Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Government Cannot Fill The Need

Expand Messages
  • victoryusa@jail4judges.org
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California June 1, 2005
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      ______________________________________________________
      Los Angeles, California                                             June 1, 2005
      ______________________________________________________
      Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
      Federal J.A.I.L.  
                               FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
      ______________________________________________________
       
      Government Cannot
      Fill The Need
       
      Judicial accountability is needed to enforce the Constitution.
      Government has a conflict.
      Only the People can be an effective "watchdog" over the judiciary.
       
      Does the Judiciary Need a Watchdog?
      Pamela A. MacLean
      The National Law Journal
      05-27-2005

      Congressman James Sensenbrenner recently floated the idea of creating an office of inspector general to watchdog the federal judiciary, prompting fears that Congress could carry the authority beyond monitoring the judicial purse.

      Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and head of the House Judiciary Committee, told a Stanford University audience on May 9 that his committee "is  investigating whether Congress needs to create an office of inspector general for the federal judiciary."

      He said further that he did not believe "that creating an IG for the  judiciary will violate  the separation-of-powers doctrine that promotes the independence of the three branches of government."

      The traditional mission of an inspector general, first used by the  Continental Congress in 1777 to oversee the functioning of the military, is to investigate potential fraud and waste of tax dollars by agencies of the executive branch.

      At a time of high tension between Congress and the judiciary,  Sensenbrenner's proposal brought a reaction from Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He told an 11th Circuit judges' conference in Florida last week that courts should be accountable, but that he sharply rejected the idea of Congress punishing judges for decisions it doesn't like.

      "Context is everything," said Charles Geyh, professor at Indiana  University School of Law-Bloomington who has written extensively on  relations between the courts and Congress.

      "In the abstract, there is  nothing wrong with judges being accountable for the money they spend," he  said. "But the backdrop here is a fairly carnivorous House trying to hold judges accountable for the decisions they make. This proposal is not made in the context of judges
      spending lavishly. It is being used as a proxy for their decisions," Geyh
      said.

      "It is pretty thinly veiled at that," he said. Congress is suggesting to
      judges, "We may look more closely at the  [judiciary] budget if we don't like the decisions you make."

      Discussions of the proposal are in the early stages. There is no bill in the hopper. Nor are hearings contemplated, said Jeff Lungren, spokesman for Sensenbrenner on the Judiciary Committee.

      Lungren indicated that the talking is mostly among staffers on the Republican side. He indicated that the idea has been "well received" among House and Senate staff, but declined to be more specific.

      Chief Judge Joel Flaum of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of  Appeals said that the speech lacked specifics. "I really want to see the details because it can run from soup to nuts. We need some fleshing out" because of the separation of powers issues, he said.

      MISCONDUCT  REVIEWS

      Sensenbrenner's frustration with the court's self-policing to resolve
      allegations of misconduct is well known. He has expressed  displeasure with alleged changes in the process used in the 6th Circuit to select the three-judge panel to hear the Michigan affirmative action case a few years ago, and with controversial testimony on sentencing issues in 2002 by U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum of Minnesota.

      "I think he's long been concerned about judicial ethics in the broad sense," said Carl  Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia. Sensenbrenner has expressed concern that the discipline system created in a 1980 statute has not been sufficiently rigorous, Tobias said.

      Sensenbrenner warned in the Stanford speech that "Congress would  step in if the federal judiciary did not do a better job discharging this  responsibility."

      A review of court statistics for the most recent seven years available, 1997 to 2003, shows very few public or private censures were issued against judges compared with the number of citizen complaints. During that period, chief judges in three circuits issued five public censures and a private one to individual judges, while the number of complaints averaged 759 per year. Those censures came in three circuits, the 6th, 9th and 10th. The remaining circuits had not issued a single reprimand during that period.

      "You must understand the overwhelming majority [of complaints] come from disgruntled litigants and do not come within the purview of discipline procedure," said 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of Phoenix.

      The statistical reports confirmed that a high dismissal rate came because the complaints stemmed from a losing party's anger over a ruling, but details of individual cases are not made public.

