/spacer.gif){kind=spacer}
/index_r1_c1.gif)
/index_r2_c1.gif)
/index_r2_c2.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c3.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c4.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c5.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c6.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c9.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c10.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c11.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c12.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c13.gif){kind=small}
/index_r2_c14.gif){kind=small}
/index1_r2_c15.gif)
/spacer.gif){kind=spacer}
/index_r4_c2.gif)
Reforms
Make
Judges, Court and Police Officers and Lawyers Accountable
[This is a digest of the chapter in the book]
Common Sense Commission
Judges do not like seeing their name in print in connection decisions that
are obviously unjust. It embarrasses them. This fact can be used to give judges
a powerful incentive to act responsibly. A commission of ordinary citizens
(the "Common Sense Commission") can be established to review decisions
referred to them by a party to a lawsuit. The Commission will review the decision
from the perspective of common sense. Decisions that don't show any will be
described in newspaper stories and television and radio station announcements.
Judges will be required to inform parties in each lawsuit of the Common Sense
Commission and how to contact it. The commission will not have the power change
any decision or the result. This must be done by an appeal. But the commission
could widely publicize decisions it thinks are unjust or lacking in common
sense.
Evaluate Every Judge's Work Annually
A new state agency, not a part of the judicial branch of Minnesota government,
can be established to review the work of each judge once a year and issue
a report to the public on his/her performance. This agency, the "Minnesota
Judicial Evaluation Commission," can be a small group of commissioners
appointed by the governor and possibly confirmed by the legislator. In addition
to evaluating the performance of each judge once a year, it also can publish
a report on each judge who seeks to be re-elected as proposed in Chapter 13,
Publish Report Cards on Judges at Re-Election Time.
Make Judges Pay Damages in Egregious Cases
Judges will act much more responsibly if they may be liable for damages when
they injure a person intentionally or as a result of gross negligence. A court,
the "Minnesota Judges Court" will consider and rule on complaints
against judges. The Judges Court would be a special court independent of the
state judicial branch of government whose members will be selected in the
same manner as judges of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The only cases that
would go before the Judges Court would be those that make a claim against
a judge for damages. Judges will be liable for damages that result from gross
negligence in performing his duties or from actions intended to wrongfully
hurt a person.
To protect judges from harassment and frivolous or baseless claims or suits,
the Minnesota Judicial Evaluation Commission will first decide if probable
cause exists and, if so, refer the case to the Judges' Court. A judge would
be liable to pay damages if the Judges Court decides that the judge: (1) misinterpreted
or misapplied the law either intentionally or as a result of gross negligence;
(2) was clearly and unfairly biased against the person who makes the claim;
(3) clearly was dishonest or untruthful; or (4) made a ruling so lacking in
merit or grounds as to be clearly unjust. The law would apply to all judges
including judges of the Minnesota Court of Appeal and the Minnesota Supreme
Court and to others who perform judge-like duties such as court referees.
Certification of Court Decisions
A person who starts a lawsuit and his attorney are required to certify that
there is a reasonable basis for the lawsuit. A person who brings a lawsuit
in bad faith, or with no reasonable basis and thereby violates the certification
can be fined (called "sanctions"). The lawyer also can be sanctioned.
Because of this possibility, lawyers normally will refuse to sue out a case
that isn't supportable. Like lawyers, judges will include a certification
under oath in each decision that the decision is based on the facts in the
case, the law, and is just. A judge may be sanctioned and assessed damages
payable to an injured party if the Judges Court finds that his/hr decision
was, intentionally or through gross negligence, dishonest, biased, contrary
to law, or so lacking in merit as to be unjust.
Lawyer Reference Service
A reference service similar to the Better Business Bureau can be created to
help people determine if a lawyer they want to hire has a reputation for honesty
and reasonableness. Every lawyer would be required to inform potential clients
of the Lawyer Reference Service and provide information on how to contact
it.
A lawyer would be listed by the Lawyer Reference Service if ten of his clients
provide a signed written statement to the Lawyer Reference Service that he/she
is honest and ethical. Nothing would be said by the Lawyer Reference Service
about any lawyer who is not listed on its roster.
The Lawyer Reference Service could receive complaints about a lawyer and,
if it determined they are justified, remove a lawyer from its roster. The
lawyer Reference Service would not be allowed to give a negative reference
about any lawyer - merely whether or not a particular lawyer is listed on
its roster. This reform would provide incentive for lawyers to develop and
maintain a reputation of being ethical.
Other
Reforms?
Other reforms that can improve our court and legal system are proposed and
discussed in our website: www.mncourtreform.org/. Please let us know what
you think of these additional reforms and what reforms you think would help.
Write to us at: dalenathan@usfamily.net.
Select another reform to read about:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||