Posted 8:09 AM by Creditwrench

Oklahoma House of Representatives

Media Division
September 19, 2003

OKLAHOMA CITY- Nathan Dungan has spent almost a decade researching
how financial debt affects the lives of college students and other young
adults.

Dungan, author of the book Prodigal Sons & Material Girls: How Not
to Be Your Child's ATM, is scheduled to testify Sept. 25 before the
House Committee on Banking and Finance. The meeting is set for 10 a.m.
in Room 412C at the state Capitol.

The author's appearance in Oklahoma City is at the invitation of
state Rep. Joe Dorman. The Rush Springs Democrat requested a legislative
study on the topic after some cursory research of his own into college
students and credit card debt.

Dungan's book addresses issues such as how to talk to your children
about money; understanding the differences between wants and needs;
increasing the probability of your children having a prosperous life;
and raising your children's marketing IQ.

A resident of Minneapolis, Minn., Dungan offers insight about his
book and the visit to Oklahoma.
Q: "What are your plans when you arrive in the Sooner State later
this month?"
A: "I will be speaking about the enormous challenges that young
people, particularly college students, face while managing money. Even
more specifically, I am concerned how troublesome credit card debt is
among young adults and how it's been increasing exponentially over the
last decade.

"I want to address issues relative to universities in Oklahoma and
on a national level and how the challenges for young people as they have
been, I will say, predatory marketed to buy credit cards and how that's
proven to be exceptionally challenging.
"On the other side, there is little, if any, financial education to
help them out. So I really want to debate the financial management and
debt challenges facing college students today."

Q: "Why did you decided to write about this particular topic?"
A: "It really was a two-fold endeavor. First, I received a request
from an educator who had recognized an enormous communication and
learning gap between parents and young people about how to manage money.
I remember that professor was compassionate about teaching young people
how to develop healthy financial habits.

"Second, I wanted to investigate what appeared to be an increasing
involvement of our culture about how we have become so inquisitive and
so interested in the financial prowess of young people today. I am
astounded at how much marketing energy and money is being spent to shape
young adults into voracious spenders. It was the combination of those
things that really led to me toward researching and writing the book."

Q: "There are some wonderful statistics in your book. How long did
it take you to compile material for the publication?"
A: "I've been researching the topic for almost seven years. I wrote
my first workshop on the subject back in 1990. Then I earnestly started
researching information for the book in the mid-1990s and then embarked
on full-time research the past five to seven years.

"I simply wanted to help raise people's awareness about how
significant and widespread this issue is. We have 80 million young
people under the age of 25 in a society that's really working hard to
addict them to spending. That poses some enormous social and economic
challenges for us.

"I think it's time we ask some serious questions as to what is
occurring with money management among young people today, especially in
our education systems, in order to help rectify some of those
significant challenges."

Q: "Do you believe this is an important and timely topic to tackle
in your book?"
A: "Absolutely. I continue to hear back from parents and educations
alike throughout the country is this issue is a front burner issue, with
the challenges of young people managing money. Just the other day I had
a conversation with a former professor of Arizona State University. He
said the greatest challenge for his students was staying out of
financial debt.

"Incidently, as I was researching the book, I discovered the number
one reason why students are dropping out of college or reducing their
class load is because of a financial burden, and for the most part that
burden is due to excessive credit card debt.

"So, my goal in writing the book is to raise the awareness and to
provide a resource and springboard for people to talk about this subject
and take action."
- 30 -

Scott Hancock
Media Specialist
Oklahoma House of Representatives
1-800-522-8502 ext 422

Posted 11:43 PM by Creditwrench

Homeschooling classes by Richard Cornforth

Richard Cornforth is to be applauded for his highly successful classes on our Constitution and constitutional law which
he gives every Thursday evening at our J-accuse National Headquarters at 225 N. Virginia in Oklahoma City. He has long recongnized that our children are the most important resource our nation has and that in order ensure the survival of our nation and it's Republican form of government we must teach our children the origins of our nations and why our Constitution is our foremost bastion against those who would opress us and take away our rights and freedoms for their own personal or corporate gain.

