Drain Curtain Law

Drain Curtain Law

September 19, 2023
Signatures: 315Next Goal: 500
Support now

Why this petition matters

I am an "artivist" founder of the Spoon Movement and now the-curtains.com, who turns art into a missile.  My Curtains' work seeks to hold accountable those who shield powerful bad actors in humanity.  I am passionate about this work for the love of "country" and society.  In fact, in 2018, I was arrested at the headquarters of Purdue Pharma in Stamford, CT, for dropping an 800-pound heroin spoon to spearhead activism against the company and Purdue Pharma.  

So far, the-curtains.com has targeted individuals who have shielded and protected Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family that owned the company.  You may learn about these individuals at the-curtains.com.  With your support the-curtains will continue to go after these wrongful power structures in all sectors and polarize these actors.

Today we are seeking to introduce the Drain Curtain Law, which aims to preserve the fundamental trust we place in our courts and judges that has been put into question by the same judge who approved and sided with Purdue Pharma in his court. 

In the eyes of many, justice is blind, and our judges, the guardians of that justice, are expected to uphold the highest standards of impartiality and fairness. However, Drain cast a shadow over this perception when, months after ruling in favor of Purdue Pharma in a multi-billion dollar case, when he accepted a job at Skadden, the same law firm that defended Purdue in his court.

This is something we cannot afford to ignore, for it threatens the very foundation of our legal system and will further empower bad actors in our country who will feel empowered to promote faulty and dangerous products, kill Americans, and know they can escape justice.  

Judge Drain presided over the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, a case that held immense significance due to the opioid crisis that has devastated countless communities across our nation. As a judge, he was entrusted with ensuring that justice was served, evaluating the evidence without bias, and making decisions in the public's best interest.

Yet, what happened next has left many questioning the integrity of our legal system.  Shortly after ruling that victims could not sue Purdue Pharma civilly, Judge Drain found employment at the very law firm that defended Purdue Pharma in the same case. This sequence of events raises serious ethical concerns and shakes the very core of our judicial system's credibility.

For this reason, The-Curtains proposes a new law that will prevent judges from accepting employment with law firms that have represented parties in cases they presided over. This law is not about singling out individuals but safeguarding the principles underpinning our justice system. It reinforces the public's trust that justice is blind and impartial and that the allure of future employment does not influence judges’ decisions.

Our legal system thrives when it operates transparently and fairly without hinting at impropriety. This law is not just about Judge Drain; it's about protecting the sanctity of our courts and ensuring that justice is delivered without bias or conflict of interest.

Here's the Law: 

D  R  A  I  N    C  U  R  T  A  I  N    L  A  W

September 22, 2023

Prohibition on Judges Working in Law Firms of Cases They Have Oversaw Act

Section 1: Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system in the United States by prohibiting judges from working in law firms that have represented parties in cases they have overseen.

Section 2: Prohibition on Judges Working in Law Firms of Cases They Have Oversaw

(a) A judge who has presided over a case shall not be employed by, affiliated with, or receive compensation from a law firm representing a party in that case for ten years.

(b) This prohibition shall remain in effect indefinitely after the judge has left the bench.

Section 3: Penalties for Violations

(a) A judge who violates the prohibition set forth in Section 2 shall be subject to disciplinary action, including removal from office or censure.

(b) A law firm that employs or compensates a judge in violation of Section 2 shall be subject to fines and other penalties as determined by the relevant state or federal authorities.

Section 4: Implementation and Enforcement

(a) The relevant state or federal authorities shall promulgate regulations to implement this Act and ensure compliance with its provisions.

(b) Any individual or organization may file a complaint alleging a violation of this Act with the appropriate authority.

(c) The relevant authority shall investigate any complaint and take appropriate action as necessary to enforce this Act.

Section 5: Severability

If any provision of this Act is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

Section 6: Effective Date

This Act shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

This proposed law would aim to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the impartiality of the judiciary by prohibiting judges from working in law firms that have represented parties in cases they have overseen. Violations of this prohibition would result in disciplinary action, and law firms that employ judges in violation of the law would be subject to fines and other penalties.

Section 7:  Third Party Entity

The law will also make it illegal for law firms to create a separate entity or consulting firm that is technically distinct from the law firm but operates closely with the potential hire. This will prevent Judges from being employed or compensated through these consulting firms without directly violating the law.

Section 8: Technical Role Shifting

Law firms may not attempt to shift the judge's role within the firm to a non-legal position, such as a consultant or advisor, to argue that the judge is not directly involved in representing parties in cases they oversaw. 

Section 9: Influence and Communication

Judges will also be prohibited from officially having informal influence or communication with law firms in a way that potentially compromises the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.

Support now
Signatures: 315Next Goal: 500
Support now