Red - Deleted statute
Black - existing statute
Changing the Appellate Judge Selections:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2101_01_0000.pdf
Enacting the Protective Parent Reform Act:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2137_00_0000.pdf
Empowering the Attorney General to order Grand Juries: Need to expand a little....
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2031_00_0000.pdf
Removal of Case Management:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qqWolvjBIllpqAhFiE1GGF-DVDL4LMyCewSxOd7yB98/edit
New "Recall statutes" to include elected Judges (no immunity):
· 25-4304:
Application of act; state officers; local officers. (a) K.S.A.
25-4305 to 25-4317, inclusive, apply only to recall of the governor,
members of the legislature, judicial judges
excluding federal and any public officials elected by the electors
of the entire state and members of the state board of education and any appointments of the elected officials.
For the purpose of this act, officers mentioned in this subsection are
"state officers."
(b) The
provisions of this act do not apply to any judicial officer.
Moving Citizens review panels away from the Judiciary and to the County Commission's:
Appoint
three to seven citizens from the community to serve on each citizen review
board. Such members shall represent the various socioeconomic and ethnic groups
of the judicial district, and shall have a special interest in children. Commissioner's may also appoint alternates when necessary.
(a)
The term of appointment shall be two years and members may be reappointed.
(b)
Members shall serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for mileage for
out-of-county reviews.
(c)
Each citizen review board shall meet quarterly and may meet monthly if the
number of cases to review requires such meetings.
(d) Members and alternates appointed to citizen
review boards shall receive at least six hours of training before reviewing a
case.(e) These panels will have the "legal authority" to void court orders, order investigations, and recommend disciplinary actions against public officials to the appropriate agencies.
New "NEUTRAL" Judicial Review Boards, Disciplinary Boards for both attorneys and Lawyers:
Establishing an independent Judicial Review and Qualifications Board
______________________________________________________________
Preamble
Our legal system
is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary
will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is
central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all
sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and
collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and
strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.
Every judge
should strive to maintain the dignity appropriate to the judicial office. The
judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a
highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law. As a result, judges
should be held to a higher standard, and should aspire to conduct themselves
with the dignity accorded their esteemed position. The Canons and Sections are
rules of reason. They should be applied consistent with constitutional
requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, as well as in the
context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so as not to
impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions,
or on judges' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association.
The Code is
designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office and
to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. It
is not designed for nor intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal
prosecution. Furthermore, the purpose of the Code would be subverted if the
Code were invoked by lawyers for mere tactical advantage in a proceeding.
The text of the Canons and Sections
is intended to govern the conduct of judges and to be binding upon them. It is
not intended, however, that every transgression will result in disciplinary
action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline
to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned
application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of
the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the
effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. The Code
of Judicial Conduct is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of
judges. They should also be governed in their judicial and personal conduct by
general ethical standards. The mandatory provisions of the Canons and Sections
describe the basic minimal ethical requirements of judicial conduct. Judges and
candidates should strive to achieve the highest ethical standards, even if not
required by this Code. As an example, a judge or candidate is permitted under
Canon 7, Section B, to solicit campaign funds directly from potential donors.
The Commentary, however, makes clear that the judge or candidate who wishes to
exceed the minimal ethical requirements would choose to set up a campaign committee
to raise and solicit contributions. The Code is intended to state only basic
standards which should govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance
to assist judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and
personal conduct.
The Judicial Review and
Qualifications Board will be an independent agency created by the Kansas
Legislature solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Kansas State
judges. It is not a part of the Kansas Supreme Court nor the State courts
and operates under rules it establishes for itself. It will have its own Website. The Board has no
authority over federal judges or judges in other states. The board does
not have the authority to direct a judge to take legal action, or to review a
case for judicial error, mistake or other legal grounds. These functions are
for the state's appellate courts. Allegations stemming from a judge's rulings
or exercise of discretion do not provide a basis for board action, and personal
dissatisfaction alone cannot be grounds for judicial investigation. Any
individual or group may file a complaint against state judges and must be filed
in writing with the Board, not with the Supreme Court or any other State court
or judge. Simply write a letter specifically describing the judge's
conduct. Be sure to include the name of the judge, relevant dates, names of
witnesses, and sources of information. You may wish to attach copies (do not
send originals) of court documents or transcripts if these support your
allegations against the judge. Complaints will not be accepted by e-mail.