Therefore he has voluntarily instuted his home schooling classes as an integral part of the J-accuse movement.
We of J-accuse proudly invite all homeschoolers in the Oklahoma City area to come and participate in our Thursday evening classes and our efforts to ensure that our children are well instructed with the principles of liberty and freedom by not only becoming familiar with our Constitution and the founding principlesof our nation.

Classes begin promptly at 7:00 P.M.

Here are some links to websites and blogs about Oklahoma Homeschoolers that we think our readers might be interested in. And while we are on the subject of links, Trading links is one of the most important ways to increase traffic to one's website and spread the word about one's interests.
Just in case you may not be aware of it, blogs are the #1 fastest way to get top billings in all major search engines. A good blog can get your webpages before the public eye in less than 24 to 48 hours.

Since our J-accuse National Headquarters chapter has an active home schooling program that features Mr. Richard Cornforth who is a nationally recognized public speaker and authority on our Constitution and Constitutional law and who teaches a homeschooling class on the subject every Thursday night at our J-accuse national headquarters at 225 N. Virginia at 7:00 P.M. we thought you might like to trade links with our blog which is to be found at http://J-accuse.blogspot.com

How about it?

Brandon Dutcher's webpage


Home Ed Magazine Website

Oklahoma homeschooler's Chess club

Home Schooling on line

A to Z Home's Cool Homeschooling

Home school websites from all over the U.S.

Kinderstart.com's resources for homeschoolers

Jon's Homeschool Resources

Posted 9:37 AM by Creditwrench

An important email from Dan Meador

I'm pasting in Treasury Financial Management Service record system .014 particulars, relating to debt collection operations of the Treasury. Note that FMS has responsibility for collecting delinquent income taxes as well as all other delinquent debts owed to Government of the United States.

Thanks to Geri Powers of Maryland for forwarding this find from the Federal Register. She copied and pasted in the Treasury/FMS .014 system. I've copied & pasted in the URL where particulars of all FMS systems of records can be downloaded. For request details, see 31 CFR Part 1 as that particular Treasury regulation gives the method by which requests are supposed to be submitted to Treasury departments.

Particular thanks to Geri as she has been bird-dogging this issue since I constructively proved that FMS is the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury something over a year ago.

Geri was responsible for my getting on this trail in late 1996. She was living in Las Vegas at the time. We visited by telephone two or three times, the primary subject being state-federal tax administration agreements. There was a bridge in some of the 26 CFR Part 301 regulations that linked to 5 U.S.C. § 5517, which authorizes agreements for withholding qualified state income taxes from federal personnel. While in the neighborhood, I read 5 U.S.C. § 5512, which specifies authorization necessary for litigation in the event federal personnel don't voluntarily agree to have wages garnished. In the footnotes I found that the General Accounting Office was general agent of the U.S. Treasury, then tracked back to the treasury act of 1921. Last summer when I was visiting with a GAO attorney via telephone, she provided cites for 1996 legislation in which Congress made the Director of the Office of Management and Budget responsible for settling accounts of the United States. The provision in Public Law 104-316 permits the Director to delegate authority. By wading through mountains of other legalese, I concluded that FMS operates under delegations of authority from the Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Treasury.

I'm not certain who was responsible, but two or three years ago Jack Cohen, Harry Combs (Informer/Big Al), Sean O'Hara or someone else stumbled across the Treasury Financial Manual (available on the FMS web page), and that identifies the consent form necessary to execute garnishment via notice of levy against government personnel.

The FMS system of records Geri forwarded this morning is frosting on the cake. As reading the thing, pay particular attention to the list of authorities for the system of records -- it's longer than a well rope, including several key Internal Revenue Code sections.

The Internal Revenue Service is delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(B), which applies to insular possessions; the Financial Management Service is delegate for purposes of § 7701(a)(12)(A). IRS has certain limited functionary responsibilities through FMS -- IRS has absolutely no authority to unilaterally take involuntary collection action in States of the Union.
Click here for the rest of Dan's article

Posted 2:55 PM by Creditwrench

Your bank can blacklist you

In the name of homeland security, financial institutions can close accounts and cancel credit cards with little explanation. Complaints are slowly mounting.

By Christian Science Monitor

Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue your banking relationship with us."

Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a single check since he opened an account at the institution's predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier.

As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have anything to do with the war on terrorism?

"You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at age 12 and became a citizen this year.

Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere.

Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists have been generated, more institutions have become accountable -- and more consumers may feel the heat.

No attention to consumer complaints
And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in the private sector have fallen largely off the radar.

"No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those who do business with those who do business with those who do business with someone suspected of terrorism."

Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They face stiff fines -- up to $1 million in some cases -- if they don't stop money flows or freeze accounts.

Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act, some investigations now are conducted in secret, and American consumers such as Algabri increasingly are finding their accounts closed without explanation -- and with little recourse.

"Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions about whether the mechanisms in place protect those who are accused, Fitzgerald says.

Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire nation, such as Iraq.

But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring on the side of caution?

That isn't all. There are a lot more "terror" stories unfolding and it is beginning to appear that this Patriot Act
needs a whole lot of attention from the common man indeed. But on with the story.
Click here for the rest of the story

Posted 8:26 PM by Creditwrench

Judge Loses His Job
For Being Rude

County Official Tells Public Defender To 'Lose His Accent'

LOS ANGELES -- A Contra Costa County judge has become the first California judge in recent years to lose his job because of rudeness.

The Supreme Court unanimously turned down a request by Superior Court judge Bruce Van Voorhis to reconsider the decision to remove him from office.

The Commission on Judicial Performance ordered his removal after finding 11 acts of misconduct between June 1999 and December 2000.

They included telling a public defender to "lose his accent," ruling against a rookie prosecutor to see how she handled it and throwing a stack of files at a court clerk.

The 54-year old Van Voorhis has been suspended with pay since the order.

The former Alameda County prosecutor was elected to the bench in 1986 and re-elected in 1992 and 1998.

Posted 6:43 AM by Creditwrench

AmeriDebt Sued For Fraud

ST. LOUIS, MO., Sept. 12, 2003

The state of Missouri on Thursday sued credit-counseling service AmeriDebt, accusing the company of defrauding consumers of millions of dollars through excessive, hidden fees while falsely pitching itself as a nonprofit organization.

Attorney General Jay Nixon said AmeriDebt secretly functions as a profit-driven company in which "credit counselors" or "debt professionals" - untrained in such roles - sell debt-management plans for commissions.

On its Web site, AmeriDebt describes itself as a "nationally recognized non-Profit credit counseling company" whose "main goal is to help educate Americans on how to reduce, manage, and eliminate their debt."

AmeriDebt also says it is "one of the - if not the - fastest-growing credit counseling organizations in America," with some 90,000 customers now and about 400,000 clients since 1997.

The company also takes pride in what it says is its modern approach to credit rehabilitation, by going beyond credit cards to include such as medical bills.

But those claims are falling on deaf ears in the Show Me state, where State Attorney General Nixon is asking a judge to void any contracts between the company and Missouri residents and order restitution of money not already sent to creditors. The suit also seeks fines.

"With its high, hidden fees and lack of any significant credit counseling, AmeriDebt has served more as an anchor than a life preserver for many consumers," Nixon said in announcing the lawsuit, filed in circuit court.

Illinois officials filed a similar suit against Germantown, Md.-based AmeriDebt in February.

AmeriDebt attorney Rob Herrell was quick to respond, and says the organization is "surprised and disappointed" by the lawsuit.

I've always known in my heart that these jokers were a fraud upon the consumer but could never prove it.
But here is the full story

Posted 10:50 AM by Creditwrench

Proud to be an American

It's so easy to say that there's no threat from radical Muslims while living in the comfort and safety of your Homeland. But again, just for the record, listen to the words of an Iraqi woman who managed to escape to America, and hear first-hand what it was like under such a regime: The words of an Iraqi woman now proud to be an American.

Here is a link and also the data from that link. In Keene v, Commissioner, 7-8-03 the Tax Court cited this case as a reason for their ruling granting Keene his Petition to Remand Back to CDPH for recording. So now the question is - does the Keene case overrule this IRS Action of the Mesa Oil Case? Carole
Here is a portion of the Keene case.....

