Objectives

The objective is simple, to improve the system of justice; accomplishing it, is another issue. Most judicial systems throughout the world are politically cultivated and thus, are almost always and have historically been rubber stamps of those in positions of political and economic power, often times in collusion. Most nation-states end up literally being oligarchies, controlled by a powerful few.  I’ll bet there are but a few justice systems in the entire world, that are not, therefore, rife with extreme levels of graft, corruption, and injustice.

For essentially the first time in history, current technology affords our society, the ability of a very large group of people, to participate and deploy a much higher quality level of justice and rule of law. With what we know today and the technologies available to us to obtain any bits of information in seconds, there should be nothing holding us up, except our own egos, inability to communicate and work ethic.

Obviously, therefore getting a very large group of people together to participate, as noted in the “About” page, in a working system is a major and important part of the project.

There are many things we need or would like to incorporate in the system and problems that will need to be solved. Remember we are not looking for perfection at this point; no such thing.  We’re looking for an improvement and I think that we can make a substantial one if we try. So to start, I’ve written down a couple of my thoughts and opinion to start the discussions on how to best achieve this. Remember there are going to be compromises in importance between the various elements of the system, so when arguing points keep this in mind.  If you want to start a specific blog on an issue, feel free.  Let’s do this because here are some of the problems and ideas we may want to solve and incorporate.

  1. There are too few individuals (Judges) making the most critical Constitutional decisions for a country of 325 million people and that any Constitutional determinations, therefore, must be made by a plurality vote of 50+1 by a much larger number of people and we are going to call the people Jurists. How many people that number is, has yet to be determined, but I would believe, the more qualified and greater the number, the merrier.
  2. That the government via politicians or bureaucrats cannot have direct or even indirect control over the appointment of Jurists.
  3. That Jurists should be selected at the local level through a system of apportionment based on the current 10 year census system, representing those Citizens that wish to appoint them. There will be no requirements other than being a Citizen and getting the various number of Citizens necessary to appoint them.  How many people a single Jurist can represent and needs for an appointment, has yet to be determined. A Jurist is appointed by getting notarized affidavits from the required number of Citizens, now set at twenty-five (25) for a couple of reasons.
  4. For each Constitutional issue, Jurists would be randomly selected via a highly encrypted computer system, which they can either accept or reject based on availability, until the required number of Judges is obtained.
  5. There needs to be system for which Citizens have oversight over the Judiciary and can administer some form of recourse or punishment, such as firing, fining or even imprisoning  them for ethical practices or decisions.
  6. That there cannot be any regulatory requirements other then Citizenship to be a Jurists. It is up to the Citizens, as constituents at the local level to choose those that they want to represent them as Jurists.
  7. We should develop some sort of merit system to promote both participation and quality of decisions and opinions by Jurists and Judges. That Jurists would be paid a standard amount for participation in a case. Those Jurists which either write or co-write a winning decision would achieve extra points up and above those that vote for a winning decision so that those that achieve the greatest number of points over a specific period would get the various current Judicial positions, based on a formal, yet to be determined merit system. The idea is to promote those that participate the most help in writing the winning opinions and are in the majority the most with their final vote, based on total points system, achieve the higher Judicial positions as their tenures expire. No more life appointments, my dear Judges; two year terms like State Reps.

Just think of being able to appeal a lower court opinion that ruled against you. You know your right, you have the evidence which the Judge(s) refused to allow during the trial because of selective prosecution, corruption, or some frivolous rules of procedures that are constantly changed to meet the various Courts practices and political policies. This time instead of having a three (3) court panel or single Judge review your case and claims, it is reviewed by hundreds of educated people, depending on the appeal level of the case, whom were all “appointed” at the local level.  No more determinations by a single or corrupt handful of Judges appointed by the Governor or President you voted against and no more almost total control and dominance over the Judiciary by the members of State and American Bars.

For each case, the Jurists that you and the rest of the Citizens of America appoint collectively, would be randomly selected by a highly secure computerized system that allows for both privacy during the review process and full disclosure, after determination and publishing of the opinions.  The next time the Jurists from you community come up for appointment, you have a full list of how they voted on every issue.  You would also see which opinion they favored and those that ruled with the dissenting opinion. One immediately thinks of voter fraud and malfunctioning machines that  have plagued similar voting process in some jurisdictions.  Not to worry. Because of the relatively small number of people involved in the actual determination of each case, a hard copy vote and physical documentation would provide the verification of the determinations of those Jurists involved. Even if the hard copy and computer came up with slightly different determinations, additional verifications can be make by Certified Mail to determine any inconsistencies in the final count.

We live in the computerized age that has taken communications to a new level, yet a few Judges can approve or oppose the law for a country of 325 million people. Now wonder our judicial system is horrible as well as most others around the world.  No wonder, except for repeal of Prohibition, abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, we have consistently lost the majority of our inalienable rights throughout the course of American history.

By reading the Summary you will get a better understanding of how the system would work.   This is a summary with many of the simpler details to be worked out and determined with the help of those that wish to endeavor in the creation and hopeful implementation of this system.  It is not that complicated of a system as all the software systems have already be created. It is a matter of consolidation of existing programs that are needed to facilitate the various attributes the system requires to improve and Repair our System of Justice.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Objectives

  1. The judicial system being broken is the crux of many if not most
    of our problems.

    Some of the largest faults in our judicial system are:

    1.) The financial barriers to get into court.

    2.) The lawyer speak barrier (you can’t understand the damn law)

    3.) You can’t get a trial for crossing any of the 200 alphabet soup agencies.
    Including your child being taken with no jury trial or you drivers license being taken with no child or your guns taken with no jury trial (Protection from abuse orders)

    4.) Jurors are not informed of their right and duty to judge the facts and then laws. (i.e. Jury nullification.)

    5.) Contempt of court concept has to go.

    6.) The supreme court was never tasked anywhere in the Constitution to judge the Constitutionality of any laws.

    Many many more I can not think of at the moment.

    Like

    • Your #3 is very true. I have asked the IRS in 5 different ways to give me the specific legislative Act and when it was passed that gives them jurisdiction over me as a Citizen of one of the 50 States. In one situation they stated my question was a frivolous claim and denied me a due process hearing even though they are required by Federal Statue and Treasury Regs too supply the court prior to the hearing with that information. They do not like it when you try to disqualify Title 26 because it is “not” Positive Law and ask them for the specific enactment and when it was passed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s