Copyright 2007 National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has been quoted as
saying:

    The law makes a promise: neutrality.  If the promise gets
    broken, the law as we know it ceases to exist.

It may be difficult to grasp what it means for the law to be neutral.  
Perhaps the sentiment is best understood by acknowledging that
courts must be fair and impartial to protect individual rights and
uphold the rule of law.    

Amazingly, fairness is a nationally if not universally accepted
objective of American courts.  That such a consensus is apparent
seems amazing because "fairness" is relatively easy to perceive.  
An endorsement or criticism of courts should be hard to dispute as
a result, if cast in terms of that which is distinctly fair or unfair.  Yet
debates rage over whether American courts are functioning
properly.

Scores of Americans have a distinct impression that their
courtroom experience is or was not "fair".  By far, mainstream hype
deems them misguided, disgruntled, or worse.  Your conference
host,
National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.
(NJCDLP)
, strives to counter that trend with statistical data and
expert analysis, some of which will be presented at "Silencing of
the Lambs?".  However, NJCDLP developed the free conference
primarily out of concern that fair and impartial courts can prove
illusory when government processes for judicial oversight,
accountability, and censuring are ineffective.  Conference
presenters will help complainants make the most of available
processes for judicial oversight, accountability, and discipline;
explore how those processes have been, are, and may be
undermined; and share practical strategies to help average
Americans fortify those processes.

    Zena D. Crenshaw,
    Executive Director and
    Co-founder, NJCDLP                 
Conference Media
Credentials & Coverage:

Harvey Glenn
713-320-7788
Email
Conference Coordination:

Donald Fields
The MILLICOM Group
713-256-6243
Email
People who believe they were not treated
fairly and impartially by a judge;


People who believe their family member or
friend was not treated fairly and impartially by
a judge;


People who want to learn lawful strategies for
redressing judicial misconduct;


People who have been unsuccessful in
seeking relief for alleged judicial misconduct;


People who have been successful seeking
relief for alleged judicial misconduct;


People who have found it difficult to retain an
affordable lawyer to handle a claim alleging
judicial and/or other government misconduct;


People who believe that courts are biased
against pro se litigants (i.e. those without an
attorney);


Religious and civic leaders and other private
citizens concerned about the fairness and
impartiality of American courts; and


Lawyers and judges who have been
disciplined or seem to have been retaliated
against for criticizing a judicial or other
government officer.