Having a transcript of the administrative hearing would certainly facilitate that review. Cf. Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 86 AFTR 2d 2000-7312, 2001-1 USTC par. 50130 (D. Colo. 2000) (holding, without explicit consideration of section 7521(a)(1), that a verbatim recording of a section 6330 hearing was necessary in that case to have a judicially reviewable administrative record).
http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-aod/aod20015.html


Action on Decision CC-2001-05 August 20, 2001
Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States

86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7312 (D. Colo. 2000)


Issue
Whether a verbatim recording of a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing is required under I.R.C. § 6320 and 6330 to create a judicially reviewable administrative record.

Discussion
Mesa Oil, Inc., a corporation engaged in processing used oil for industrial use, was delinquent in paying its payroll taxes for several quarters. In an attempt to collect the unpaid taxes, the Service filed a notice of federal tax lien and issued to Mesa Oil a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under IRC 6320. The Service also issued to Mesa Oil a Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing. Mesa Oil requested and was given a CDP hearing by the IRS Office of Appeals on the filing of the notice of federal tax lien. Appeals issued Mesa Oil a notice of determination sustaining the lien filing, from which, pursuant to section 6330(d), Mesa Oil appealed to the district court. The district court held the administrative record to be inadequate for judicial review under section 6330(d)(1)(B), because “no record of the hearing was kept, no record of the evidence or arguments presented at that hearing was made, and no analysis of the evidence or arguments was presented in the determination.” The district court ordered that the record on remand “may be made” either through audiotape, videotape or stenographic transcription.

We do not believe that sections 6320 and 6330 require a CDP hearing to be recorded verbatim. Congress did not intend CDP hearings to be conducted in a manner different from proceedings with Appeals instituted prior to the passage of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41 (2000) (“The references in section 6330 to a hearing by Appeals indicate that Congress contemplated the type of informal administrative Appeals hearing that has been historically conducted by Appeals and prescribed by section 601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules”); see H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-599, pp. 290-291. The fundamental purpose of proceedings with Appeals is to provide an informal setting in which taxpayers and appeals officers can resolve tax issues. To maintain a productive informal forum for the resolution of tax issues, these procedures do not include a verbatim recording requirement and should not now include such a requirement for

GL-107560-01 --CDP hearings.
To the extent the district court in this case intended to hold that CDP hearings must be recorded by videotape, audiotape or stenographic transcription, we disagree. CDP hearings should be carefully documented by appeals officers in determination letters and case memoranda which, with any documents provided by the taxpayers or otherwise obtained by the appeals officers, will constitute the record for review by the court.

Recommendation: Nonacquiescence.

Reviewers:

Gary D. Gray,
Assistant Chief Counsel
CC:PA:CBS

Alan C. Levine,
Chief, Branch 1 CC:PA:CBS:Br1

________________________
LAURENCE K. WILLIAMS Attorney,
Branch 1
(Collection, Bankruptcy & Summonses)

Approved:
RICHARD W. SKILLMAN
Acting Chief Counsel

By:
________________________
DEBORAH A. BUTLER
Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration)

This document is NOT to be relied upon or otherwise cited as precedent by taxpayers

Posted 2:16 PM by Creditwrench

Ocean County Superior Court Judge Only Gets A "Censure" After Selling Out The Public Trust And The Integrity Of The Judiciary

Supreme Court Taps Judge Frank Piscal On The Wrist After Its Own Advisory Committee On Judicial Conduct Recommended A Month's Suspension From The Bench

Advisory Committee Says Piscal's Misconduct Was "Destructive Of Public Confidence In The Integrity And Impartiality Of The Judiciary", But A Gentle Tap On The Wrist By The NJ Supreme Court Is The Only Penalty

Toms River: Superior Court Judge Frank Piscal gets to keep his cushy retirement benefits, his lifetime health insurance coverage, his $164,000 salary and his black robes, all paid for by the poor slobs he sold down the river.

The Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct said Piscals order for the arrest and incarceration of a litigant as a political favor he thought was requested by Jack Kelly was “destructive of public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

Litigant Was Jailed As A Result Of Political
Influence Peddling By Piscal

Harold Becker, a litigant in a matrimonial dispute, was jailed on the basis of a tainted order issued by Piscal, who jailed Mr. Becker as a result of a telephone request by Jack Kelly, who Piscal, perhaps the dumbest inmate in the Ocean County Court House, thought was Jack Kelly.

Judge Piscal To Kelly (twice): "We Never Had This Conversation"

"We never had this conversation", Piscal told Kelly twice. Even though it was another Jack Kelly, not Jack.

