S. 461, The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
  • This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as S. 1455, The Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act.

Revision History Revisions Feed for This Bill

Below is the revision history of this article.

(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)

No revisions found.

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill


March 17, 2007, 11:34pm (report abuse)

To become a justice is to be esteemed above the norm. To be esteemed above the norm, one "should" have ethics above the norm. Corruption is always a possibility, such is one of the reasons we have courts in the first place. To assure justice.

We started as a country with government by the people for the people.

Today we are government by the Government for the Government!

The founding fathers would frown and sacrifice to change such.

As should we!


June 22, 2007, 2:05pm (report abuse)

Power minus accountability invariably equals tyranny. Our federal judges did what Thomas Jefferson predicted they would, staging what Robert Bork rightly described as a judicial coup d'etat. If there is any flaw with this bill, is that it is too little too late. See http://www.knowyourcourts.com to see a sample of what is happening out there.


July 2, 2007, 12:58am (report abuse)

A magistrate-judge in the District of Colorado has finally admitted what we've known for years: (1) Article III judges defer pro se cases to magistrate judges to rid of them; (2) Article III judges do not provide de novo review of magistrate recommendations, despite the statutory requirement and despite protestations to the contrary; (3) Out of 600 pro se cases per year that the magistrate has been aware of over his last twelve years on the bench, not one has been allowed to proceed to trial; (4) the Tenth Circuit affirms each and all of these dismissals under the because-I-said-so doctrine (departure from stare decisis through the use of unpublished, non-precedential opinions). There is meaningful and effective right of access to the federal court in Colorado for any unrepresented party. Source: http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3625


July 2, 2007, 1:00am (report abuse)

typo-correction to prev. post: "There is *no* meaningful and effective right of access to the federal court in Colorado for any unrepresented party."

Laser Haas

July 28, 2007, 1:51pm (report abuse)

That is why we must support this bill and the bills that seek to expand the rights for others to engage in legal practice.

The disparage between those that can afford counsel and those that cannot is vastly becomming a division line between upper class and all the rest.

We need an open legal market, where the average citizen has hope.

Our case in Del Fed Bankr Courts 01-706 has gone on 6 years, we had engaged 8 separate counsels.

Each refused to report Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the Court, despite 18 USC 4 MisPrison and 18 USC 1346 Fiduciary duty.

One of our counsels actually emailed us a threat to back off.

The 3rd Circuit actually called us and refused to place our En Banc rehearing request into the record because we are now left to being only pro se.

We have succeeded in the "rare" occurrence of having our Circuit Mandate recalled (3rd Circuit 06-4308)

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

September 6, 2007, 8:16pm (report abuse)

It’s good to see that some of our Congressional representatives are interested in addressing the serious problem with corruption in our court system. Currently, the Justice Department, the FBI, and state law enforcement agencies have the ability to investigate judges who are throwing cases, but they rarely do so even when handed documentary evidence showing the commission of felonies by members of the judiciary.

There have been instances where these bureaucrats have taken action. However, they are obviously not doing a good enough job; otherwise, these Congressmen would not have felt the need to bring about more oversight. As the current law enforcement bureaucracy has failed to protect the public from judicial corruption, why would anyone think that creating a new bureaucracy to investigate complaints about judicial corruption would help, especially if this responsibility is put in the hands of a bureaucrat who is appointed by and may be terminated by a judge?

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

September 6, 2007, 8:24pm (report abuse)

I applaud these Congressmen for having the wisdom and courage to address the serious problem of judicial corruption, the rampant injustice which has resulted from it, and the failures of our law enforcement agencies to take action to expose and correct it. However, in order to truly get reform, we need more than just another bureaucracy. I think this is why most people are against this bill.

I proposed some ideas in my speech titled "No Justice, No Peace" which I gave at the National Judicial Reform Conference at Rice University in Houston, Texas on August 11, 2007. Here is the link to it:


Please listen to my speech. I think that you will find it enlightening, and you will find that my proposals for reform do not call for any new bureaucracy, just the restoration of a First Amendment right. Thank you for your consideration.


Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA

MarkAdamsJDMBA (at) hotmail.com

Laser Haas at msn

October 5, 2007, 11:51pm (report abuse)

Persons who place their career and well being on the line to stand tall for Justice in America are candidates for the highest honors that can be achieved.

Mark Adams has suffered severe retaliatory actions for speaking the Truth and we hope that Congress takes notice of such rare individual sacrifices made by a young American with a family to provide for.

Please take the time to encourage such gallantry and promote a more honorable American society!

Laser Haas

October 13, 2007, 8:46pm (report abuse)

The Corruption of our Federal Judiciary and Dept of Justice is wholesale and syndicated.The firm of Morris Nichols(MNAT)represented Bain and eToys in 2001 when eToys bankruptcy sold all their assets to Bain for discounts in the tens of millions.Colm F Connolly was partner at MNAT in 2001.,More than 100 statutory violations have been proven against MNAT, TBF and Barry Gold in the eToys fraud case. But the DOJ refuses to investigate and the Federal Judges ignore 18 USC 3057(a) and assist the cover up. The US Attorney in Delaware who has refused to prosecute MNAT or Bain is Colm F Connolly,As such Connolly's resume is now public knowledge. While it seems to be a good career move not to investigate or prosecute your partners, associates and clients. Especially when such is connected to your future boss, a Presidential hopefull. (Miit Romney owns Bain,KB, eToys, Stage Stores, SanKaty)It is however, a matter of grave concern when eventually get "caught"!

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)