9/16/00 Honoraria and book deals are to bribing Judges and Journalists, what Pac money is to bribing politicians. A legal looking and plausible denial method of legalizing bribery. This is a case of " you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." The favorite pastime of the ruling Elites. Don't let our " honorable " politicians make it easier for our " honorable " businessmen and their " honorable " lawyers to bribe our " honorable " Judges. Nurev ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Congressional Reform Briefings September 14, 2000 -- Please ask your U.S. Senators to oppose a "graft for judges" provision that would allow federal judges to accept speaking fees. Senate Republicans have quietly tucked away a "graft for judges" provision in the Senate appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary (CJSJ) to allow federal judges to accept speaking fees, opening the federal judiciary to corruption by honoraria. Such honoraria would be graft, pure and simple. The "graft for judges" provision threatens judicial independence. Plenty of corporations and wealthy folks would be thrilled to put money in the pockets of federal judges, who have tremendous power to shape the law. The "graft for judges" provision is awaiting a Senate floor vote. There is no comparable provision in the House version of the CJSJ bill. Federal judges are already overpaid. They neither need a pay raise nor honoraria. Federal district court judges currently earn a generous salary of $141,300 per year plus pensions and benefits. Appellate court judges earn $149,900 per year, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court earn $173,600 and Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist earns $181,400 per year. Please call, fax, or email your Senators to encourage them to oppose the "graft for judges" speaking fees provision in the Senate Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill. The congressional switchboard phone number is (202) 225-3121. To find the fax numbers and e-mail addresses of Members of Congress, see <http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ziptoit.html>. Following is today's Washington Post article about the "graft for judges" provision. Bill Would End Ban on Honoraria For Judges By Dan Morgan Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday , September 14, 2000 ; A01 Responding to a private plea from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for "economic relief" for judges, leading Senate Republicans have inserted a provision in a pending appropriations bill that would end an 11-year ban on speaking fees for members of the federal judiciary. The proposal, requested by Rehnquist in a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) earlier this year, would drastically alter a 1989 ethics reform that prohibited honoraria for members of Congress, judges and senior officials of the executive and legislative branches. In theory, the move could net Supreme Court justices and other well-known judges tens of thousands of dollars in extra income annually. The proposed provision, buried deep in a 2001 spending bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 18 and awaiting final action, would lift the restriction only for judges serving a lifetime appointment. Under the measure, federal judges could collect money for appearances under guidelines and limits that would be determined by the Federal Judicial Conference, the judiciary's own policymaking body. In his letter to McConnell in April, Rehnquist argued that the removal of the ban is sorely needed to ease the growing disparity between the pay of judges and of members of the private legal profession, in which first-year salaries at blue-ribbon New York law firms are now reaching $140,000. "It is to the point that in today's legal market a first-year associate in a law firm could make as much in salary as a federal judge," Rehnquist said. The disparity, he warned, harms the ability of the judiciary to recruit and retain the most capable lawyers. Independent judiciary sources noted yesterday that the 1989 ban on honoraria was coupled with a commitment to adjust judicial salaries annually for inflation. That has not occurred. However, the dropping of the honoraria ban for judges was quickly assailed by spokesmen for several nonprofit groups that closely monitor judicial ethics. The ban was originally spurred by widespread allegations that corporations and interest groups were using the payments to lobby or influence federal officials. "Totally unacceptable and outrageous," said Meredith McGehee, senior vice president of Common Cause. "To have judges go down that path where impartiality is supposed to be the hallmark of our judicial system is wrong." "Companies will be lining up to cut the judges' checks," said Mike Casey, vice president of the Environmental Working Group, which has teamed up with another nonprofit organization, Community Rights Counsel, to disclose how corporations have used junkets for judges to influence environmental litigation. "It's shocking, it's wrong and it makes the judges look greedy," he added. The Judicial Conference, which is pushing hard for a cost-of-living adjustment this year, did not ask for the honoraria change and has had no comment on the provision. A House version of the bill funding the judiciary, which the full chamber passed in June, does not contain the provision. The language would almost certainly face major opposition if it comes to the Senate floor as part of a single appropriations bill. But it could end up being folded into a giant bill sweetened to gain broad approval from the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats. The annual salary of the U.S. chief justice is $181,400, and the eight associates make $173,600. The salaries of federal appellate court judges and district judges are $150,000 and $141,300, respectively. In addition, federal judges may earn up to $21,195 a year from outside sources, such as teaching, but not from honoraria for speeches. The judges may also accept all-expenses-paid travel and accommodations at educational or professional events. In 1995, the Wall Street Journal detailed the extended expenses-paid trips of a number of Supreme Court justices to the French Riviera, the Austrian Alps, Spain and other watering spots. A number of the justices are millionaires with substantial assets; but according to their latest financial disclosure reports, some of the poorest are the conservative members of the court. Justice Antonin Scalia's assets were valued below $535,000; Justice Clarence Thomas reported assets worth between $150,000 and $410,000; and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the poorest, with assets valued below $195,000. McConnell did not mention that fact in a letter sent earlier in the year to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that draws up the annual spending bill for the federal judiciary. McConnell urged a "new approach" to the judiciary's compensation problem that would remove it from the testy annual debate in Congress over salaries paid from taxpayer funds. The Judicial Conference, he said, could adopt regulations later to avert conflicts and impropriety. "I believe that this legislation is appropriate as both a policy matter and a legal matter," he wrote. © 2000 The Washington Post Company <----article ends here----> The Congressional Accountability Project opposes corruption in the U.S. Congress. For more information, see our website at <http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html>. Congressional Reform Briefings are distributed electronically via the cong-reform mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To subscribe to the cong-reform mailing list, go to <http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/cong-reform> or send the word "subscribe" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Ruskin | Congressional Accountability Project 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite #3A | Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 296-2787 | Fax (202) 833-2406 http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -------------------------------------------------------------- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
