Dr. Awara Hussein, In this lecture focuses on the definition of the International Criminal Court, as well as the history and jurisdictions of the court's judicial powers. For more information: https://lnkd.in/ePzUsGsC

Gain valuable insights into the Supreme Court picks made by President Trump from Philip Jauregui of the Center for Judicial Renewal, a division of AFA Action. Discover the criteria used to evaluate these selections.

In his latest column for Daily Journal Corporation, Benjamin Shatz discussed the significant role of the Center for Judicial Education and Research in providing essential educational training for judicial officers and court personnel. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eeb9YrNm!

In this online event presented by County Court of Victoria, Judge Davis, Judge Riddell and Judge Rozen answered questions about the criminal justice system, criminal trials, pre-trial procedures and sentencing. For more Law Week events, see: https://lnkd.in/g3kq8CaQ #lawweek #legalstudies #vcelegal #vcelegalstudies

In this episode of #UnderColorOfLaw, former federal #prosecutor, Shanlon Wu offers an insightful assessment of the developments within the USA judicial system, with a focus on the Justice Samuel #Alito flag controversies. More importantly, he offers some existing and possible legislative and investigatory avenues for forcing increased accountability for such corruption at the Supreme Court. He identifies tools already available to the #DOJ in this episode, further confirming my own opinion about the #soft #weak leadership of Merrick #Garland as head of the department. “We have the tools to police #SupremeCourt justices the same as any other citizen and any other institution can be policed ,and it's long past the time that we demanded that our institutions do that.” Shanlon Wu lists the following actions: 1. Initiate internal investigations about any of the issues of concern; 2. Increase congressional oversight and issue subpoenas to require that justices, like Thomas and Alito, attend oversight hearings: what did you mean by putting up that flag Justice Alito? Why didn't you disclose the financial benefits you received, Justice Thomas? 3. Congress also has the power of the purse. There's a lot of power when you're controlling the money, especially referencing statute 28 USC section 455, which calls for disqualification, not recusal. Disqualification is an affirmative action. Instead of playing the game of disqualification versus recusal this statute is particularly important because it specifically mentions justices, so there's no question that it applies to them. The Supreme Court has long taken the view that a Judicial ethics code does not apply to them, only to the lower courts, because they are the Supreme Court Justices. This law, however, does apply to them. 4. Lastly, and totally overlooked in the usual discussion is the question of what the executive branch can do, meaning what can the Justice Department do and there's actually a lot DOJ can do. They can open an investigation on a number fronts. It doesn't have to be criminal, civil investigations also can be initiated, and the #DOJ could even, for example, look into the leak of opinions. They do leak investigations all the time. They could also look to scrutinize the question of what kinds of benefits have been given to the justices. Are there any concerns about the lack of disclosure that justices are supposed to disclose on their financial disclosure forms? Again, this doesn't have to go criminal, but it could, if investigators were to find that there's actual corruption involved with the financial benefits. There could also be tax issues: very expensive trips and that luxury vehicle Thomas SC cost a lot of money, so there could be a tax inquiry. FYI, Hans Lak.

Denying justice by delaying, a Judicial practice to be relevent to prove and test its Indpendence from time to time. Judicially doing Injustice.? https://lnkd.in/gHWZGqKz

A lot of work is needed to create a true country for all citizens, and it all starts with the judicial system. Join us in our latest episode with Daccache Zeina & Nayla Hocheimy https://lnkd.in/gNbwdXF3 #lebanon #4august #judicialsystem #change

Term Limits are a " must " 

So true, so much injustice. January 10, 2024: Hays County Judge- Denies my Petition for Adoption of 4 sibling brothers, from being adopted together; siding with DFPS recommendation to allow the children to continue in their separate placements and be adopted in separate homes, despite: 1) CPS naming me the adoptive placement for 2 of the 4 siblings ( in 2 out of the 5 days of the biological mother's termination trial) , and 2) Despite my using the judicial system and paying over $60K + in attorney fees in order to get my foster sons placed back into my home and adopted, along with their 2 little brothers; after parents rights were terminated; 3) Despite my foster sons repeated claims of wanting to be adopted by me and wanting to return to my home; 4) Despite CASA and CPS reports submitted to the court in December 2023 that show that the 4 sibling brothers' emotional and mental condition continue to worsen in the State's Care, in separate adoptive homes; not permitting them to be returned to my home). 5) Despite CPS testifying, in my adoption hearing, that they did not have a "good reason" for withholding consent of adopting the 4 brothers. On January 13, 2023; DFPS partnered with my foster care agency (in Harris County) to close my home citing, "due to DFPS concerns that I violated client confidentiality"; I was not provided with specific information about what that was, nor was I given any information on how to resolve any future incidents and was not provided with information on how I could appeal the decision. I have not been able to get licensed to adopt in Texas due to the foster care agency (in Harris County) stating in their transfer paperwork that "they do not recommend my home for future placement". DFPS' strategy was to make sure I did not have a license to foster/adopt when I was finally able to get my adoption hearing before the judge. They succeeded. DFPS and the foster care agency prefer children to stay in unlicensed placements and hotels rather than allow me the opportunity to give my foster sons and their 2 brothers a place to have called their own. The DFPS spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to block me from giving these 4 brothers a chance to have their family together again.) No one should have to: a. Max out their credit cards; b. Get a personal loan c. Empty their savings account d. Pull out all their retirement from the school district pension in order to adopt 4 sibling brothers out of foster care and be contested by a CPS caseworker that never visited my home, never spoke to me in person and knew me all but 3 weeks out of the 18 months my 2 foster sons were in my home. My full story below https://lnkd.in/e_TmX_zm

Anyone accused of a crime deserves the right to fair trial. Every suspect deserves sufficient time to choose their lawyers/advocates, to prepare for their defense prior to a trial, and to decide what to be said and what to be kept. And every suspect must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 24-hour court (Note: It does not mean that a trial will be completed within 24 hours. It means that a court can be kept open the whole day. But it will still result in unreasonably swift trial and conviction) might violate rights of suspects — First, they might be deprived of the opportunity to access the right lawyers as they might not be given enough time to choose their lawyers. Second, they might suffer panics or emotional instabilities immediately after arrest. If they are not provided enough time to rest and recover and are forced to receive quick investigations and trials in fatigue, they might not be able to defend themselves sensibly. Third, for the interests of suspects, suspects should have sufficient time to communicate with their lawyers and discuss with them about their cases and defenses. And the lawyers should have enough time to devise defense strategies. If a trial is forced to proceed unreasonably quickly, the suspects and their lawyers might not have the ability to deliver defenses best for the interests of the suspects. Apart from concerns regarding fair trial, I have another worry. I am worried that 24-hour court and quick trial would help politicians stigmatise protesters in particular protests/movements and give them an excuse to restrict freedom of citizens. Once some protesters in a protest/movement are convicted, or simply sent to trial, some politicians will label all the protesters in the protest/movement as ‘criminals’, ‘criminals-to-be’ or ‘rioters’, although some of the protesters abide by the law. And the label appears reasonable — as some of the protesters are convicted, or very likely to be convicted in the near future, by an authority many of the public would assume impartial. After the derogatory labeling convinces some of the public, the politicians might use political and legislative weapons to restrict some kinds of speech or deprive citizens of freedom to a certain extent. Overall, 24-hour court is clearly dangerous. It curbs the rights of suspects. And it leaves the judicial system weaponised and judicial power usurped by politicians. It should not exist.