AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Since 1974 LEO STOLLER IS THE FOUNDER AND CURENT DIRECTOR
Our Mission . . . To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by ensuring that the process of disciplining and removing judges is effective and meaningful. What We Do . . .
Educate the public about the paramount importance of the judiciary and its role in protecting our constitutional form of government.
Documentthe nature and extent of judicial incompetence, abuse, and dishonesty and the failure of judicial conduct commissions and screening panels to protect the public.
Networkjudicial activists and legal reform groups around the countryto promote citizen involvement, concerted action, and protection for judicial "whistleblowers".
Track media coverage of issues of judicial selection and discipline, working with reporters and editors to provide accurate coverage.
Testify before public and private bodies involved in judicial issues.
Initiate and supportlegal action in the public interest to advance the goal of a quality judiciary, free from political influence.
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
President Harry S Truman, August 8, 1950
Bringing the Justice System To Justice . . . No One is Above the Law... Judicial Accountability. Why shouldn't judges, like everyone else in a democracy, be responsible for their incompetence and deliberate misdeeds? Why should judges be allowed to run their courtrooms as their own private fiefdoms, free to abuse litigants and lawyers who come before them? We are building a national organization focused on the problem of bad judges -- judges who are incompetent, abusive, and dishonest. By dishonesty, we mean judges who knowingly disregard clear and controlling law and who write decisions which fabricate or deliberately omit critical facts.These judges destroy people's lives, families, and businesses and, for ulterior reasons, torpedo important cases affecting the public.The financial cost of appealing a judge's bad decision puts appeal out of reach for the average citizen. Yet those who make the financial sacrifice and do appeal often meet with the same realities on the appellate court level as in the lower court. Even where appellate courts reverse a lower court's blatantly erroneous decision, there is no personal cost to the judge for his judicial malpractice -- but only to the litigants, who have been wronged, and to the system. Incompetent, abusive, and corrupt judges create havoc at the trial level and overwhelm the system with otherwise needless appeals. This puts the courts in crisis and is extremely costly to taxpayers. Obviously, improving the way we choose judges is crucial. Whether by election or appointment, there must be safeguards to ensure that only persons of the highest competence, integrity, and judicial temperament become our judges.Yet, the public interest in a quality judiciary has been thwarted by politicians, who view our third branch of government as a pool for patronage. Judicial qualifications are often secondary to the political interests served by the judicial nomination being made. Because the judicial selection and disciplinary processes take place behind closed doors, political interests have been able to co-opt them. This has enabled unqualified judicial candidates to gain office and, thereafter, to stay in office, despite demonstrated on-the-job unfitness. Shamefully, public officials, government agencies responsible for judicial oversight, and established organizations of the bar have failed in their duty to protect against the corrosion of our courts. They have not only looked the other way, but have actively participated in a "cover-up". The same is true of the media, which is largely ill-informed, insensitive, and self-interested on these issues. It is, therefore, We, the People, who must take action to protect ourselves, our judicial system, and our democratic values. Thus, the reason that the Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics exist
The Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics is an association dedicated to encouraging the strict Enforcement of the Code of Judicial Ethics against Judges that fail to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct. You can join send $25.00 per year to: Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEJE) 7115 W. North Ave #272 Oak Park, Illinois 60302 312-545-4554 Ldms4@hotmail.com
What is the Code of Judicial Conduct?It is a set of ethical rules that have been adopted by all states regarding how judges should conduct themselves while being judges and/or issuing decisions. For example a judge's personal conduct should be above reproach. A Judge should not involve himself or herself in a case in which they might have a personal interest. A judge cannot participate in a case in which he might have been a witness. A judge should not participate in a case in which he might have represented one of the parties as an attorney on the same issues prior to becoming a judge. And a judge should recuse himself whenever there may be a conflict of interest present or when a party assets that the judge is bias and prejudice against that person.
Judges not only have a legal obligation to follow the law when rendering decisions but they also have a ethical obligation to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct. When a judge issues a decision in a case where he may have had a personal interest in the case and should have recused himself, that decision can not hold water and that decision also may represent a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
What can you do if you feel that a Judge has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct?
