WHY DOES TEXAS NEED AN ORGANIZATION FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY? Jennifer Lundy tells why she started the organization Texans for Judicial Accountability. From my perspective, TEXANS FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (TJA) IS IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS: 1. Upholding Judicial Integrity: Judicial accountability is key to preserving the integrity of the judiciary. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the state’s oversight body for addressing judicial conduct, is largely ineffective, which makes an organization such as TJA a necessity. 2. Protecting Public Trust: Public confidence in the legal system is crucial. TJA is dedicated to judicial accountability to help to build and maintain this trust by lobbying for legislation to deal with judicial misconduct or judicial incompetence. 3. Deterring Misconduct: The mere existence of TJA can act as a deterrent against potential misconduct. As judges become aware of scrutiny they may receive, they should be more likely to adhere strictly to ethical standards and legal guidelines. 4. Promoting Transparency: TJA can promote transparency in the judicial process by investigating and openly discussing judicial decisions and conduct and advocating for open courts and cameras in the courtroom. When judges know they are being watched, they are less likely to act corruptly and abuse their power. 5. Addressing Public Grievances: The TJA can provide an informal avenue for the public to voice complaints and concerns about judicial conduct, which enhances public participation in the judicial process. 6. Ensuring Fairness and Justice: TJA can help ensure that judges remain fair and impartial in their decision-making. Fairness and impartiality, coupled with integrity, is vital in maintaining public trust in the legal system and ensuring that justice is served without bias or prejudice. 7. Ensuring Consistency in Judicial Decisions: The TJA can contribute to greater consistency in judicial decisions. By monitoring and evaluating judicial rulings, it can identify and address disparities and inconsistencies in the application of the law. Some additional ways that the TJA may help in the future may include the following: 8. Continuous Improvement of the Judicial System: TJA can identify areas needing reform within the judicial system and contribute to its continuous improvement. This should result in recommending changes in policies, procedures, or training to expose corruption and incompetence within the judiciary and to enhance the overall effectiveness and fairness of the judiciary. 9. Encouraging Professional Development: Though outside the current scope of the TJA, judicial oversight organizations can play a role in the ongoing education and professional development of judges. By exposing the current shortfalls, it can help recommend standards and training to ensure that judges are well-equipped to understand the dynamics of family court litigation. 10. Facilitating Judicial Independence: Rigorous judicial accountability can bolster judicial independence by clearly demarcating the lines of acceptable conduct and decision-making. This would help protect judges from undue political or external pressure, ensuring that their decisions are based solely on the law and facts of each case. For more information about TEXANS FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY or to help support the organization, please go to www.texansforjudicialaccountability.org. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSDsae_dL8Y

July 30, 2022, is National Whistleblower Appreciation Day, a day that commemorates the first enactment of whistleblower protections in federal statute in 1778. The day recognizes the contributions of Government employees, contractors, and others who disclose allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement involving government programs and operations. Federal laws encourage employees to disclose wrongdoing and protect employees who engage in whistleblowing activity from reprisal. If a person observes wrongdoing, they should report it to an executive, manager, or supervisor, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), or the U. S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that may investigate whistleblower cases. By law, employees and contractors can make protected disclosures and report allegations without fear of retaliation. #Whistleblowing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CtD8kz4fvY

GIVING AYDEN A VOICE, PART 1, from SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 Since 2019, I have been to the 415th District Court in Weatherford, Texas, and have watched Judge Graham Quisenberry act deferentially toward those who were alleged to have committed child abuse and to silence testimony against their abuse. Ayden himself wanted to speak to the judge on multiple occasions, but he was not given an opportunity to speak - he was denied his voice. * Judge Graham Quisenberry was NOT giving Ayden a voice. * Ayden's mother Ashley Brooke Womack was NOT giving Ayden a voice. * Ashley's attorneys - "Scum" Bob Thorton, and later "Scuzzy" Stephen Dion Lawrence, were not giving him a voice. It was because his voice was suppressed that I first interviewed him. On this day, Ayden asked me to interview him because he was afraid he was afraid that he was going to be ripped away from his father and given back to his mother - where he alleged that abuse was taking place. He felt he would never have an opportunity to be heard if that happened. After this happened, Judge Graham Quisenberry gave his mother sole control of Ayden's future. Ayden was adamant that he wanted to live with his father and not with his mother. Graham sent him to a juvenile detention in Dallas; his mother sent him to reform school; and after that, she sent him to a boarding school in Nebraska. The judicial system completely failed Ayden, and the actions imposed on Ayden were despicable. Judge Graham Quisenberry sided with Ayden's alleged abusers, silenced Ayden's voice, and for all intents and purposes, ruined the memories of his youth. I have to conclude that shameful Judge Graham Quisenberry loved alleged child abusers and hated Ayden and his father. #GiveAydenAVoice #FamilyCourtInjustice ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x1gyrE5OUY

