What People Think
 |
 |
21% For, 79% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 785, The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_785.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Laser Haas
This is long overdue! The books written about the way our system has gone askew simply boggle the mind. Prof LoPucki, Michele Dickerson on "courting" and more.
The U S Trustee office is part of the Dept of Justice and is "our" policing "watchdog" agency to protect the public faith and integrity in the system. When you have justice's who make $140,000 per year when those who are under such authority make $600 to $1000 per hour, corruption "is" a possibility. When a citizen can be punished for false statements and a Judge has immunity from making false conclusions. The balance of such would enrage the framers. Government by the People, for the People is what we began. Government by the Government for the Government is what we have become!
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
It’s good to see that some of our Congressional representatives are interested in addressing the serious problem with corruption in our court system. Currently, the Justice Department, the FBI, and state law enforcement agencies have the ability to investigate judges who are throwing cases, but they rarely do so even when handed documentary evidence showing the commission of felonies by members of the judiciary.
There have been instances where these bureaucrats have taken action. However, they are obviously not doing a good enough job; otherwise, these Congressmen would not have felt the need to bring about more oversight. As the current law enforcement bureaucracy has failed to protect the public from judicial corruption, why would anyone think that creating a new bureaucracy to investigate complaints about judicial corruption would help, especially if this responsibility is put in the hands of a bureaucrat who is appointed by and may be terminated by a judge?
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
I applaud these Congressmen for having the wisdom and courage to address the serious problem of judicial corruption, the rampant injustice which has resulted from it, and the failures of our law enforcement agencies to take action to expose and correct it. However, in order to truly get reform, we need more than just another bureaucracy. I think this is why most people are against this bill.
I proposed some ideas in my speech titled "No Justice, No Peace" which I gave at the National Judicial Reform Conference at Rice University in Houston, Texas on August 11, 2007. Here is the link to it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5135583133302349969
Please listen to my speech. I think that you will find it enlightening, and you will find that my proposals for reform do not call for any new bureaucracy, just the restoration of a First Amendment right. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA
MarkAdamsJDMBA (at) hotmail.com
Francis Knize
This Bill is a good start, but has two problems and needs amendment. 1) the entity that appoints the IG should not be anyone who is from the Judiciary. It should come from Congress and made from, in part, an appointed select committee of citizens who have no connection from the Judiciary. 2) REMOVE THE MERITS RELATEDNESS CLAUSE: ie remove the section which takes away the jurisdiction of the Act by means of being related to the merits of a decision. If a Judge BREAKS the law, it should ALWAYS be reviewable. No man is above the law, and judges should be held to even a higher standared with threat of damages and crime allegations. Only then will Judges not be so apt to break laws, which they are doing ALL THE TIME.
Francis Knize
Legal producer