Whether the Supreme Court should provide counsel for an indigent plaintiff and hold the judiciary accountable for potential due process violations in employment misconduct cases

Should the Court provide the plaintiffs attorney? Is there not a guaranteed right to counsel in cases regarding indigent people? Without the benefit of counsel, an unlevel playing field results in an inarticulate plaintiff, ignorant of the law and courtroom procedures. This Plaintiff is therefore up against an attorney or a team of well-trained, skilled, and experienced attorneys representing the agency. Does the lower court ’s decision appear to reflect the holdings or the spirit of jurisprudence? The adverse consequences of a particular civil proceeding can be as devastating as those resulting from the conviction of a crime. The court is charged with handling its own employment misconduct, thereby policing itself. This has often led to unfair practices and opinions that do not meet the standard of impartiality. These decisions are made based on judgments and opinions of a particular party, using their personal interpretation and not necessarily factual information. Judges and their employees are loyal to each other. It does not appear that the doors of accountability and transparency have been open when it comes to the judiciary employees. Unfair access to neutral courts, following the rule of law, false information given to Congress and other decision makers, violations of the Constitution and code of ethics; the list goes on, as you can see by the findings of the Federal Judiciary Workplace Group. These issues occur in real time each day, and employees' lives are being affected. Is it wrong to interpret Fausto to allow district courts to ignore federal law with impunity and deny probation officers the favored status granted by Congress? How do we hold the Judiciary accountable, as it appears they violate the Rule of Law and tell complainants there is no recourse? The Supreme Court of the United States and Congress have time and time again expressed concerns about the notion that the judiciary can effectively handle its own issues without oversight. This issue has been raised, and misconduct continues to happen despite the efforts that have been put into place. The lack of accountability gives the idea that the court is above the law in its employment practices. It appears the Court interprets the meaning of its procedures and guidelines as it benefits the judiciary or the district court. Did the Agency and District Court err in charging gross negligence and insubordination? A review of the court file will reveal that, based on the legal definition of gross negligence and insubordination, Drone was neither. Did the Agency and District Court err when they terminated Drone without the benefit of a pre-tcrmination hearing? Drone ’s employment rights entitled her to a pre-termination hearing, and no hearing was held in the disciplinary adverse action. The District Court had the original jurisdiction in the matter and did not allow for mediation or a hearing. The adverse action was used to terminate her. Did the agency follow the policy regarding disciplinary actions or the grievance complaint? Drone made several attempts to ascertain what her rights were after the adverse action. An informal meeting was held at Drone ’s request. There was no written notice of counseling and meditation before or during this event. Did the Agency and District Court follow the rule of law in not providing factual information, and did it violate and deny Drone ’s due process? The Agency and Court relied on conclusoiy allegations of law and unwarranted inferences as facts to support their claim. Hie Agency did not provide information to support that Drone was insubordinate or grossly negligent. Drone provided evidence to support the information given by her supervisor to the agency, and the court was not factual.