FIVE REASONS WHY CAPS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON FEES CHARGED BY FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS 1. Increased Access to Legal Services: High legal fees can be a significant barrier to accessing legal representation, especially in family law cases, which often involve sensitive and essential matters like child custody or divorce. Capping fees could make legal services more affordable and accessible to a broader segment of the population, ensuring that individuals are not denied legal assistance due to financial constraints. 2. Reducing Financial Strain on Families: Family law disputes can be financially draining. Capping attorney fees could help mitigate the overall financial impact on families, who may already be facing economic challenges due to situations like divorce or child support disputes. This could be particularly beneficial for lower-income families. 3. Promoting Fairness and Equity in Legal Proceedings: High legal fees can create a disparity in legal representation, where wealthier individuals can afford more experienced or prestigious attorneys, potentially leading to imbalances in legal outcomes. Fee caps could help level the playing field, ensuring more equitable access to quality legal representation for all parties involved. 4. Encouraging Efficient Resolution of Cases: Without capped fees, there are incentives for attorneys to prolong cases to increase billable hours. Capping fees would encourage lawyers to work more efficiently and focus on resolving cases expediently, reducing the emotional and financial toll on clients. 5. Preventing Exploitation and Unethical Practices: Capping fees could help prevent potential exploitation or unethical billing practices in family law, where clients might be vulnerable and less likely to question high fees due to the emotional nature of their cases. A cap could provide a safeguard against excessive charging and ensure that clients are treated fairly. Caps should be set at a level that ensures the sustainability of legal practices and allows attorneys to provide quality services without compromising their ability to cover operational costs and earn a reasonable income. THERE APPEARS TO BE PRICE FIXING AMONG FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS, WHICH WARRANTS AN INVESTIGATION BY THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Family law attorneys often set their prices by coordinating through price surveys and adjusting their fees accordingly. This practice raises concerns about price-fixing, a form of collusion that is generally illegal under antitrust laws. Here are five reasons why such behavior could be considered price-fixing and might warrant investigation and potential prosecution by a state's attorney general: 1. Violation of Antitrust Laws: Antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act in the United States, prohibit agreements among competitors that restrain trade. Price-fixing is a classic example of such an illegal agreement. If attorneys are colluding to set prices, it directly violates these laws. 2. Lack of Market Competition: Price-fixing undermines the principles of free market competition. By coordinating fees, attorneys essentially remove the natural competitive forces that typically dictate pricing in a market. This could lead to uniformly high prices for legal services, irrespective of quality or efficiency. 3. Unfair Consumer Prices: If attorneys engage in price-fixing, consumers (in this case, clients seeking legal representation in family law matters) may face inflated or artificially high prices. Such practices can exploit clients who are often in vulnerable situations and in dire need of legal services. 4. Reduced Access to Legal Services: Collusive pricing can make legal services less accessible, especially to individuals with lower income. This could effectively deny a significant portion of the population access to legal representation in critical matters like divorce, child custody, or support cases. 5. Potential for Abuse of Power: The legal profession holds a unique position of trust and authority. Engaging in practices like price-fixing can be seen as an abuse of this position, eroding public trust in the legal system. Such behavior can also disadvantage smaller firms or solo practitioners who may not be part of these pricing agreements. Accordingly, these practices could represent a serious breach of legal ethics and law. An investigation by a state attorney general should be undertaken to determine the extent of the alleged price-fixing and take appropriate action to protect market integrity and consumer interests. It's crucial for legal services markets to operate fairly and transparently to maintain trust in the legal system and ensure access to justice for all individuals, regardless of their financial status. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BH_7eVyyFc