The Bell Bill would propose to establish law whereby victims with legitimate complaints and a record of material facts that support any allegation of judicial bias – moral abuse – breached justice and/or criminal corruption have the ability to file a suit demanding a jury trial against all the judicial officers alleged to have committed any wrongful acts.
The citizens civil suit would not provide for monetary damages (as such a bill would never pass because favorable judgments would be owed by the federal government employing the judicial officer) but rather to allow a jury to determine a “FINDING” of wrongful or criminal acts. A “FINDING” of wrongful acts would lead to the removal of the judicial officer – a public reprimand – loss of all career benefits, and a requirement that the judicial officer reimburse the Plaintiff for all legal and administrative costs.
Bell urges that until such time as judicial officers are held to a higher standard, and more importantly held liable for their own actions – Judicial Transparency will meet with death in every case.
The Bell Bill proposes this relief, in part, because of the severe hardship personally suffered due to the alleged wrongful acts sited on the Breached Justice web site, and in order to remedy the failure of Congress to pass similar bills since, as follows:
JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006
(Excerpt) “H.R. 5219 would establish an Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch with responsibility for conducting investigations into certain complaints against judges, and for making recommendations for eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse.”
The summary history of this bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct in the Federal judiciary:
111th Congress – S.220 – Dead : 111th Congress – H.R. 486 Dead : 110th Congress – S.461 – Dead : 110th Congress – H.R. 785 – Dead :109th Congress – S.2678 – Dead
109th Congress: The S. 5219 Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act was first sponsored and introduced by Senator Charles Grassely (R-IA) on April 27, 2006. According to GovTrack.us the Act was referred to committee without any indication that a committee report, or vote by the Senate or House occurred. This bill never became law.
110th Congress: S. 461 Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007 again proposed read twice and referred to the Committee ofn the Judiciary. There was no indication of committee report, or vote by the Senate or House ever occurring. This bill never became law.
110th Congress: H.R. 785- Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007 was introduced and referred to Committee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. This bill never became law.
111th Congress: S. 220 – Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2009 was introduced and referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
111th Congress: H.R. 486 Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2009 was introduced and referred to Committee on the Judiciary. GovTrak.us indicates no report by Committee, no vote in the House or Senate. This bill never became law.
THE BELL TRANSPARENCY BILL
It is our primary intention to make a case presentation before Congress and the Senate for the following purposes:
To present my case with supporting pacer records of the abuses suffered together with a bill submitted for review and a vote to make it law.
That will allow citizens to file suit against judicial officers for a “finding” of misconduct or other wrongful acts.
Having suffered for ten years now, in multiple jurisdictions, I firmly believe that until judicial officers are held responsible for wrongful conduct nothing will change.
A “finding” of misconduct would not allow for any monetary restitution, nor would it cost the federal government, who in many cases employs these judicial officers. The threat of law suits and favorable findings for the Plaintiffs would deter the misconduct that Breached Justice believes is a significant problem in the legal profession, who believes themselves to be above the law at times.
If you agree with our cause and the urgency of a movement to accomplish change please lend your support to our Petition for Change.
THE BELL TRANSPARENCY ACT IS SIMILIAR TO…..
109th CONGRESS – 2d Session
H. R. 5219
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 27, 2006
Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct in the Federal judiciary.
SECTION 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2006.
SECTION 2. Inspector General for the Judicial Branch
(a) Creation and duties
Part III of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Inspector General for the Judicial Branch
1022. Appointment of Inspector General.
1026 Whistleblower protection
SECTION 1021 Establishment
There is established for the judicial branch of the Government the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the Office).
SECTION 1022 Appointment of Inspector General
The head of the Office shall be the Inspector General, who shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States after consultation with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives.
SECTION 1023 Duties
With respect to the Judicial Branch, other than the United States Supreme Court, the Office shall—
(1) conduct investigations of matters pertaining to the Judicial Branch, including possible misconduct in office of judges and proceedings under chapter 16 of this title, that may require oversight or other action within the Judicial Branch or by Congress;
(2) conduct and supervise audits and investigations;
(3) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and
(4) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the Judicial Branch.
SECTION 1024 Powers
In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall have the power—
(1) to make investigations and reports;
(2) to obtain information or assistance from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit thereof, including all information kept in the course of business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing Commission;
(3) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such books, records, correspondence memoranda, papers, and documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action;
(4) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit;
(5) to employ such officers and employees, subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates;
(6) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule by section 5332 of title 5, United States Code; and
(7) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Office.
SECTION 1025 Reports
(a) When to be made
The Inspector General shall—
(1) make an annual report to the Chief Justice and to Congress relating to the activities of the Office; and
(2) make prompt reports to the Chief Justice and to Congress on matters that may require action by them.
(b) Sensitive matter
If a report contains sensitive matter, the Inspector General may so indicate and Congress may receive that report in closed session.
(c) Duty to inform Attorney General
In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
SECTION 1026 Whistleblower protection
(a) In General
No officer, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor in the Judicial Branch may discharge, demote, threaten, suspend, harass or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge or any other employee in the Judicial Branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter.
(b) Civil Action
An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.
(b) Clerical Amendment
The table of chapters for part III of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
- Inspector General for the Judicial Branch.