So Judge Piscal was exposed as a common influence peddler, as well as a phoney and a fraud, qualities which some citizens may find inconsistent with expectations of an anticipated minimum level of judicial temperament and independence.

Judge Piscal exposed the state government (and the county government) to a variety of legal actions regarding the fraudulent jailing of poor Harold Becker, as well as bringing into question the integrity and legitimacy of every other case Piscal ever tried.

How Much Jail Time Would Piscal Expect? What Is The Penalty?

How much jail time would Piscal expect to receive for fraudulently rigging his decision to jail Becker as a political favor he thought he was doing for er Kelly?

What's the penalty for rigging a judicial decision as a result of the grimiest kind of influence peddling?

He would face criminal charges, right? He would get disbarred and lose his right to practice law, right? He would lose his judgeship and his salary and his retirement benefits and his health coverage and his black robes because he violated the most basic trust every judge accepts and agrees to honor when he takes his oath of office and puts on the robes in the first place RIGHT???
By dishonoring his office, he would lose the right to be referred to as Your Honor Right?

Advisory Committee Recommended A Month's Suspension

WRONG on all counts! None of the above! The advisory committee recommended that Piscal be given a one month suspension for his misconduct.
But the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of which was calling State Senators a few weeks ago, begging to be reappointed, abandoned any pretense of objectivity including the one month suspension, and let Piscal off the hook completely - with a censure.

As a practical matter, a censure is a piece of paper that gets sent out, filed away as soon as it is received, and then forgotten. There are no real consequences, except a front page story in the Observer.

A Dozen John Bartletts In Ocean County,
One Of Them Lives On Vicari Avenue

There are a dozen John Bartletts in Ocean County. According to the telephone book, one of them lives on Vicari Avenue. Would this combination be a virtual Get Out Of Jail Free Card in Piscal's court room? Think about it.

The $200K that Piscal receives from the public breast every year in salary and benefits, and other perks guaranteed to put a smile on his face, will be remembered gratefully at least as long as litigants are threatened with jail time if their adversaries have political connections - imaginary or otherwise. (7/18/03)



Click for the full story

Posted 6:04 PM by Creditwrench

Why Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuses Are Taking Place So Brazenly

Prosecutorial misconduct and abuses are taking place in the United States with little fear by the prosecutors of being held accountable for their wrongdoing. The reasons for this are understandable, but take some explanation. Here is what seems to be happening:

The first thing to realize is that the tool of prosecutors is the grand jury, which operates in secret. Actually, as you may know, the grand jury doesn't operate much at all, and is usually no more than a room filled with dozing, disinterested persons (called grand jurors) who go in and out of their room almost at will, waiting for one or more prosecutors to "present" their cases to the grand jury for their rubber-stamp approval, called an "indictment".

Generally, all of the grand jurors are not present when evidence is offered by the prosecutor to the grand jury, and one grand juror more than 50% constitutes a quorum.

The grand jury does not get to see all of the evidence obtained by the prosecutor. Instead, the prosecutor selects what evidence he believes, as an advocate, is enough to justify asking for (and almost always getting) an indictment.

If the prosecutor has exculpatory evidence showing that the accused did not commit the crime, the prosecutor generally does not tell the grand jury about such evidence.

The prosecutor is an officer of the courts, as with any attorney, and theoretically the prosecutor is responsible to the courts for what he/she does.

In our adversary legal system, the judges generally do nothing unless requested to act by one of the adversaries, but with a grand jury investigation there is no adversary for much of what takes place. The defendant may not even be aware there is a grand jury proceeding, and even if he/she does know about it, the activities of the prosecution in issuing grand jury subpoenas, interviewing prospective witnesses, reviewing subpoenaed documents are usually done without anyone's knowledge except the prosecutor and the witness being subpoenaed. [So much for an adversary system in the criminal area.]

The prosecutor's interest in the prosecution is to win, and for the unscrupulous, unethical prosecutor to win regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [See the article describing specific abuses by some prosecutors.] The prosecutor's career path could be injured by failing to win, showing the lack of skill as a prosecutor for a lost criminal case, or poor professional judgment in obtaining an indictment which later was dismissed.