Neither the Supreme Court nor its Chief Justice may have any authority to
investigate alleged misconduct by State judges or to investigate the Board. If
you have questions concerning the filing of a complaint, call the board's
office at (785) ***-****.
The reason for creating the board. State courts are created by the
legislature. State judges, therefore, are NOT judicial officers, and are not
independent, but have conflicts of interest inherent in their job! What does it
say on their paycheck about who pays them? They take a loyalty oath to the
State. The State owns the judges, the court, all the attorneys, and they are
the plaintiff trying their own cause.
(a) A lawyer shall not make a
statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to
its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge,
adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or
appointment to judicial or legal office.
This Ethical Rule has been used to target attorneys in the past
when they have had conflicts with judges. It has been broadly interpreted in
order to squelch unwanted criticism. This is an offensive encroachment on the
free speech rights of attorneys, who don't check their rights at the State Bar
door once they become attorneys. Consequently, the identities of anyone
providing this kind of information must remain confidential, or risk a
politically motivated investigation by the State Bar. The State Bar is
controlled by attorneys who don't want this to exist.
As it pertains to immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any judge of this State except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Kansas or the United States.
As it pertains to immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any judge of this State except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Kansas or the United States.
Duties
1. The
Judicial Review and Qualifications Board shall monitor all persons covered by
the training and judging categories. The Board is an independent state agency
that receives and acts upon complaints about Kansas judges for judicial
misconduct or wrongdoing.
2. This
Board shall also review the performances of any judges who violates the law or
statutes and will take appropriate action.
3. All
matters brought before this Board shall remain confidential of the ******, and
will be reviewed.
4. The
office of the Judicial Review and Qualifications Board cannot be located in the
Judicial Office Building.
Membership
1. This
Board shall consist of (6) individuals. The Governor will get (1) appointment,
the house will get (2) appointments, the Senate will get (2) appointments, and
the Attorney General will get (1) appointment. The group will elect a Chairman.
A majority vote is necessary for advancement or demotion of a judge from his
present status.
2. The
members of the first Board will be appointed for variable terms - six (6)
months, two twelve (12) months, eighteen (18) months, and two twenty-four (24)
months. Thereafter, one will be replaced (for a two-year term) at each meeting
of the Executive Board. A legal counselor or attorney (retired) cannot serve on
the Board. No one elected to this Board may serve more than one (1) consecutive
term of (two years).
3. The
Board will elect its own Chairman, who shall retain the right to vote. Meetings
may take place at the discretion of the Chairman, but business may be conducted
by phone and mail.
Complaints
and Actions
1. The
Judicial Review and Qualifications Board shall have three (3) additional
members to handle written complaints submitted to the Board.
2. The
signed complaint will not be seen by anyone NOT on the Review Board with the
exception of the Governor and Attorney General. The Chairman shall have the
discretion to decide when and if a complaint should be brought to the expanded
Board. These complaints shall be discussed and recommendations made to the
Chairman for implementation. Any decision shall be a majority vote. The
Chairman shall have the responsibility of notifying the judge of the decision
of the Board.
3. The
members of the Board shall conduct a performance audit of all administrative
law judges every two years. The audit results, stating the Board's
recommendation of confidence or no confidence of each administrative law judge
shall be sent to the Governor no later than the first week of each legislative
session immediately following such audit
4. Any
complaint that the Review Board researches will be at a fee of $100.00, this
will be waived if disciplinary action is taken in their circumstance or case. A
decision by this Board may be appealed by the judge involved to the Judicial
Review and Qualifications Board at its next regular meeting. A full and clear
record will be kept of the reports and the disciplinary actions taken.
5. This
will reduce operation cost of the Judiciary Qualification Commission and the
Supreme Court.
The
reason for this process is the following:
1. To create a forum in which to
hold judges accountable to the people under constitutional standards.
2. To stop the abuse of “judicial
immunity” by the judiciary.
3. To provide a remedy that will
ensure the people of the availability of redress of grievances in our courts.
4. To be autonomous and independent
of government.
5. To not change laws on the books
or the judicial system as currently structured.
6. To act only when the judicial
system has failed in its constitutional responsibilities after the exhaustion
of all available judicial remedies.
