MCNEIL - RINALDI. LAW/ CLINIC .
MCNEIL RINALDI LAW
Prosecutorial / Judicial Accountability.
There is no greater offender than one who, having been entrusted with public responsibility, engages in
egregious self-serving practices with arrogance and a veneer of righteousness.
The substantial instances of misconduct, coupled with the active involvement of all relevant parties—including law enforcement, prosecution, and the judiciary—have culminated in the formation of a criminal enterprise. This conspiracy is executed under the pretense of legal authority.
Simultaneously, this legislation aims to establish mechanisms for accountability concerning the Supreme Court, both at the local level and in Washington, D.C. This scope includes justices appointed by Mr. Trump, who have faced scrutiny for their decisions and potential biases. characterized as ideologically imbalanced.
ENDING Those That Abuse since 09/25.
1st Offender, the dishonorable Maura Kennedy- Smith., Tompkins County Court, Ithaca, New York.
for The Honorable:
119th Congress of the United States of America
IN THE
SENATE and
A BILL/
MCNEIL-RINALDI’s LAW
Authors: AARON M. MCNEIL and
To amend Title 18 and Title 28 of the United States Code to ensure the integrity of the judicial system by establishing robust accountability measures for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
McNeil's Law: A Proposal for a Judicial and Prosecutorial Accountability Act.
Preamble and Statement of Purpose
The Congress finds that the foundation of the American legal system rests upon the promise of an impartial and fair judiciary. Public trust in our democratic institutions is eroded when judicial and prosecutorial officials, acting under the color of law, engage in conduct that subverts justice and violates fundamental constitutional rights. The case of Aaron McNeil, which highlighted severe systemic failures, including the appearance of judicial bias and the lack of meaningful recourse, underscores the urgent need for reform.
The purpose of this Act is to restore and protect public confidence in the justice system by:
(1) establishing clear and enforceable standards for judicial and prosecutorial conduct;
(2) creating independent mechanisms for investigating and adjudicating claims of misconduct;
(3) limiting immunities that shield officials who willfully violate the law; and
(4) providing victims of such misconduct with a viable path to seek justice and correct the record.
This Act aims to ensure that accountability is not merely a principle but a practice within our nation’s courts.
Section 1:
Amendments to Judicial Disqualification and Recusal Standards.
(a) Mandatory Referral for Neutral Adjudication of Recusal Motions. Chapter 21 of Title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding a new section:
§ 455a. Neutral Review of Motions to Disqualify
- (1) Upon the filing of a motion for disqualification or recusal of a judge under section 144 or 455 of this title, where such motion is supported by a sworn affidavit alleging specific facts that constitute a credible allegation of bias, prejudice, or misconduct, the motion shall not be decided by the subject judge.
- (2) The clerk of the court shall immediately refer the motion to the Chief Judge of the Circuit, who shall randomly assign the motion for a binding determination to a judge in active service from a different judicial district within the same circuit.
- (3) The determination of the assigned judge shall be issued within thirty (30) days and shall constitute a final, appealable order.
(b) Rebuttable Presumption of Bias. Section 455 of Title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding a new subsection:
- (g) A rebuttable presumption of bias shall arise, requiring disqualification under this section, where a litigant demonstrates through the official court record that the judge has:
- (1) Engaged in conduct that exhibits a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible, including the use of mockery, ad hominem attacks, or other demeaning language directed at a party or counsel;
- (2) Refused to consider or rule upon a substantive and properly filed motion necessary for the preservation of a litigant's rights, without providing a basis in law or fact on the record; or
- (3) Communicated ex- parte with one party on substantive matters without the knowledge or consent of the other party, in violation of established judicial ethics.
- The subject judge or opposing party may not rebut alleged presumption because even. only by presenting clear and convincing evidence on the record that the conduct did not compromise the judge's impartiality.
Section 2: Criminal Offense for Willful Deprivation of Due Process.
Chapter 13 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding a new section:
§ 243. Willful Deprivation of Due Process by a Judicial or Prosecutorial Official
- (a) Offense. — Whoever, being a judge, magistrate, prosecutor, or other official acting in a judicial or prosecutorial capacity, and acting under color of law, knowingly and willfully subverts a judicial proceeding by engaging in any of the following acts with the specific intent to deprive a person of a fair trial or any other right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be guilty of a felony:
- (1) Intentionally fabricating, falsifying, or concealing material evidence;
- (2) Knowingly using perjured testimony to obtain a conviction;
- (3) Deliberately failing to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of established legal obligations; or
- (4) Taking official action based on a corrupt motive, such as a bribe, threat, or personal animus, for the purpose of obtaining a specific outcome in a case.
- (b) Penalties. — An individual found guilty under this section shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned for a mandatory minimum of five (5) years and not more than twenty (20) years, or both. If bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section, the term of imprisonment shall be not more than thirty (30) years; if death results, the term of imprisonment shall be for any term of years or for life.
Section 3: Limitations on Judicial and Prosecutorial Immunity.
The common law doctrines of absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity are hereby modified as follows:
(a) Inapplicability of Immunity.
— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, absolute immunity shall not be a defense in any civil or criminal proceeding brought against a judicial or prosecutorial official where a court of competent jurisdiction has previously found, by a preponderance of the evidence in a related proceeding, that the official's conduct was:
- (1) Intentionally malicious, undertaken in bad faith for a purpose unrelated to the performance of legitimate duties;
- (2) Corrupt, involving the acceptance of a bribe or other unlawful benefit; or
- (3) A knowing and willful violation of clearly established constitutional rights, as defined in Section 2 of this Act.
(b) Scope.
— This limitation on immunity applies only to actions that are found to be clearly outside the scope of all legitimate judicial and prosecutorial functions and does not apply to mere errors of law or discretionary acts taken in good faith.
Section 4: Creation of an Independent Office of Public Integrity.
(a) Establishment.
— There is hereby established an independent agency to be known as the Office of Public Integrity ("the Office"). The Office shall be structured to be independent from the Department of Justice and any state-level prosecutorial agency to avoid conflicts of interest.
(b) Mandate and Authority.
— The Office is authorized to:
- (1) Receive and investigate credible, fact-based allegations of criminal misconduct, as defined in Section 2 of this Act, against federal and state judicial and prosecutorial officials.
- (2) Issue subpoenas to compel the production of evidence and the testimony of witnesses under oath.
- (3) Conduct hearings and make findings of fact.
(c) Prosecutorial Power.
— If the Office finds probable cause to believe that a criminal violation has occurred, it shall have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to bring criminal charges in a court of competent jurisdiction. This authority shall not be subject to the veto or approval of any other executive branch official.
Section 5: Enhanced Civil Right of Action.
(a) Creation of Action.
— Any person deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws, as a direct result of conduct prohibited under Section 2 of this Act, may institute a civil action for relief against the official(s) responsible for such deprivation.
(b) Relief.
— In any action brought under this section, the court may award appropriate relief, including:
- (1) Compensatory damages for all economic and non-economic injuries sustained.
- (2) Punitive damages, where the defendant's conduct is shown to be malicious, willful, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights.
- (3) Injunctive relief, including orders vacating a wrongful conviction or correcting an official record.
- 4. Treble
(c) Attorney's Fees.
— In any action brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
Section 6: Severability.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.
Section 7: Effective Date.
This Act shall take effect ninety (90) days after the date of its enactment. To end corruption and hold those who believe are above the law, this shall apply to all conduct before, on, and after that date.
Comments
Post a Comment