If you feel that a judge has acted with impropriety, had a conflict of interest, had a prior financial interest in a case which may have colored his decision etc., you have several options: First you should should always consult with an attorney and seek his advice. Secondly if you are dissatisfied with the judge decision in your case, you should file an appeal of that decision in order to preserve your rights. Just because a Judge rules against you is not grounds in an of itself to file a disciplinary complaint against a judge. In fact your local judicial inquiry Board will advise you to have appellate review of any judicial decision that you disagree with.
Judicial Inquiry Boards usually deal with the conduct of judges not necessarily the decisions that judges make. You do however have a right to file a professional disciplinary complaint against a judge if you feel that the judge may have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
What is the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Unlike many other professions judges and lawyers in each state in the US are held to a ethical code of conduct in carrying out their duties which is called either the Code of Judicial Conduct and/or for lawyers the the Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules have been established in many instances by the American Bar Association and adopted by the various state supreme courts to govern the ethical conduct of judges and lawyers in each state.
Step one you must call your local bar association and request a copy of your states Code of Judicial Conduct and/or Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct and find out where to file your Judicial Misconduct Complaint in your state. Read this short booklet of rules. Identify the rules that you believe that your Judge may have violated.
Step two, go to your local law library and request from them copies of prior filed Judicial Conduct Complaints that your local Judicial Inquiry Board prosecuted. Read these official complaints that were initiated by the Judicial Inquiry Boards, study the grounds upon which these successfully judicial complaints were prosecuted. Draft your judicial complaint in the same from, copying the case caption format and incorporating similar language in your complaint, as it relates to the specific charges against your judge.
Remember that over 99% of the judicial complaints filed by complainants like your self with the state Judicial Inquiry Boards end up in the waste paper basket, because they were either "hand" written, they failed to properly identify the Code of Judicial Conduct Rules that your Judge may have violated, these complaint's were never researched prior to filing and the complaint did not contain any evidence that the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
You must remember that the Judicial Inquiry Boards are usually made up of other judges, who look for very specific ethical wrongs, that are plead in a manner that will evidence a prima facie showing that there were, or could be, upon further investigation, proof that this judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Without you doing some research on the law prior to filing your complaint, your complaint will stand no chance of being prosecuted!
If you believe, that for one instance, that your judicial inquiry board will offer you any help in drafting your complaint or seeing that ethical justice is received by you, think again. Most of these Judicial Inquiry Boards are set up by judges and lawyers to discipline judges that are their friends and that is exactly like setting a den of "Foxes" up, to guard the chickens! Good luck!
None the less, AEJE believes that the chances that your complaint will ever to be fully heard by a judicial inquiry board will be enhanced if you write it like a previously filed successful judicial inquiry board complaint. After you spend time in a law library studying the law.
"I can't do that I'm not a lawyer!" Then remain a victim, because our system of legal justice in this country has no mercy for the uninformed, lazy, uneducated and those who are unwilling to learn...Just look at the individuals who today sit on the death rolls of each state, the most uneducated, unknowledgeable and insane people in the country. Sure many of them belong their, but many don't, and end up on death role because of ignorance... Remember "our legal system of justice and you Judicial Inquiry Board has no mercy for the uniformed and lazy victims..."
After you write your judicial complaint serve it on the your state judicial inquiry board and a courtesy copy on the judge that you are complaining of. Do not attempt to publish your judicial inquiry board complaint, do not go to the press. Many state Supreme Courts give complainant's, releases from being sued for libel or slander, if you do not go public with your complaint. If your judicial inquiry board votes a formal complaint, then your complaint will be made public.
Remember, your filing your disciplinary complaint against a judge is not likely to change the judges decision, only an appeal can do that. You will not receive any damage award in the event that the judge is disciplined, sanctioned or removed from the bench by the judicial inquiry board.
Your are filing disciplinary complaint because you feel that your judge violated the Code of Judicial conduct and you want the judicial inquiry board to hold the judge accountable for any violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That is what a Code of Conduct disciplinary Complaint is all about. AEJE encourages victims of Judges who may have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct to file these complaints. It's the a system that we have to hold bad judges ethically accountable.
Most Judges are ethical, only a small percentage of Judges are "bad" Judges. But those bad Judge do a great deal of harm to the citizenry. These Judges unchecked trample on the US Constitution. They routinely violated the due process rights and equal protection rights of victims every day under the pretence of following the law their convoluted law which the framers of our Constitution turn in their graves each time these legally corrupt judges issue a decision.
