I have coined the above title for the law known as the
|"Complaints Against Judges and Judicial Discipline",|
which is located in Title 28, Chapter 16, section 351 et. seq.
This law is benign on its surface, but if 50% of the judges of a similar ideology want to impose their ideology on the nation, they could control the remaining 50%. One might wonder who would go to such trouble, well, one group would be one of many religions.
Some highlights of the law are as follows:
|"Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the ... "|
The first problem with the law is that one would have to know what the word prejudicial legally means to enter a complaint, but the second problem is that the bill that creates this law says something completely different, which is:
|"Allows any person who alleges that a ... judge has engaged in improper conduct ... "|
This comes back to bite the people when the U.S. Supreme Court declares the sentence unconstitutional, especially if the Supreme Court is 50% loaded with those of the takeover ideology.
|"... all papers, documents, and records of Proceedings related to investigation conducted under this chapter shall remain confidential, except ..."|
Since when does the government have a blanket right to be secretive, especially in the judicial system.
However, this is not the case with this law. This law has a deception based on the bill that creates the law. The bill adds a little more to the law where sec 11042, Judicial discipline procedures, under '351', says;
|"... (The chief judge may also independently identify a complaint without receiving it in writing.)"|
So once the takeover 50% replaces the chief judge of a circuit, the 50% have secretive power to control all judges of that circuit, all based on a complaint from outside of the government and all based on word of mouth.
|"Section 11044 states that if any part of this subtitle is found unconstitutional, the remainder of the act will not be affected."|
This statement is the last sentence of the bill related to this law and controls all previous sentences. The bill is sequenced controlled, where laws are not sequenced controlled. Furthermore, this statement is not included in the law and hence few would understand the significance of the statement. But if 50% of the US Supreme court is of the takeover ideology, then, they, through the severability sentence in the bill, could carve this law into a completely different law.
|"requesting that the judge voluntarily retire ..."|
This refers to what a judge might desire to minimize exposure of being publicly dumped.