Skip to main content

Most likely anyone perceiving a need for sweeping reform of America’s legal system lacks an “acceptable opinion”.  How tragic it is when even these patriots stifle debate about the optimal course of legal reform in America.  Those convinced it must unfold “Tea Party” or “Occupy”-style accordingly shelf National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) and its thoughtful quest for “Citizen Panels On Judicial Misconduct”.  Rather than reasonably support this and similar lawful plans for self-empowerment, many grassroots legal reform advocates seem content to leave America’s legal system intact while somehow forcing it to produce fair outcomes.
 

Most likely anyone perceiving a need for sweeping reform of America’s legal system lacks an “acceptable opinion”.  How tragic it is when even these patriots stifle debate about the optimal course of legal reform in America.  Those convinced it must unfold “Tea Party” or “Occupy”-style accordingly shelf National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) and its thoughtful quest for “Citizen Panels On Judicial Misconduct”.  Rather than reasonably support this and similar lawful plans for self-empowerment, many grassroots legal reform advocates seem content to leave America’s legal system intact while somehow forcing it to produce fair outcomes.  

Dismissing NFOJA as too complex, too time-consuming, etc. may be a “smart way” of doing many things.  But promptly vindicating people victimized by entrenched abuses of America’s legal system does not appear to be among them.  Noam Chomsky, or at least the above quote attributed to him suggests why.  

Recall that in 2007, the prestigious anti-corruption coalition Transparency International, confirmed that for various reasons “(i)t is . . . crucial that the transparency of the judiciary be continuously scrutinized . . .”  Unfortunately it is far from clear that anyone perceiving the need for such intense scrutiny of America’s judiciary has an “acceptable opinion”.  Nonetheless, lively debate has become acceptable about the related impact of “judicial elections -vs- merit selection” and, to a lesser extent, “judicial activism” in America.

Interestingly, America’s judiciary is quite transparent with its regular rejection of nearly all allegations that one or more from its ranks have been unethical.  Historically, the Establishment is excellent in making clear that anyone suggesting the contrary lacks an “acceptable opinion”, whether he or she is a state legislator, member of Congress, or an average Joe or Jane.  So attempts to spark lively debate about the extent of judicial misconduct and corruption in America tend to fail.

Though it may cite or weigh-in on specific cases, NFOJA is not generally focused on actual or alleged instances of judicial misdeeds.  Rather than lively debate about the extent of judicial misconduct and corruption in America, NFOJA tends to promote dialogue about the wisdom (or folly) and lawfulness (or unconstitutionality) of judicial self-policing.    

True, an opinion that judicial misconduct and corruption are widespread in America is as unacceptable as contending that America’s judiciary should not be final arbiter of its own integrity.  But the former is defense orientated while NFOJA is an offensive measure.  It strives to optimize the decision-making and policing powers of average Americans with regard to their legal system.  In that sense it is meant to be preemptive and an assurance that corrective measures will be effective.  

NFOJA contends that the rule of law is best preserved in America through optimal participation by all Americans in lawyer disciplinary matters, state judicial ethics enforcement, and the general oversight of federal judges.  This solution-orientated approach avoids premising the need for major reform on the reality or prospect of rampant misconduct among lawyers and judges.  Rather than fixate on one-sided attempts to “expose” unethical conduct or prove its pervasiveness, NFOJA focuses on restoring the balance of power between America’s judiciary and its sovereign citizens; a balance lost when judges essentially control all government processes for evaluating their conduct.

NFOJA’s Vision of Optimal Participation:

Lawyer Disciplinary Matters - NFOJA promotes enactment of special procedures, including but not limited to jury trials, triggered by charges against a lawyer for supposedly inappropriate remarks about a judge.  This judicial whistleblower protection frees ethical lawyers to zealously police all aspects of America’s legal system.  For the proposed legislation, Click Here

State Judicial Ethics Enforcement -  NFOJA promotes vesting randomly selected, adequately trained, rotating groups of private citizens with responsibility for discipline of state judges.  For the current draft of proposed legislation, Click Here:  Summary / Full Proposal

General Oversight of Federal Judges -  NFOJA is developing a program by which all petitions for certiorari rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court would be systematically distributed to law schools for consideration by law students. The participating students would address the "cert- worthiness" of rejected cases, much like a school law review publication operates. In the process, conflicts, enforcement, and public policy gaps in federal law could be addressed.