      The 1980 statute contemplates reprimands for misconduct unrelated to
      decision-making, such as abusive behavior or sexual harassment.

      Asked whether an inspector general might be given authority to review public complaints under the Sensenbrenner plan, Lungren said it  is a possibility.

      "That would be an implicit linking of judicial decision-making to the
      budget," Geyh said. "That has never been made before. If an inspector general is told to look at the budget and to look at complaints, the potential for abuse is obvious."

      Sensenbrenner specifically pointed out the need to keep congressional
      obligations of financial oversight separate from political frustration with  judges.

      "It is one thing for Congress to monitor how the courts are set up; it is
      quite another thing to tell them how they must author opinions," he said at Stanford.

      In response to Sensenbrenner's concerns about judicial self-regulation, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist appointed a study committee last year to examine how the 1980 statute was implemented, and put Justice Stephen Breyer in charge.

      Breyer, who served as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee when the statute was enacted, is expected to issue a final report on the committee's findings sometime this summer.

      Schroeder of the 9th Circuit said of Sensenbrenner's proposal, "None of us know what may be seriously considered. We hope the judiciary is consulted. I had not heard anything about [an inspector general] until I saw the speech."

      A 1996 proposal to create an inspector general for the  judiciary was opposed in the judicial branch "because it poses a serious threat to the independence of judicial decision-making and has serious implications for the separation of powers," a statement issued at the time said,
      according to Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond.

      Geyh said that at this point it is hard to tell whether Sensenbrenner's
      proposal is saber rattling or a serious alternative to the more caustic calls by others for impeaching judges and slashing budgets.
       

      The proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill has hit Congress time and time again. It is obvious that Congress is afraid of J.A.I.L. because it places Federal Judicial Accountability directly in the hands of the People, and that is exactly what they do not want, accountability to the People.
       
      It has also become obvious that things are totally out of control regarding the Federal Judiciary, and something must be done, and Congress does not want to admit that they do not answers.
       
      The solution to the problem is not so difficult as is the politics of the problem. So there is an obvious problem with an obvious answer, and an obvious political blockage, namely, "We will not have the People, through J.A.I.L., to gain rule over the problem." 
       
      We are told in the article above, "You must understand the overwhelming majority [of complaints] come from disgruntled litigants and do not come within the purview of discipline procedure," said 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of Phoenix.
       
      This is the standard wall of protection put up by the judges to preserve their judicial corruption. Of course it is from an overwhelming majority of litigants that complaints originate. How else would most complaints originate? Then they throw in the word "disgruntled" to taint everyone's complaint. Would anyone be surprised to discover that  everyone who files a complaint is disgruntled with what they experienced. And if they did not experience it, why would they complain? They then say, such experiences do not come within the purview of the discipline procedure."
       
      One might swallow this flimsy argument if they did not have the particulars. For instance, one of my Sec. 372 complaints against three 9th Circuit Federal Judges was because they engaged in specific conduct forbidden by the rules of judicial conduct of a back-room collusion with a party in the case, to wit, the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney was playing two rolls, that of defensed counsel for the defendant 9th Circuit Judges being sued, and counsel to the judges setting in judgment in the case against their fellow 9th Circuit judges.
       
      When it came to my 372 complaint for this illegal collusion, the judges stated that I was just a disgruntled litigant, and was complaining about the merits of the case, and hence dismissed my complaint. My complaint of judicial collusion was filed against the first panel of 9th Circuit judges for collusion to a second panel, who covered up for the first panel, and then to a third panel, who covered up for the second panel of 9th Circuit judges.
       
      I was burning up near all the judges in the 9th Circuit, finding that almost ever judge in the 9th Circuit was covering for all the other judges' corruption. Eventlually, this complaint went all the way to Congress seeking impeachment, but there it rotted, with not one Congressman commenting on the facts presented against these judges. So much for the "Right of Redress of Grievances" provided by the First Amendment of the Constitution. It exists on paper only.  - Ron Branson
       
      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
       To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
      minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.