There is no greater evil in our society than a corrupt judge unchecked, they have the power to destroy lives, futures and to reward their friends in exchange for favors. Just look at Chicago, Illinois "Operation Graylord" Investigation which successfully prosecuted and put in jail more Illinois sitting Judges than any other state in US History, including a corrupt Chief Judge.
Merely because we look up from the floor of a court room in the US at a man or women dressed in a black rope does not mean that we are going to receive a just hearing. We as citizens must fight each day for our right to a fair hearing. It is in unfortunate that in many states both parties do not even bother to slate judges to give the public a choice to chose. In Illinois for example, most judges are slated by the Democratic party. Republic judges do not even bother to run. The public does not even get a chance to choose between two candidates. Some ward boss slates his "buddy" lawyer to become judge. You end up in that court room and your lawyer does not have a chance in front of that judge if the judges former law partner is representing the other side or the ward boss has put in the "fix".
You see the Code of Judicial Conduct is the last line of defense we all have as citizens to preserve our democracy. If there is no rule of law there is no democracy. We strongly encourage each citizen to take a proactive position against judicial corruption, to file whenever you believe that grounds exist, the appropriate Judicial Inquiry Complaints should be filed. We cannot leave it to politicians to make sure the US Legal system is fair us or to our poorest citizens.
Everyday in American justice is bought and paid for by friends of corrupt judges. It cost the Federal Government millions of dollars to investigate and prosecute these corrupt Judges. AEJE calls upon everyone to do their part to help stamp out judicial corruption. Please help us continue to spread our message by becoming a member of AEJE today!
If you have a problem with your local Judicial Inquiry Board ignoring your judicial disciplinary complaint because it may be against a high profile Judge, friendly to the other Judges on the Judicial Inquiry Board, you can file a Mandamus Action directly with your State Supreme Court and ask them to force the Judicial Inquiry Board to do their job.
If you State Supreme Court ignores you and denies your Mandamus Petition you have a right to appeal it directly to the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court denies your appeal, then you have done everything within the legal system to seek relief. You can now go to your Congressman or US Senator and explain to them what you have done and how you feel the system has failed you. If they do nothing to help you, you can run for Congress or the Senate in order to change the laws...
Lastly, you have the First Amendment right of free speech and you can right a book to expose the pandemic legal corruption that you believe exists within you state...
There is a lot that you can to do to seek relief from your victimization by a Judge...But it all starts with the first step! Filing the judicial Inquiry Board Complaint with your local Judicial Inquiry Board commission...Do it now...Do it today!
Remember we all have the Justice System, the kind of Lawyers, and Judges that we deserve... If you have been wronged by a Lawyer and/or Judge and you fail to take the time to file the appropriate state disciplinary complaint(s) because it's too hard, or it takes too much time, don't complain the next time that you or your friend is victimizes by a corrupt Judge or Lawyer...
Now go do the right thing! Join AEJE today and help us to carry on this crusade against corrupt Judges. Please join AEJE today to help us in our struggle
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE Federal Judges Background: Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges "hold their Offices during good Behavior" and can "be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Both Houses of Congress are involved in the arduous and protracted impeachment process: the House of Representatives brings formal charges against a judge, who is then tried by the Senate. In 1980, Congress passed legislation which created a new mechanism -- completely within the federal judiciary -- to handle judicial misconduct complaints (28 U.S.C. §372[c]). The statute, referred to as "the 1980 Act", was the first to provide for judicial discipline short of removal, and is the only "formal mechanism" for disciplining federal judges. Under the 1980 Act, circuit courts receive misconduct complaints, which are initially reviewed by the Chief Judge of the circuit. If not rejected on one of the statutory grounds, the Chief Judge appoints a special committee to investigate and report to the judicial council of the circuit, which decides what action, if any, should be taken. At the time the 1980 Act was passed, Congress promised "vigorous oversight". This has been thwarted by the judiciary, which -- by its own rules -- made the filed complaints confidential. This confidentiality has prevented Congress from verifying the validity of the dismissals of these complaints -- over 95% of which are summarily dismissed by Circuit Chief Judges, without investigation. A.E.J.E.'s Challenge to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal: The only direct examination of §372 [c] complaints has been by two court-connected researchers, operating under severe court-imposed confidentiality restrictions. These researchers were consultants to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, a temporary body authorized by Congress in 1990, to examine the extent of misconduct by federal judges, the adequacy of existing disciplinary mechanisms, and the sufficiency of impeachment as the sole means for removing federal judges. In August 1993, the National Commission ended its two-year life with the issuance of a Final Report that found the formal and informal mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct were adequate. In doing so, the Commission disregarded, without comment, proof establishing the inadequacy of the "informal" mechanisms identified, chief among which was "appellate review", whose efficacy the National Commission accepted, without scrutiny. A.E.J.E documented, in case study form, how flagrant federal judicial misconduct, which had been the subject of exhaustive appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, had gone unredressed in the appellate process. It raised the question as to whether such misconduct could be filed as a complaint under the 1980 Act. If not, then existing mechanisms were inadequate. Under the 1980 Act, a complaint may be dismissed that is "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". According to the National Commission's statistics, 84% of all complaints are dismissed on that ground by the Circuits' Chief Judges. A.E.J.E. has since gone on to document that the National Commission not only obscured this important issue of the justiciability of "merits-related" complaints under the Act, but ignored that the federal courts have, by self-promulgated rules, unlawfully converted the discretionary dismissal of such complaints on that ground into a mandatory, automatic one. A.E.J.E. has further shown that, much as federal judges can subvert the judicial process by rendering decisions they know to be factually fabricated and legally insupportable, so they also use dishonest decisions to dismiss legitimate, fully documented misconduct complaints. A.E.J.E has documented innumerable respects in which the National Commission's Report is factually erroneous and methodologically flawed. This has included demonstrating that, although the Commission's Report depicted the House Judiciary Committee as in a position to investigate misconduct complaints, the Committee, in fact, has never investigated an individual complaint against a federal judge and claims it does not have the resources to do so. A.E.J.E has presented oral and written testimony regarding the National Commission's Report before the Long-Range Planning Committee of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Courts (1994), as well as the Second Circuit's Task Force on Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts (1995 and 1996).
model code of conduct for nonjudicial court employeesIntroduction The holding of public employment in the court system is a public trust justified by the confidence that the citizenry reposes in the integrity of officers and employees of the judicial branch. A court employee, faithful to that trust, therefore shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the courts may be preserved. Court employees shall carry out all duties assigned by law and shall put loyalty to the principles embodied in this Code above loyalty to persons or parties. A court employee shall uphold the Constitution, laws and legal regulations of the United States, the State of __ and all governments therein, and never be a party to their evasion. A court employee shall abide by the standards set out in this Code and shall endeavor to expose violations of this Code wherever they may appear to exist. Scope 1) Each jurisdiction must determine exactly which employees shall be covered by this Code. The Code should apply to all employees who directly or indirectly affect the court's operation. A suggested listing of such employees would include: court clerks, docket clerks, data processing personnel, bailiffs and judicial secretaries, as well as court managers and their staffs. This list is intended to be illustrative and does not imply that other employees should be omitted. For example, if janitors in the court building have contact with the public or have the authority to purchase supplies for the court, then the Code should apply to these employees as well. 2) This Code is not intended to apply to law clerks, who should be held to a higher standard of conduct, nor to court reporters, who are bound by the Code of Professional Conduct of the National Shorthand Reporters Association. 3) The term, "court employee," includes within its scope those court employees who are also court managers. 4) The term, "court manager," includes within its scope all court employees who have important supervisory responsibilities. Each jurisdiction must identify the particular court employees who function as managers within that court system. Section One: Abuse of Position A) No employee shall use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for the employee or others. B) No employee shall accept, solicit, or agree to accept any gift, favor or anything of value based upon any understanding, either explicit or implicit, that the official actions, decisions or judgment of any employee would be influenced thereby. Gifts that do not violate this prohibition against abuse of position are further regulated in Section Three, Subsection B.6. C) No employee shall discriminate by dispensing special favors to anyone, whether or not for remuneration, nor shall any employee so act that the employee is unduly affected or appears to be affected by kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person. D) No employee shall request or accept any fee or compensation, beyond that received by the employee in his or her official capacity, for advice or assistance given in the course of his or her public employment. E) Each employee shall use the resources, property and funds under the employee's official control judiciously and solely in accordance with prescribed statutory and regulatory procedures. F) Each employee shall immediately report to the appropriate authority any attempt to induce him or her to violate any of the standards set out above. Section Two: Confidentiality A) No court employee shall disclose to any unauthorized person for any purpose any confidential information acquired in the course of employment, or acquired through unauthorized disclosure by another. B) Confidential information includes, but is not limited to, information on pending cases that is not already a matter of public record and information concerning the work product of any judge, law clerk, staff attorney or other employee including, but not limited to, notes, papers, discussions and memoranda. C) Confidential information that is