7. To achieve its mission through
non-violent means
8. State
bar unconstitutionally prohibits lawyers and judges from daring to say anything
that might possibly be construed as negative about a judge. And the State Bar
has a monolithic hold on Kansas attorneys - you cannot practice law in Kansas
without being a member of the State Bar. It is
intended to prevent the following acts of judicial malfeasance. This can only
be achieved by making the Judicial Branch answerable and accountable to an
entity other than itself. At this time it isn't, leaving people when their
inherent rights are violated by judges. :
· Any
deliberate violation of law
· Fraud
or conspiracy
· Intentional
violation of due process of law
· Deliberate
disregard of material facts
· Judicial
acts without jurisdiction
· Blocking
of a lawful conclusion of a case
· Any deliberate violation of the state or
federal Constitutions
Things to
think about for the implementation of this bill:
The facts underlying this issue are easy to understand. It is the
"law" of "judicial immunity" to violate the
Constitution that is complex and incomprehensible; it is a false body
of law that begins with a contradiction:
1. Judges are immune from redress to those they injure in violation of constitutional rights under color of office.
2. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the People ... to petition government for a redress of Grievances."
3. The "Coup de Grace" emasculating the Petition Clause is found in 28 USC 2674, in the 1988 amendments.
1. Judges are immune from redress to those they injure in violation of constitutional rights under color of office.
2. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the People ... to petition government for a redress of Grievances."
3. The "Coup de Grace" emasculating the Petition Clause is found in 28 USC 2674, in the 1988 amendments.
"Personal" immunities created by the judiciary now completely immunize the government from accountability to those its immunized officers injure in violation of constitutional rights. Today, most government officers who have direct contact with the people can find an immunity to hide behind.
What happened to the Petition Clause? If it speaks true, where from comes immunity to violate the Constitution? We are told the judges created it; but under Article I, only Congress can make law; under Article IV, only the Constitution and law made pursuant to it, not in derogation of it, are the Supreme Law of the Land; and under Article VI, all judges are sworn to support "This Constitution." The contradictions rage on.
Judges contend the authority is implied in a constitutional doctrine that is also implied, called the "Separation of Powers." Judicial Immunity, they say, comes not from law, but from its own constitutional separation from the Legislature. It cannot make law breaching that separation. That is the basis of immunity.
The problem with that rationalization is not only that its premise is twice removed from the Constitution, so that we can't find it except but by blind faith in our judiciary, but immunity to violate Constitutional Rights also has nothing to do with separation of powers. The issue is accountability to the People for violating their rights, not accountability to another branch.
A constitution that
"implies" a right for judges to violate it with
impunity is not a constitution at all, but a license to
violate rights under color of judicial fiat. Another weakness of that argument
is that the judiciary also created immunities for the rest of government. That
violates the same separation principle said to justify it, in four ways:
First, its extensions of immunity to other
branches are not merely making rules for itself, but making laws that apply to
all of government. That invades the legislative function.
Second, those laws also apply to the People, denying them redress for constitutional wrongs under "law" designed by judges. That also invades the legislative function, albeit beyond the legislative power.
Third, by setting the terms and conditions under which government, in all branches, is immune to violate rights, it achieves the opposite of separation: It consolidates and organizes government against the People's exercise of rights.
For example, judges created immunities over 120 years, then in 1988 Congress insulated government by amending 28 USC 2674, thereby consolidating two branches of government. Then the executive branch defends government before the courts, thereby consolidating all three branches against the People.
Fourth, another "separation principle" also violated is Tenth Amendment States' Rights. The Federal Judiciary has not just created immunity for itself and for federal officers, but, disguised as constitutional doctrine, it has created immunity for state officers as well. This not only unites the federal branches against the People, it also unites them with state and local governments, all against the People's civil rights.
What begins to appear is that the judges, by a grant of immunity to themselves and to select government officials at all levels, have completely redesigned our Constitution. As we see this redesign goes far beyond simple civil immunity. It renders the People incapable of enforcing any rights against anyone judges want to protect, for any reason, or for no reason.
Second, those laws also apply to the People, denying them redress for constitutional wrongs under "law" designed by judges. That also invades the legislative function, albeit beyond the legislative power.
Third, by setting the terms and conditions under which government, in all branches, is immune to violate rights, it achieves the opposite of separation: It consolidates and organizes government against the People's exercise of rights.
For example, judges created immunities over 120 years, then in 1988 Congress insulated government by amending 28 USC 2674, thereby consolidating two branches of government. Then the executive branch defends government before the courts, thereby consolidating all three branches against the People.
Fourth, another "separation principle" also violated is Tenth Amendment States' Rights. The Federal Judiciary has not just created immunity for itself and for federal officers, but, disguised as constitutional doctrine, it has created immunity for state officers as well. This not only unites the federal branches against the People, it also unites them with state and local governments, all against the People's civil rights.