The prosecutor's career path is enhanced by being, and being known as as "winner", which enables the prosecutor to get more visible cases, and to obtain higher position and compensation in the prosecutor's office. Also, the career path for the successful prosecutor, as we have seen from the past, can go right up to the White House or to the position as Attorney General or as a federal judge at any of the 3 levels (District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court).

The loss of a criminal case once commenced through obtaining an indictment can cause a major reversal in a prosecutor's planned career, and with such pressure to succeed, what difference (the prosecutor argues to himself) does it make if the prosecutor cuts a few corners here and there. The defendant is probably guilty, of something, if not the crime for which he/she has been indicted.

In an economy which is becoming more concentrated, with big business and government becoming larger all the time, the economic opportunities for the prosecutor may appear to be dwindling in the private sector, whereas with government growth his/her prospects are steadily increasing, as long as the prosecutor wins.

A prosecutor wants publicity, and so does the prosecutor's superiors and political masters. If one of the major news media target someone for criminal prosecution, the prosecutor's superior will jump at the chance, because there is a guarantee of publicity at least by the news medium which indicated its desire to have the person indicted and convicted for whatever reasons the medium put together for sale as soft news to the public.

When the prosecutor responds to the announced wishes of the major media, the prosecutor is rewarded with favorable publicity. But when the prosecutor fails to do the medium's bidding, the prosecutor can expect to receive little or no publicity, which will put the prosecutor's career in a terminal, downward tailspin.

Judges are there to protect the public from oppression, but the prosecutorial oppression occurs without any adversary, and any efforts to expose combat prosecutorial oppression can be expected to result in even more oppression, more prejudicial, illegal activity, a greater chance for conviction, and a longer sentence.

Judges often favor prosecutors because many judges were prosecutors and were appointed judges for that reason. Prosecutors in effect are judges-to-be, or judicial descendants, and treated as such by current judges, to the extreme prejudice of defendants who are being prosecuted through unlawful, unconstitutional and oppressive tactics.

Click here for the rest of the story. It is an interesting read

Posted 4:15 PM by Creditwrench

Oklahoma Judicial Accountability and Integrity Amendment

By Richard Cornforth

(a) Preamble. The People of Oklahoma find that complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with the Oklahoma Council For Judicial Complaints involving state judges without fair review or just result. Due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves, judicial integrity, of major importance, which affects all areas of our state, is severely compromised. Be it therefore resolved that the people of Oklahoma hereby enact the following amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution which shall be known by the short title as "The Oklahoma Judicial Accountability and Integrity Amendment."

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

1. The term "state judge" or "judge" shall mean any state supreme court justice, appellate court judge, supreme court clerk or deputy clerk, supreme court or appellate court law clerk, district court judge, special judge, district court clerk or deputy clerk, municipal judge, municipal court clerk or deputy clerk, or any who act in a capacity of officer of the court whether as an elected or appointed official.

2. The term "Juror" shall mean a juror for the Special Grand Jury for Oklahoma.

3. Acts which may result in actions include bad behavior as set forth by paragraphs (c) and (d) or a criminal conviction. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.

(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any state judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. No immunity shielding a state 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, acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, dismissal of a pro se litigant's petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, granting a summary judgment or default judgment where the pleadings are unsupported by affidavit or where the party opposing the judgment has not had opportunity to cross-examine the affiant under oath, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior. Courts' jurisdiction to make inquiry into qualification to practice law shall be limited to criminal proceedings where insufficiency of counsel is a cause for appeal. Courts' authority to summarily punish for contempt of court shall be limited to disobedience by an officer of the court, obstreperous behavior during a jury trial, and refusal to testify after having been granted transactional immunity. A Court Order prohibiting a pro se litigant from filing documents in any court unless done through a bar admitted attorney shall be void on its face. A Court Order impairing any party for not appearing through a bar admitted attorney shall be void on its face. Judges shall have no discretionary authority to award attorney fees beyond fees expressly authorized under statute; prevailing party status alone is insufficient to empower the court to add fees to a judgment. Judges shall have no discretionary authority to depart from the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s mandated jury instructions. No judge shall benefit directly or indirectly including but not limited to a contribution to pension plan from the result of any court action.

