rely entirely on this Handbook. This Handbook provides a summary of civil lawsuit procedures, but it may not cover all procedures that may apply in your case. It also does not teach you about the laws that will control your case. Make sure you read the applicable federal and local court rules and do your own research at a law library or online to understand your case. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has Clerk's Offices in the San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland courthouses. Clerk's Office staff can answer general questions, but they cannot give you any legal advice. For example, they cannot help you decide what to do in your lawsuit, tell you what the law means, or even advise you when documents are due. There are Legal Help Centers in the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose courthouses where you can get free help with your lawsuit from an attorney who can help you prepare documents and give limited legal advice. This attorney will not be your lawyer and you will still be representing yourself. See Chapter 2 for more details.

This book attempts to convey some of the challenges that those wielding the law for social change purposes have faced and the successes they have achieved. By intention, it is more a studied appreciation than a critical analysis of their efforts. We asked an international team of consultants to help us document and describe how various law-based strategies have worked in very different settings, to draw out connections between those efforts, and to highlight some of the insights that emerge from grantees' experiences in law-related work. We also asked them to help us learn more about the ways the Foundation has played a role in these efforts. Known as the Global Law Programs Learning Initiative (GLPLI), this effort is not definitive, but rather suggestive. Our goal is to contribute to more serious future reflection and, ultimately, more effective programs in this field.

In recent years, there has been much controversy about the proper forum in which to prosecute and punish suspected terrorists. Some have endorsed aggressive use of military commissions; others have proposed an entirely new "national security court." However, as the nation strives for a vigorous and effective response to terrorism, we should not lose sight of the important tools that are already at our disposal, nor should we forget the costs and risks of seeking to break new ground by departing from established institutions and practices. As this White Paper shows, the existing criminal justice system has proved successful at handling a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions over the past fifteen years-without sacrificing national security interests, rigorous standards of fairness and due process, or just punishment for those guilty of terrorism-related crimes.