What begins to appear is that the judges, by a grant of immunity to themselves and to select government officials at all levels, have completely redesigned our Constitution. As we see this redesign goes far beyond simple civil immunity. It renders the People incapable of enforcing any rights against anyone judges want to protect, for any reason, or for no reason.
Repeal of Child Support Guidelines. Congress cannot turn its power over to the judiciary:
20-165. Rules establishing child support guidelines. The supreme court congress on a vote shall adopt rules establishing guidelines for the amount of child support to be ordered in any action in this state including, but not limited to, K.S.A. 38-1121 and 39-755 and K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 23-2712, 23-2715, 23-2716, 23-2802, 23-2902 through 23-2905, 23-3001 through 23-3006, 23-3201 through 23-3207, 23-3216 and 23-3218, and amendments thereto. In adopting such rules, the court shall consider the criteria in K.S.A. 38-1121, and amendments thereto.
|
· 60-1610:
Decree; authorized orders. A decree in an action
under this article may include orders on the following matters
Under this Statute we invoke the following Federal
Constitutional and Statutory provisions that must be adhered to for all
citizens and families of the State of Kansas. We first confirm that there is a
constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children, it is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurturing of
the children reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom
include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor
hinder. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
that provides heightened protection against government interference with
certain fundamental rights and liberty interest does include the parents
fundamental right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their
children to make decisions concerning the care, custody, management, and
control of their children and is among the unalienable rights with which
the Declaration of Independence proclaims. The Fourteenth Amendment also
provides that no State shall deprive any person of life liberty, or property,
without due process of the law. The Ninth Amendment states the
enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage. The Fifth
Amendment guarantees more than fair process; this clause also includes a
substantive component that provides heightened protection against government
interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interest. This liberty
interest protected by the Due Process clause establishes a right of parents to
establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their
children and the primary role is that of the parents. The child is not a
creature of the state, those who nurture them and direct their destiny
have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare them for
additional obligations. As long as the parents adequately care for their
children (i.e., is fit), there will be no reason for the state to inject itself
into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of the
parents’ to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parents’
children. The state does not have the ability to temporarily or constructively
terminate parental parents without being judged by a jury of their PEERS.New statutes for Kansas Initiative Referendums:
Kansas Initiative and Referendum.
(1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested
in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives,
both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the
power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject
the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve
power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item,
section, or part of any act of the general assembly.
(2) The first power hereby reserved by the people is
the initiative, and signatures by registered electors in an amount equal to at
least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the
office of secretary of state at the previous general election shall be required
to propose any measure by petition, and every such petition shall include the
full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions for state
legislation and amendments to the constitution, in such form as may be
prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with the secretary
of state at least three months before the general election at which they are to
be voted upon.
(3) The second power hereby reserved is the
referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and
appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and
state institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the
general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an
amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all
candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general
election or by the general assembly. Referendum petitions, in such form as may
be prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with the
secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the
session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the referendum is
demanded. The filing of a referendum petition against any item, section, or
part of any act shall not delay the remainder of the act from becoming
operative.
4) The veto power of the governor shall not extend to
measures initiated by or referred to the people. All elections on measures
initiated by or referred to the people of the state shall be held at the
biennial regular general election, and all such measures shall become the law
or a part of the constitution, when approved by a majority of the votes cast
thereon, and not otherwise, and shall take effect from and after the date of
the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor,
but not later than thirty days after the vote has been canvassed. This section
shall not be construed to deprive the general assembly of the power to enact
any measure.
(5) The original draft of the text of proposed
initiated constitutional amendments and initiated laws shall be submitted to
the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly for
review and comment. No later than two weeks after submission of the original
draft, unless withdrawn by the proponents, the legislative research and
drafting offices of the general assembly shall render their comments to the proponents
of the proposed measure at a meeting open to the public, which shall be held
only after full and timely notice to the public. Such meeting shall be held
prior to the fixing of a ballot title. Neither the general assembly nor its
committees or agencies shall have any power to require the amendment,
modification, or other alteration of the text of any such proposed measure or
to establish deadlines for the submission of the original draft of the text of
any proposed measure.
(5.5)
No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be
embraced in any measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such measure
shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. If a
measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be
fixed that clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the
measure shall not be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the
polls. In such circumstance, however, the measure may be revised and
resubmitted for the fixing of a proper title without the necessity of review. 
No comments:
Post a Comment