NFOJA’s Corporate Philosophy:  Shoring up American courts entails both avidly championing and vigilantly chastening the country’s judiciary.

###

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Harm

    Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, Executive Director - The Law Project - njcdlp.org

    by The Law Project on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 06:04:44 PM PDT

  •  I didn't embrace it the first time (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, FG, Susan G in MN, VClib

    you brought it here, because after looking at your links I concluded this project was basically you and a few others on a quixotic, disorganized, and rather personally motivated campaign against real and imagined problems in the judicial system -- for which you were soliciting donations (aka "membership fees") from others. It does seem like you've enlisted additional members, but the mission and functions are no more defined or sensible, and your proposed legislation & projects seem to me ... well, I'll just say unwise and unworkable.

    This is not to say there aren't problems in the multiple judicial systems in this country, but I didn't find yours a promising approach, and won't be sending you money. But I did read it and wish you luck.

    •  Are you a judge? (0+ / 0-)

      Villanova Rhodes, you are sorely misinformed and your report of donation requests is inaccurate at best.  If your comments are not "personally motivated", they certainly are a "smart way" to try stifling lively debate.  I don't wish you luck in that endeavor.  

      Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, Executive Director - The Law Project - njcdlp.org

      by The Law Project on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:16:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a judge, but able to click & read. (0+ / 0-)
        Welcome to the Online Payment / Donation Center of:
            National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP);
            POPULAR (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored);
            National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA); and
            OAK (Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs).
        A stroll through your many interlocking groups, projects, fora, initiatives, meetups, networks, etc., etc., etc. provides several different kinds of opportunities to part with one's money, but you are up front about their non-deductibility and do not seem to be attempting to mislead anyone.

        However, the solicitation aspect is not what makes me disinclined to join in your particular way of addressing real problems. It is the scattered and disjointed proliferation of websites, the inability to focus on a discrete set of problems, and the haphazard methods and missions that could lead to a submission to the U.N. like this remarkable document:  PDF link

        From my reading of your many sites, it appears your "focus" includes, in the U.S. and sometimes internationally:  poverty, ACORN, stare decisis, state and federal judicial conduct & disability, access to representation, human rights, whistleblower protection, free speech, the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, the state secrets privilege, parental rights, child protective services/family court abuses, SCOTUS term limits, and retribution for those wronged by the legal system. Many fine causes there, but tilting at a whole farm of windmills with the "join a group" approach doesn't appeal to me. Your mileage obviously varies.

        From my reading of this site, you might be more likely to get traction if you concentrated here on the whistleblower protection part of your interests. There's substantial interest in that topic here. I think if your piece was likely to stimulate lively debate on judicial accountability, it would have done so by now, but I have no interest in stifling it.

        •  Fundraising as an incident of nonprofit advocacy (0+ / 0-)

          Villanova Rhodes, donation requests, membership fees, and similar fundraising efforts are a common incident of nonprofit advocacy.  Here's a link for making donations to the  American Red Cross:  https://www.redcross.org/...

          You two have provided a link for making donations to various nonprofit groups.  That you consider them "a whole farm of windmills" is unfortunate.  Hopefully the "fine causes" they support "get traction" as it is not simply the success or failure of any particular group or groups at stake.  Similarly, the importance of considering appropriate judicial accountability in America does not hinge on any particular "piece".  

          In other words, the urgent task at hand is certainly more than critiquing the organization management and writing skills (or lack thereof) of any one or a few grassroots advocates.  Nonetheless, your lack of approval is duly noted.

          Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, Executive Director - The Law Project - njcdlp.org

          by The Law Project on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 03:39:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  There are real problems, surely (0+ / 0-)

    and  itizen oversight sounds like a good approach.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site