(d) Precedent being the historic method of judicial decision making and well regarded as a bulwark of judicial independence, courts must abide by former precedents. Declaration of law is authoritative to the extent necessary for courts' decisions and should be applied in subsequent cases to similarly situated parties unless published as a new precedent. Superior courts including the Oklahoma Supreme Court shall not avoid the precedential effect of prior decisions by ruling and determining on a “not for publication” basis. Appellate records including the records of certiorari review shall include the clerk's work product, the clerk's summary, and the clerk's recommendation. No records material to the decision of an appellate tribunal or supreme court justice shall be excluded from the public record unless the record is sealed; in which case, the appellant and appellee shall have access to the full record. No appellate or supreme court decision shall be valid unless signed and dated. By signing a memorandum of opinion, a judge of the Oklahoma Supreme Court of Appeals or an Oklahoma Supreme Court judge is verifying under penalty of perjury that they have read all materials pertinent to the appeal and certify that their decision is in harmony with the controlling authorities of Oklahoma. An unpublished decision by an Oklahoma superior court which reverses or modifies a prior precedent shall be void on its face, shall not be enforceable, and shall be regarded as blocking.

(e) Oaths. Every judge shall take the required oaths before each assignment whether for a specified term, or as a visiting or temporary judge. A written copy of the Oath must be on file and available for inspection at the judge’s place of service. The Oath shall include an oath in understanding that neither the President of The United States, nor Congress, nor any governor, nor any legislature, or any other governing body has lawful power or authority to subject non-military citizens of the United States to a military court.

(f). Repeated reversals on appeal. The third time a judge is reversed on appeal where the cause for reversal is not an issue of first impression shall be grounds for removal from office. A judge’s only defense for removal for repeated reversals on appeal shall be fraud on the court.

(g) Special Oklahoma Grand Jury. There is hereby created within Oklahoma a twenty-five member Special Grand Jury for Oklahoma with full state geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Hereinafter the Special Grand Jury for Oklahoma shall be referred to as "the Special Grand Jury." The Special Grand Jury's responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a state judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the state judge complained of.

(h) Counsel. The Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Grand Jury.

(i) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay such fee.

(j) Should the Special Grand Jury lack sufficient funding through fines, fees, and forfeitures, the Oklahoma Legislature shall appropriate all the necessary funds for the implementation and maintenance of the Special Grand Jury first utilizing surpluses as articulated in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

(k) There shall be created a state office which shall be called Clerk and Treasurer for the Special Grand Jury for Oklahoma whose responsibility shall be to maintain records and deposits. The Clerk and Treasurer shall have discretion to establish the site where the Special Grand Jury shall meet. All meetings of the Special Grand Jury shall fall under the State Open Meetings Act.

(l) Compensation. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a state district court judge prorated according to the number of days actually served. The Clerk and Treasurer shall be compensated a salary commensurate to a state judge.

(m) Annual Budget. The Clerk and Treasurer shall be responsible to maintain an annual budget and submit the next year's annual budget to the Oklahoma Legislature's Appropriations Committee.

(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Clerk and Treasurer of the Special Grand Jury from names of citizens submitting their names to the Clerk and Treasurer for such drawing.

(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once within a five year period. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter. Special State Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination.

(p) Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the state judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of Oklahoma with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the state judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the state judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a state judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Grand Jury.

(q) Jurisdiction. The Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, replace members who resign or die, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Clerk and Treasurer of the Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it.

(r) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been two years a citizen of Oklahoma, and an inhabitant of Oklahoma. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

(s) Public Indemnification. No state judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any state judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.

(t) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other forms of redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

(u) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflicts with any other state statutes or case law to the contrary. The Jurors shall be of oath or affirmation to uphold this statute.

(v) Removal. Whenever any state judge shall have been determined to have behaved badly as defined in paragraph (c) or (d), Special Grand Jury shall be empowered to remove the state judge from office. The state judge may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

(w) Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any state judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such state judge. The Special Grand Jury shall refer indicted state judges to appropriate authority for prosecution or shall by unanimous consent invoke the powers of a special prosecutor.

(x) Not excluding any provision in the Oklahoma Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation which may be to the contrary, all rules otherwise pertaining to grand juries in Oklahoma shall apply.