Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: How about a law to keep judges, honest?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    How about a law to keep judges, honest?

    AN ACT:
    To Prevent Government By Men Rather Than Law; and,
    To Insure That Public Policy Remains The Constitutional Prerogative Of The
    Legislature.
    BE IT ENACTED: that every judge, chancellor, magistrate and/or any other judicial officer, employed and/or
    appointed and/or elected, in the sovereign State of _______________________, who has the
    power to issue rulings, orders, judgments and/or decrees is required to provide a memorandum
    with each and every decision justifying it as to the Facts of the case, the Law of the case, and the
    legal Conclusion therefrom in all actions to come before that judicial official; that if the records
    of any court within the Judicial Branch, maintained at any place in government, show that such
    official, on an order, judgment, ruling and/or decree submitted for recordation has knowingly or
    otherwise misrepresented the law and the fact, or both, said judicial officer will be guilty of a
    felony. Upon conviction, such punishment shall be not less than five (5) years imprisonment,
    $50,000.00 fine, forfeiture of all retirement benefits, and irrevocable suspension of license to
    practice law.
    SUCH ACTION shall be brought in a court of record within the judicial branch of the State, having
    jurisdiction to try criminal actions.
    PROCEDURE to implement this Act:
    1. The Judicial Committee of the Legislature shall within 60 days after enactment of this law,
    prepare and order the printing of special complaint forms, for use by any citizen or resident alien,
    living within the geographical jurisdiction of any state of the Union and/or territory of the United
    States, to initiate this criminal action against any judicial officer of the judicial branch of
    government of the sovereign State of ___________________________.
    2. The aforesaid citizen or resident alien shall file the aforesaid complaint with:
    (a) the chairman of the Judicial Committee, and
    (b) the Secretary of State.
    3. The Secretary of State is required to cause, within 10 days of the receipt of the complaint,
    for the full text of it to be published in:
    (a) the official journal(s) of the State, and
    (b) the largest daily newspapers in circulation within the geographical boundaries of the
    State.
    4. Said Judicial Committee chairman shall make the complaint a priority matter and the
    committee is required to appoint a special prosecutor within 30 days of receipt of the complaint.
    5. The special prosecutor is required, within 10 days of appointment to:
    (a) start his prosecutorial activities, and
    (b) notify the complaining citizen or resident alien of his appointment.
    6. Upon completion of his investigation, not to exceed 60 calendar days, the special prosecutor
    shall move the Grand Jury for an indictment, or may proceed on an information.
    7. The judicial officer so charged shall not be tried within the court in which he presides.
    8. The clerk of the court of record, upon receipt of said indictment or information, shall
    expedite the scheduling of this action as a priority matter.
    PROLAWS.pdf

    This is the idea, what are your thoughts on it?

    I have the PDF linked in case you like it and want to share it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Ooh! Look, another cute little progressive, wants more laws to make-things-better.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Ooh! Look, another cute little progressive, wants more laws to make-things-better.
    Just want something so that the people can hold the judges accountable. Or do you prefer them running rough shod over your rights and legislating from the bench?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I have seen older judges who are clearly and literally crazy.

    Age catches up with many elderly ... judges are no different

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have seen older judges who are clearly and literally crazy.

    Age catches up with many elderly ... judges are no different
    I think it has nothing to do with age after having been before some of the judges (sic) in Seattle.

    Either way, let's start holding them accountable. Let's take away their immunity so we can have fare and just rulings again.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    LOL And maturity never catches up with some youths.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Who then judges these new laws?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Who then judges these new laws?
    Just get a spinning wheel .... innocent or guilty are options ... spin it and guilty, the guy's guilty; spin it and not guilty, then the accuser is guilty of the crime.

    I did not say it was a perfect solution..

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ....

    Either way, let's start holding them accountable. Let's take away their immunity so we can have fare [sic] and just rulings again.
    And how would this be different from the present situation? [/grammar Santa ]

    The problem is that judges without immunity are prone to more manipulation and mischief than are judges with immunity.

    What we seem to need is a change of mindset in the higher (appellate) courts. There is a great reluctance to call out a judge and say s/he was flat-out wrong, which is why we have a systenm that considers the severity of wrongness as opposed to wrongness per se.

    [preaching to the choir]And yet if we do something just a teeny-tiny bit wrong8 we are just as guilty as if we had trampled the law on prime-time TV.[/preaching to the choir].

    stay safe.

    * - such as using the USPS-approved abbreviation instead of writing out the name of the locality/county/state.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Judge Roy Bean.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member wittmeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Castle, Va
    Posts
    146
    What we need is consistency in our entire system and remove the "attitude - bad day" factor.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    We need to simply get back to the Constitution and Common Law jurisprudence.

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Really? Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    The story goes back in the thirties in Vevay, Indiana there were two corrupt judges. One Sunday morning when the locals were headed to town for church, passing in front of the court house where the two corrupt judges hanging from the old oak tree. Both judges had a feed bag over their head and their hands tied behind their back.

    The locals all agreed that it was clear cases of suicide.

    P/S I think that is the definition of common law.
    Last edited by color of law; 09-02-2014 at 07:12 PM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Don't blame me ... I voted for the other guy ...

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Look ! Judges censored ... wow, we do this and we get fired, right?

    https://news.yahoo.com/two-californi...234659770.html

    Both Woodward and Steiner were allowed to remain on the bench despite the censure. In both cases, the commission cited their acknowledgement of wrongdoing and expressions of remorse.