available to specific individuals by reason of statute, court rule or administrative policy shall be provided only by persons authorized to do so. D) Every court employee shall report confidential information to the appropriate authority when the employee reasonably believes this information is or may be evidence of a violation of law or of unethical conduct. No court employee shall be disciplined for disclosing such confidential information to an appropriate authority. E) Court managers should educate court employees about what information is confidential and, where appropriate, should designate materials as confidential. F) Court employees are not precluded from responding to inquiries concerning court procedures, but a court employee shall not give legal advice. Standard court procedures, such as the method for filing an appeal or starting a small claims action, should be summarized in writing and made available to litigants. All media requests for information should be referred to the court employee designated for that purpose. G) No court employee shall either initiate or repeat ex parte communications from litigants, witnesses or attorneys to judges, jury members or any other person. H) A former court employee should not disclose confidential information when disclosure by a current court employee would be a breach of confidentiality. Section Three: Conflict of Interest A) Every court employee shall avoid conflicts of interest, as defined below, in the performance of professional duties. Even though no misuse of office is involved, such a conflict of interest involving a court employee can seriously undermine the community's confidence and trust in the court system. Therefore, every court employee is required to exercise diligence in becoming aware of conflicts of interest, disclosing conflicts to the designated authority and ending them when they arise. 1) A conflict of interest exists when the court employee's objective ability or independence of judgment in the performance of his or her job is impaired or may reasonably appear to be impaired or when the court employee, or the employee's immediate family, as defined below, or business would derive financial gain as a result of the employee's position within the court system. 2) No conflict of interest exists if any benefit or detriment accrues to the employee as a member of a profession, business or group to the same extent as any other member of the profession, business or group who does not hold a position within the court system. 3) For the purposes of this Code, "immediate family" shall include the following, whether related by marriage, blood or adoption: spouse; dependent children; brother; sister; parent; grandparent; grandchildren; father-in-law, mother-in-law; sister-in-law, brother-in-law; son-in-law, daughter-in-law; stepfather, stepmother; stepson, stepdaughter; stepbrother, stepsister; half-brother, half-sister. B) Prohibited Activities: 1) No court employee shall enter into any contract with the court system for services, supplies, equipment, leases or realty, apart from the employment contract relating to the employee's position, nor use that position to assist any member of his or her immediate family in securing a contract with the court system in a manner not available to any other interested party. 2) No court employee shall receive tips or other compensation for representing, assisting or consulting with parties engaged in transactions or involved in proceedings with the court system. 3) No court employee shall participate in any business decision involving a party with whom either the court employee or any member of the employee's immediate family is negotiating for future employment. 4) No former court employee shall engage in transactions or represent others in transactions or proceedings with the court system for one year after termination of employment in any matter in which the former employee was substantially involved or in any dealings with offices or positions that the former employee once held. 5) No court employee shall knowingly employ, advocate or recommend for employment any member of his or her immediate family. 6) No court employee shall solicit, accept or agree to accept any gifts, loans, gratuities, discounts, favors, hospitality or services under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court employee in the performance of official duties. a) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employee from accepting a public award presented in recognition of public service. b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employee from receiving a commercially reasonable loan made as part of the ordinary transaction of the lender's business. c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any person from donating a gift to a group of employees, e.g. all the employees of an office or unit of the court system, provided that the value and circumstances of the gift are such that it could not be reasonably inferred that the gift would influence the employees in the performance of their official duties or that such influence was the purpose of the donor, and provided that any employee accepting such a gift promptly report the gift to the supervisor, who shall be responsible for its proper distribution. Gifts received with the understanding that they will influence employees' official actions, decisions or judgments are prohibited as abuse of office in Section One, Subsection B. d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any person or group from donating a gift of historical or other significant value that is given for the benefit of the court system, provided that such a gift is received on behalf of the court system by the appropriate designated authority. C) To secure conformity to the above standards, every court employee who has authority to enter into or to approve contracts in the name of the court system shall file a financial disclosure statement with the appropriate designated authority upon beginning employment in such position, at termination of employment, and annually while so employed. Such disclosure shall include all sources of and contractual arrangements for personal income, including investments and real property, business entity income and business position income held or received by themselves, their spouses or their dependent children, and shall follow the guidelines established by the appropriate designated authority. D) Each full-time court employee's position with the court system must be the employee's primary employment. Outside employment is permissible only if it complies with all the following criteria: 1) The outside employment is not with an entity that regularly appears in court or conducts business with the court system, and it does not require the court employee to have frequent contact with attorneys who regularly appear in the court system; and 2) The outside employment is capable of being fulfilled outside of normal working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court employee's duties and responsibilities; and 3) The outside employment does not require the practice of law; and 4) The outside employment does not require or induce the court employee to disclose confidential information acquired in the course of and by reason of official duties; and 5) The outside employment shall not be within the judicial, executive or legislative branch of government without written consent of both employers; and 6) Where a conflict of interest exists or may reasonably appear to exist or where the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the court, the employee shall inform the appropriate designated authority prior to accepting the other employment. Section Four: Political Activity A) Each employee retains the right to vote as the employee chooses and is free to participate actively in political campaigns during non-working hours. Such activity includes, but is not limited to, membership and holding office in a political party, campaigning for a candidate in a partisan election by making speeches and making contributions of time or money to individual candidates, political parties or other groups engaged in political activity. An employee who chooses to participate in political activity during off-duty hours shall not use his or her position or title within the court system in connection with such political activities. B) With the exception of officers of the court who obtain their position by means of election, no employee shall be a candidate for or hold partisan elective office. With the same exception, an employee who declares an intention to run for partisan elective office shall take an unpaid leave of absence upon the filing of nomination papers. If elected, he or she shall resign. An employee may be a candidate for non-partisan office without separating from employment, provided that the employee complies with the requirements in this Code concerning performance of duties, conflicts of interest, etc. C) No employee shall engage in any political activity during scheduled work hours, or when using government vehicles or equipment, or on court property. Political activity includes, but is not limited to: 1) Displaying campaign literature, badges, stickers, signs or other items of political advertising on behalf of any party, committee, agency or candidate for political office; 2) Using official authority or position, directly or indirectly, to influence or attempt to influence any other employee in the court system to become a member of any political organization or to take part in any political activity; 3) Soliciting signatures for political candidacy; 4) Soliciting or receiving funds for political purposes. D) No employee shall discriminate in favor of or against any employee or applicant for employment on account of political contributions or permitted political activities. Section Five: Performance of Duties A) Every court employee shall endeavor at all times to perform official duties properly and with diligence. Every court employee shall apply full-time energy to the business and responsibilities of the employee's office during working hours. B) Every court employee shall carry out responsibilities as a servant of the public in as courteous a manner as possible. C) Every court employee shall maintain or obtain current licenses or certificates as a condition of employment as required by law or court rule. D) No court employee shall alter, falsify, destroy, mutilate, backdate or fail to make required entries on any records within the employee's control. This provision does not prohibit alteration or expungement of records or documents pursuant to a court order. E) No court employee shall discriminate on the basis of nor manifest, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation in the conduct of service to the court. F) No court employee shall give legal advice or recommend the names of private attorneys. G) No court employee shall reuse to enforce or otherwise carry out any properly issued rule or order of court, nor shall court employees exceed that authority. No court employee shall be required to perform any duties outside the scope of the assigned job description. H) Every court employee shall immediately report violations of this Code to the appropriate designated authority. I) Court employees who are law students, attorneys or members of other professional groups are also bound by the appropriate professional duties of those roles. Section Six: Court Managers A) Court managers regularly shall update their education. B) Court managers shall require employees subject to their direction and control to observe the ethical standards set out in this Code. C) Court managers shall diligently discharge their administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration and facilitate the performance of other court employees. D) Court managers shall take action regarding any unethical conduct of which they may become aware, initiating appropriate disciplinary measures against an employee for any such conduct and reporting to appropriate authorities evidence of any unethical conduct by judges or lawyers. E) Court managers shall not act as leaders in or hold office in any political organization, make speeches for any political organization or publicly endorse a candidate for political office.