Start Up Business Plan



I.   Key Committee Supporting the Introduction of the “Bell Transparency Bill of 2011″

II.  Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) – Professional Laypersons:

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel attorney complaint division employs full time a professional Christian layperson who participates in the initial to the final review process of all citizen’s complaints about attorneys alleged wrongful acts before the complaints are set aside without investigation.

Any ODC reviewing individual or person in authority will be remanded to recuse themselves if there is any appearance of bias or association with any defendants the complaint references. Or any association to any judiciary officer in which the complained of acts occurred.

III. ODC: A law that provides for a subsidiary review process by a committee of professional Christian laypersons to determine any legitimate complaints that were set aside without any review process by the ODC.

IV.  New Language – A Law that requires attorneys to only use means that are consistent with the truth, and to never behave in a false manner, whether by statement or other artifice.

V.   Attorney – Continuing Education: A Law that would provide for a yearly signed commitment by all attorneys to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and for judges to abide by the Rules of Judicial Conduct, or agree to be held accountable.

VI.  Hold attorneys and officers of the court responsible for representing facts and the law honestly in every aspect of their legal practice. Further, a citizens board must be appointed to be in charge of enforcing this; with meaningful, established disciplines for any attorney or court official who misrepresents the truth in their practice.

Attorney: First Offense of criminal acts – permanently disbarred

Attorney: First Offense non criminal acts – Sanctions

Attorney: Second Offense non criminal acts – Sanctions and one year suspension

Attorney: Third Offense non criminal acts – Suspended from practicing law for five years

Attorney: Fourth Offense non criminal acts – Permanently disbarred

Judicial:   Removal from Judicial setting – loss of career opportunity – loss of retirement – public reprimand. If a jury trial results in “finding” of misconduct – the judicial officer should be ordered to pay all legal fees and make all other ordered restitution allowable.

We believe this bill would have wide grassroots citizen support, because many have in fact suffered.

The volume of world wide web sites support the fact that often peers do not point the finger to rotten apples; with confirmation of published complaints that judges and reviewing authorities are often being indifferent when presented with evidence of attorney or judicial misconduct.

VII  Key Committee to Introduce a Bill: To institute a new governing board of lay-qualified citizens who are nominated by the public to review the claims  of misconduct– rather than continuing to expect the fox to guard the hen house with any success.

VIII Key Committee to Introduce  “THE BELL TRANSPARENCY BILL”:

A bill to propose judicial and court officials may be sued FOR FINDINGS of any violation of law, legal or moral indiscretions, or discretionary abuses, with the intent to foster judicial accountability.

IX Form Key Committees to Introduce Bills:
For judicial accountability laws.

X    Placement of volunteers – board of directors – professionals

XI  Research and investigate victim stories of abuse and publish the cases’ material evidence when appropriate.

XII Assistance to Louisiana Supreme Court Pro Se Task Force

XIII Committees to – review victims’ stories, gather substantiated public domain evidence, publish the stories factual information in order to expose corrupt, unethical acts. Encourage proper investigations, by law enforcement and reviewing authorities, of wrongful and unlawful acts, in an effort to insure transparency, accountability and appropriate consequence.

We seek to use all legal means possible to encourage needed change – to implement a self-imposed deterrence system, relying on the fact that a judicial officer would not want to suffer “findings of misconduct”, as such individuals will conduct themselves accordingly to foster respectful judicial transparency.