Judicial Reform Bill
- 1 Judicial Term Limits
- 2 Emphasis on Trial by Jury
- 3 Speedy Trials and Prohibition on Plea Bargaining
- 4 Free Filing, Fee Reform, Equal Treatment of Pro Se
- 5 Harsh Penalties for Corrupt Judicial Officials
- 6 Enumeration of Legal Rights
- 7 Prohibiting Qualified Immunity
- 8 References
The following reforms are proposed:
Judicial Term Limits
This bill would enact 8-year term limits on both Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices, consistent with Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Not only does Congress the right to institute lower courts at will, but even the Supreme Court can be regulated, since Congress can determine where Supreme Court trials are held and what the punishment for crimes such as treason should be. Furthermore, as explicitly stated in Article VI, judges are sworn to uphold the laws passed by Congress. The President himself is likewise responsible for upholding the laws passed by Congress, and appointing judges he knew would obstruct Congressional laws would violate his own oath of office (Article II, Sec. 3).
|“|| "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
"...but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason..."
Enacting 8-year term limits on both Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices would allow Republicans to remove unconstitutional, tyrannical, liberal Judges and Justices from the Supreme Court unless they were appointed within the past 8 years, while reappointing good Judges.
Emphasis on Trial by Jury
Given the tyrannical decisions subverting democracy made in recent years by judges, I think it safest to condition the courts upon the right to trial by jury to the extent intended by the 6th and 7th Amendments. That the founding fathers intended the courts to be contingent upon trial by jury, not judges, is evident. The 6th Amendment specifically states that trials are to be held by juries, and the 7th Amendment states that not only shall the right to trial by jury be preserved in all cases where values exceeding $20 are involved, but that such decisions may not be examined save under certain circumstances per the common law (which, I presume, involved new evidence being brought up not presented at the original trial).
|“|| 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
As such, the bill I present would do away with appellate courts entirely, apart from the Supreme Court, as well as the right of judges to instruct juries; requiring instead that juries be given full control of the trial process, with judges there to act simply as supervisors of the courtroom process. Consistent with this new emphasis on the right to trial by jury, any laws punishing the poor for exercising their Constitutional right to trial by jury (e.g. those in Washington state) would be declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, past court decisions not made through 12 person juries could be reexamined through new trials given consent from a D.A., Governor, or President.
Speedy Trials and Prohibition on Plea Bargaining
Currently the poor are victimized by the judicial system because trials are not speedy, as they should be under the 6th Amendment. Furthermore, the police can simply accuse someone and then lock them up for months or even years awaiting trial until they are forced to accept a plea bargain, all because they can't afford to pay bail. The current plea bargaining system coerces the poor into pleading guilty, even when they aren't, and is a major reason that over 150 people have been exonerated from Death Row.
The bill I'm proposing would prohibit plea bargaining entirely, guaranteeing the poor their right to a speedy public trial under the 6th Amendment, prevent officials from detaining people more than 72 hours before a case goes to trial, and implement the same penalties for officials who violate this rule as Census Bureau officials are subject to for disclosing PII (a fine of up to $5,000 or 5 years in prison).
|“||6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.||”|
Free Filing, Fee Reform, Equal Treatment of Pro Se
The bill would also do away with court filing fees altogether, requiring that court funds be provided for directly out of the U.S. Treasury. Per bill section 202(C):
|“||"The right to a speedy public trial by jury cannot be exercised if numerous court filing fees prevent the poor from their right to a fair trial."||”|
Similarly questionable fees would be prohibited as well. Prisoners may not be charged for public defenders (if provided), testing of their DNA samples, or modernization of court computers, see section 204(d). Nor can prisoners be punished with additional fines after the trial has ended.
The bill would also mandate equal treatment for those self-representing in court, i.e. pro se, per section 204(b).
Per section 205, new reforms prohibiting onerous fees relating to imprisonment would be implemented.
|“||"Criminals may not be charged for room and board for jail/prison stays, probation or parole supervision, electronic monitoring devices, arrest warrants, healthcare/medication, court administration/prosecution fees, or court-ordered drug and alcohol abuse treatment."||”|
Stopping Punishments Targeting the Poor
Imprisonment of the poor for not paying misdemeanor/infraction fines or fees would be prohibited, along with revoking driver's licenses of the inability to pay such misdemeanor/infraction fines and fees.
|“|| (d)PROHIBITING IMPRISONMENT OF THE POOR FOR INABILITY TO PAY MISDEMEANOR/INFRACTION FINES/FEES.
The poor may not be imprisoned in jail/prison for an inability to pay fines or fees stemming from misdemeanors or infractions, although those who have committed felonies may be imprisoned for such inability, consistent with Article 24 of the Province of Pennsylvania’s 1682 Laws Agreed Upon in England.
(e)PROHIBITING REVOCATION OF DRIVERS LICENSE FOR INABILITY TO PAY MISDEMEANOR/INFRACTION FINES/FEES.
Revoking one’s driver’s license for an inability to pay misdemeanor fines/fees, which is necessary to finding work so that fines and fees can be paid off, is counter-productive to achieving the goal of working off debts owed while disproportionately targeting the poor, and is therefore prohibited.
Harsh Penalties for Corrupt Judicial Officials
To quote section 204(A) from the bill,
|“||"Justice should not be sold or denied, per the 5th Article of the Province of Pennsylvania's 1682 Laws Agreed Upon in England, a right to due process of law without which none may be deprived of life, liberty, or property is evinced from the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, any witnesses or prosecutors convicted of willful falsehood for their court testimony will be subject to the same penalties they had sought against those testified against, required to make double satisfaction those they testified against, dismissed from all offices of trust, and permanently prevented from holding public office or testifying in court, consistent with the 12th and 26th Articles of the Province of Pennsylvania's 1682 Laws Agreed Upon in England."||”|
Enumeration of Legal Rights
My bill enumerates clearly what are and are not legal rights in sections 201-215. Some are noteworthy, including the right to freedom of religion, which would protect Americans from religious persecution of the kind that has been perpetuated by the court system against Christians such as Leland Bohannon and Elaine Huguenin. The right to life would also be clearly protected, as would the right to bear arms.
Limiting Court Jurisdiction
The right of Supreme Court justices to encroach on religious freedom would be severely restricted, as would their right to override the will of the people expressed in ballot referendum laws or the will of Congress (Judicial Review). See section 312 for precise wording. This is the most essential judicial reform needed, as it is vital to stopping judicial tyranny from obstructing laws passed by Congress and Presidential cabinet appointments.
Prohibiting Qualified Immunity
Immunity for public judicial officials would be removed per section 401. Wording is as follows:
|“|| Section 401. Qualified Immunity
Public officials should be more accountable, not less, and with greater power should come greater responsibility, not less. The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials from their actions, even when those actions involve clear violation of civil rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, per Anderson v. Creighton, Zieper v. Metzinger, Pearson v. Callahan, Filarsky v. Delia, and Mitchell v. Forsyth. Furthermore, a limited privilege from arrest granted to Congressmen during the partaking of their Congressional duties under Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution cannot be extrapolated as wholesale immunity for the actions of public officials, or even as protection for the otherwise unlawful actions of Congressmen. Article I, Section 6 simply protects Congressman from arrest at certain times, namely while going about their Congressional duties(excepting cases of felonies, treason, and breach of the peace)—not the actions they take during those times, for which they can logically be arrested afterwards. Nor does the Speech and Debate Clause provide protection for a Congressman’s actions, only for their words, to ensure free debate. Therefore, qualified immunity is hereby prohibited as unconstitutional in the interests of protecting American’s civil rights under the U.S. Constitution from governmental tyranny.