    See? The system works.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The problem is that judges without immunity are prone to more manipulation and mischief than are judges with immunity.
    That's the thinking, anyway.

    Our society abounds with mechanisms by which those in positions of extraordinary responsibility are isolated from the consequences of their decisions. Judicial immunity is one of these mechanisms, as the governing structure of a modern corporation.

    I have yet to see any of these mechanisms which function as claimed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    I re-read it and went over my notes again.

    In short, if a judge makes a ruling that has to do with the law, the judge MUST state the law being used to make the ruling and how they are applying the law with a clear explanation as to how their ruling is consistent with the law.

    How would this be a bad thing?

    It would really help our open carry cases. If a judge could not cite the law that they are using for their ruling then they can be help civilly and criminally liable for their ruling(s).

    They would not be allowed to give out convoluted rulings like in the Spencer case. They contradicted themselves so much in that case that it was sickening.

    Or my friend's tax case, he wanted the law shown that required that his commission have any sort of tax withholding from it. The judges first admitted that he was a 1099 contractor and then called him an employee and thus subject to withholding without ever once citing the law that they were getting this BS from.

    Or my trespassing case where the judges made up laws and claimed that there are words there that cannot be seen but must be there because they said so.

    Grim_Nights Obstruction case where the officers admitted that he was innocent but the judge (pro-tem) told the jury he was guilty despite the law and the officers testimonies showing otherwise.

    This would hold the judges to the laws (the constitution first) as written.

    Explain how this would be a bad thing.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Judges should only talk when spoken to. Also, judges should only play referee for the defense and prosecution.

    The desired judges instructions to a jury.

    Judge: Jury, ya heard all there is to hear from the two sharks. Go with that cop and decide. Tell the cop when you have come to a decision.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Judges should only talk when spoken to. Also, judges should only play referee for the defense and prosecution.

    The desired judges instructions to a jury.

    Judge: Jury, ya heard all there is to hear from the two sharks. Go with that cop and decide. Tell the cop when you have come to a decision.
    Or, a good judge would simply say, cuz he has immunity.

    "So, cop Jones, you arrested this guy cuz he was packing heat."
    "Yessiree judge."
    "OK, is this guy done broke any other laws other than packing heat?"
    "Nope."
    "OK, thanks, case dismissed."

    But, we know that ain't gunna happen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    In short, if a judge makes a ruling that has to do with the law, the judge MUST state the law being used to make the ruling and how they are applying the law with a clear explanation as to how their ruling is consistent with the law.

    How would this be a bad thing?


    .
    Most judges do this with their memorandum of decision. They are not required to ..

    Some issue out a decision and include a statement that a memo is forthcoming (yeah, in about 6 months ~ where the aggrieved party has to wait for before filing an appeal and has to ask for an extension of time).

    Some issue out the decision and memo together.

    Some just issue out a decision w/o a memo (sometimes no memo is needed)

    One can motion for articulation if planning an appeal, noting that its for an appeal may push the judge into writing one.


    I never had an issue where a memo or lack of one stopped me from filing an appeal to an appellate court.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Most judges do this with their memorandum of decision. They are not required to ..

    Some issue out a decision and include a statement that a memo is forthcoming (yeah, in about 6 months ~ where the aggrieved party has to wait for before filing an appeal and has to ask for an extension of time).

    Some issue out the decision and memo together.

    Some just issue out a decision w/o a memo (sometimes no memo is needed)

    One can motion for articulation if planning an appeal, noting that its for an appeal may push the judge into writing one.


    I never had an issue where a memo or lack of one stopped me from filing an appeal to an appellate court.
    It should not be optional for judges to include the explanation as to how their ruling was based on the law.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    It should not be optional for judges to include the explanation as to how their ruling was based on the law.
    Why?

    Many times I have seen reviewing courts rule that the reason why the lower court reached its decision was based on bad application of the law and still affirm the lower court's ruling based upon their view of the law that leads to the same conclusion.

    It would be clear in a guilty decision that the lower court found that all of the required elements of the crime were met and evidence supports a conviction. Aside from due process issues, this is going to be the mountain one must climb to overturn the lower court; one would not need a memo for that.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why?

    Many times I have seen reviewing courts rule that the reason why the lower court reached its decision was based on bad application of the law and still affirm the lower court's ruling based upon their view of the law that leads to the same conclusion.

    It would be clear in a guilty decision that the lower court found that all of the required elements of the crime were met and evidence supports a conviction. Aside from due process issues, this is going to be the mountain one must climb to overturn the lower court; one would not need a memo for that.
    BE IT ENACTED: that every judge, chancellor, magistrate and/or any other judicial officer, employed and/or
    appointed and/or elected, in the sovereign State of _______________________, who has the
    power to issue rulings, orders, judgments and/or decrees is required to provide a memorandum
    with each and every decision justifying it as to the Facts of the case, the Law of the case, and the
    legal Conclusion therefrom in all actions to come before that judicial official
    ; that if the records
    of any court within the Judicial Branch, maintained at any place in government, show that such
    official, on an order, judgment, ruling and/or decree submitted for recordation has knowingly or
    otherwise misrepresented the law and the fact, or both, said judicial officer will be guilty of a
    felony.
    Upon conviction, such punishment shall be not less than five (5) years imprisonment,
    $50,000.00 fine, forfeiture of all retirement benefits, and irrevocable suspension of license to
    practice law.
    Because if they do it they will be felons.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Because if they do it they will be felons.
    Ironic that a judge would needs to rule on the lawfulness of that if the negative consequences were imposed.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •