The case of the fox is guarding the hen house.

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

SO, HOW'S THAT FRAUD, MISCONDUCT, cOVER UP, THING WORKING OUT FOR YA?

Seriously?

Under our rules, a judicial misconduct complaint "must contain a concise statement that details the specific facts on which the claim of misconduct or disability is based."
Judicial-Conduct Rule 6(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 351(a).

The brief statement of facts required by section 351(a) must be prepared specifically for the misconduct proceeding, although it need not follow a particular form. See Judicial-Conduct
Rule 6(a). What matters is that it be concise and set forth the alleged misconduct in a clear and straightforward fashion.

Although complainants may attach exhibits to their complaint, the exhibits must directly support the allegations of misconduct or disability in the statement of facts. Cf. Tenth
Cir. Misconduct Rule 6.2 ("[T]he complainant should take care to include only documentation that is required to support the specific facts alleged[, while excluding e]xcess or irrelevant
documentation . . . .").

In a complaint alleging prejudice or bias, for example, excerpts of a trial transcript in which the judge allegedly covered up racist comments would be appropriate; the entire record would not.

("Rule 6(b) makes clear that the complaint must be more than a suggestion to a Chief Judge that, if he . . . looks hard enough in a particular direction, he might uncover misconduct.").

In conducting an expeditious review pursuant to section 352(a), the chief judge and staff will therefore not examine any documentary materials unless the statement of facts, on its face, presents what appears to be a sufficient allegation of misconduct and specifically
points to the pages in the attachment that support the allegations.

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved