federal courthouse, I'm a psychopath let me rule you! Your evil im good get used to it!

• Report rights infringement
• published: 22 May 2016
• views: 23

Denial of services from the federal government why pay taxes? Congress has created a procedure that permits any person to file a complaint in the courts about the behavior of federal judges—but not about the decisions federal judges make in deciding cases. Below is a link to the rules that explain what may be complained about, who may be complained about, where to file a complaint, and how the complaint will be processed. There is also a link to the form you must use. Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints. The law says that complaints about judges’ decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must be dismissed. If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision—even a very wrong decision—you may not use this procedure to complain about the decision. An attorney can explain the rights you have as a litigant to seek review of a judicial decision. Links 11th Circuit Judicial Complaints resource Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. (See 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.) FURTHERMORE Roles and responsibilities of courts and judiciary Drafters should seek to ensure that the criminal justice system effectively addresses all “honour” crimes and killings to ensure accountability for the perpetrator(s) and promote the safety of the victims. Laws should charge the court system to work in coordination with police, advocates, health care providers, criminal justice actors, child protection services, local businesses, the media, employers, religious leaders, health care providers, clergy and organizations working with victims and immigrant communities. See: Coordinated Community Response, StopVAW, The Advocates for Human Rights. Judicial Discretion Laws should limit judicial discretion to reduce sentences, reduce the charge or exculpate the defendant in “honour” crimes and killings. Specifically, laws should prohibit judges from using the following factors as mitigating evidence in cases involving “honour”: Private settlements, reconciliation and forgiveness among the perpetrators and the victim or her family; The level of perceived dishonour to the family and perpetrator; The victim’s past behavior, including sexual behavior, that supposedly violated the traditional code of “honour”; The morality or ethics of the victim’s behavior that motivated the perpetrator to commit the “honour” crime or killing; The perpetrator’s status as the household’s primary wage earner; Defenses in cases of “honour” crimes, “honour” killings, and domestic femicides, including: Crimes of passion defense Provocation or "fit of fury" defenses Defenses of “honour”, morality or ethics Defenses in cases of adultery, whether witnessed or not Examples: Article 192 of the Syrian Penal Code allows a judge to reduce the sentence in a case where the judge finds the perpetrator’s motive was “honourable” or “sympathetic.” Likewise, Article 17 of the Egyptian Penal Code permits a judge to reduce a defendant’s sentence in “crimes requiring the sympathy of the court.” Article 243 of the Syrian Penal Code also permits the court to reduce a life sentence to a shorter duration of imprisonment in cases where the crime falls under “extenuating circumstances.” (See: Odeh, Lama Abu, Honor Killings and the Construction of Gender in Arab Societies, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 58, Fall 2010, pp. 928) Drafters should repeal such provisions that use ambiguous language or confer broad judicial discretion in sentencing for “honour” crimes, or should make clear that such provisions are inapplicable in “honour” crimes cases. Similarly, Article 242 of the Syrian Penal Code provides for a reduced penalty in cases where the perpetrator acted in a “state of great anger resulting from a wrongful and dangerous act on the part of the victim.” (See: Lynn Welchman, Extracted provisions from the penal codes of Arab states relevant to 'crimes of honour’) Drafters should ensure that such mitigating provocation defenses are not applicable to “honour” crimes or killings.