#2:

No campaign contributions for judges

Judges, and those running for elected judge, shall not ever again ever be allowed to accept campaign contributions, of any sort, in any capacity.

In the event that a judge/judge candidate (hereinafter judge) does accept a campaign contribution, of any sort, the fine to the judge shall be 3 times the donated $ amount/value, plus a $10,000 fine, and the Judge is to immediately surrender the funds from that particular donation. If the Judge accepts for a 4^th time or more, donations from any entity, after 3 prior warnings, then it shall be a felony of a 1 year prison sentence/no more/no less/house arrest or other outside arrest is not permissible, time must be served in a prison, and any prosecutor in the appropriate jurisdiction that fails to prosecute a judge who with strong evidence has violated this legislation, that prosecutor shall be fined $200,000 . The offender(s) qualified immunity (if such person was/is a government employee/elected official/appointee) is stripped, without exception, for violating this legislation. The offender shall have any and all assets frozen, all fines/fees/legal fees, other costs, shall be paid by the offender. The offender will either be payroll deducted/garnished if still employed/and all assets shall be frozen until the whistleblowers monies are paid in full/if applicable, also, these fines and fees against the offender is not eligible to be discharged in bankruptcy, or any other manner, there is no statute of limitations, there are no bank accounts, monies, property, retirement accounts, trust funds, or other property or accounts that can be protected, as all these accounts are subject to be frozen/seized/sold if necessary, until such time as all fines, fees, costs, legal and other, are fully satisfied. The government/tax payers shall not pay for the legal defense of the person alleged to have violated this legislation. Any attorney working for or representing the government shall not be permitted to represent the person(s)(government employee/elected official/appointee) accused of violating this legislation.  This action can be brought in local, State, and or Federal court, of the relevant region, for enforceable court action. A small claims court, shall now have an exception for these whistleblower type cases as included/defined herein, to expand the limit to $200,000, including all costs/fees/ legal fees/interest/penalties/ damages/etc…whereby a whistleblower could have their matter heard. All small claim whistleblower matters shall be heard, in 4 months or less for the trial. Whistleblowers receive their 50% of the monies/as it comes in/half is continually diverted to the whistleblower. Whistleblowers receive their 50% of the monies/as it comes in/half is continually diverted to the whistleblower. If the (whistleblower and or plaintiff loses – the whistleblower is only at risk if they were the sole plaintiff/if the whistleblower was not the sole plaintiff/the solely direct injured party/then the whistleblower has qualified immunity protection from all costs, fees, of any sort, in any capacity), the defendant and or government employee (herein defendant) fully prevails by judicial verdict/is victorious/found not to be liable in any capacity, by a judge’s order and verdict/jury verdict, then the defendant is entitled to be awarded all of their legal fees, costs, and all eligible awards and monies that they were facing/at risk to pay/in this legislation/and, the judge shall be eligible to award these monies to the defendant/and, fine these costs upon the Plaintiff. (government employee only)  The government may reimburse solely the government employee’s legal fees/legal fees only/nothing else of any sort, so long as the government employee prevailed by judicial verdict as described herein. The Plaintiff in this same scenario/if the judicial verdict is in favor of the government employee/the plaintiff would face all the same collectability risk(these monies/debts/ shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, all bank accounts and pensions are subject to being seized and or garnished, etc…). The onus for the defendant to prevail, to be awarded monies, is a burden of proof upon the government employee, therefore a verdict/decision, signed by a judge, declaring that the defendant/government employee was absolutely free of all liability/wrong doing, is required for the defendant to be eligible to be awarded and collect monies. Any form of settlement, does not meet this threshold for any award of monies on either side beyond the terms and conditions agreed upon in the executed settlement agreement.

What do you think?

 Loading ...