Latest news with #CodeofConductfor
India Today
4 days ago
- Sport
- India Today
South Africa's Bosch handed demerit point for Dwarshuis send-off in 2nd T20I
South Africa all-rounder Corbin Bosch has been handed one demerit point for his conduct during the second T20I against Australia in Darwin on Tuesday. The incident occurred in the 17th over of Australia's chase, when Bosch dismissed Ben Dwarshuis and gestured towards the dugout-an action deemed likely to provoke an aggressive response from the admitted the offence and accepted the sanction, issued by Andy Pycroft of the Emirates ICC Elite Panel of Match Referees, eliminating the need for a formal hearing. The charge was initially levelled by on-field umpires Phillip Gillespie and Shawn Craig, with support from third umpire Sam Nogajski and fourth umpire Donovan ICC found Bosch in breach of Article 2.5 of the Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, which prohibits "using language, actions or gestures which disparage or which could provoke an aggressive reaction from a batter upon his/her dismissal during an international match." As this was Bosch's first offense within 24 months, he received a single demerit point. Level 1 breaches, such as this, carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and can result in a fine of up to 50 percent of a player's match fee, as well as one or two demerit points. Demerit points remain on a player's disciplinary record for 24 months, after which they are expunged. Accumulating four or more points within that period results in suspension points, which could lead to bans from upcoming international his disciplinary setback, Bosch delivered a match-winning performance on the field. He returned figures of 3 for 20 from his three overs, playing a crucial role as South Africa secured a 53-run victory over Australia to level the three-match T20I series at 1-1. The innings was anchored by Dewald Brevis, who smashed an unbeaten 125 off 56 balls, helping South Africa recover from the batting collapse that had cost them the first T20I. Bosch, alongside Kwena Maphaka, then tore through the Australian lineup, each claiming three wickets as the visitors were bowled out for three-match series will conclude with the final T20I in Cairns on Saturday, after which both teams will turn their attention to the upcoming three-match ODI series. Bosch will be eager to put the send-off behind him and focus on helping South Africa continue their strong run in the white-ball formats.- Ends
Newsweek
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Explained: The Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a formal misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a prominent federal judge in Washington, D.C., accusing him of violating judicial ethics by making improper public remarks about President Donald Trump and his administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the move on July 28. Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment by email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters Boasberg is presiding over Martínez v. Mayorkas, a high-profile case brought by a group of Venezuelan asylum-seekers who allege that their transfer to a Salvadoran detention facility on March 15 violated federal law and international human rights norms. The DOJ filed its complaint days after Boasberg said he was considering disciplinary proceedings against government lawyers for their conduct in that case, Reuters reported. The move raises questions about potential retaliation and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branch. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. AFP via Getty Images/Drew Angerer What To Know What Is a Judicial Misconduct Complaint? A judicial misconduct complaint is a formal allegation filed against a sitting federal judge claiming behavior that violates the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. These complaints are reviewed by the appropriate judicial council—in this case, likely the D.C. Circuit—and may lead to disciplinary actions, including reprimand, censure or even referral for impeachment in severe cases. However, most complaints are dismissed or resolved confidentially unless clear evidence of serious misconduct emerges. What Boasberg Said That Sparked the Complaint The DOJ complaint cites comments Boasberg made at the Judicial Conference in March, where he expressed concern that the Trump administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." According to the complaint, Boasberg's words and conduct "erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation under Rule 11," which stipulates how a chief judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals should respond when a judicial misconduct or disability complaint is filed. The department said the judge's remarks undermined the appearance of judicial neutrality and breached ethical standards requiring judges to avoid political commentary. What the Complaint Against Boasberg Says According to the court document obtained by Newsweek, the DOJ has accused Boasberg of violating Canon 1, Canon 2(A) and Canon 3(A)(6) of the judicial code, which prohibit judges from making "public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court" and require them to maintain impartiality and "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." The complaint further said Boasberg's conduct had called into question the integrity of pending proceedings and eroded public confidence in the judiciary's ability to fairly adjudicate matters involving the executive branch. What People are Saying Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X on Monday: "Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration. These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that." What Happens Next The complaint signals a sharp escalation in the broader institutional conflict between Trump's Justice Department and federal courts handling cases related to his administration's policies.
Mint
18-07-2025
- Sport
- Mint
India's Pratika Rawal, England team fined for breaching ICCs Code of Conduct after 1st ODI
Dubai, Jul 18 (PTI) India batter Pratika Rawal and the England team were on Friday fined for breaching ICC's Code Of Conduct after the conclusion of their opening ODI of the three-match series in Southampton. Rawal was handed a fine of 10 per cent of her match fee and given one demerit point for a Level 1 breach, concerning two separate incidents. Rawal was found guilty of making 'avoidable physical contact' with England bowler Lauren Filer during the 18th over and with Sophie Ecclestone in the following over. 'The Indian opener was penalised for two separate incidents that took place within a short period of time,' the ICC said on its website. 'In the 18th over, she made avoidable physical contact with bowler Lauren Filer while taking a single, and after being dismissed in the next over, she made similar avoidable contact with bowler Sophie Ecclestone on her way back to the dressing room,' it added. One demerit point was thus added to Rawal's record for it being her first offence in a 24-month period. India, who had clinched the five-match T20I series earlier, won the opening ODI by four wickets to take a 1-0 lead. The ICC said it has fined England team of five per cent of their match fee for maintaining a slow over-rate as they were found 'one over short of the target after time allowances were taken into consideration'. 'In accordance with Article 2.22 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, which relates to minimum over-rate offences, players are fined five per cent of their match fee for every over their side fails to bowl in the allotted time,' the ICC said. It added, 'Rawal and England captain Nat Sciver-Brunt accepted their respective sanctions imposed by match referee Sarah Bartlett, so there was no need for a formal hearing.'
GMA Network
16-07-2025
- GMA Network
'Bribed' court sheriff in Cavite fired, banned from gov't work
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday announced that it has fired and permanently banned from government work a court sheriff in Imus, Cavite, who accepted a bribe for a drug case. According to the court, it also revoked the retirement benefits of the court sheriff, who worked at the Imus City Regional Trial Court Branch 121. This came after a woman complained that the sheriff asked her for P200,000 to speed up the drug case of her friend, with the sheriff claiming that the judge handling the case was his aunt. He also claimed that the bail of the complainant's friend would be granted. Though she paid him P115,000, her friend's bail was denied. Following this, the court sheriff blocked her on social media and changed his phone number. In finding him guilty, the SC cited Section 1, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which states that court personnel should not use their position for personal gain. Meanwhile, it said Section 2 forbids them from accepting gifts that could influence their actions. 'Due to the seriousness of [the sheriff's] actions, as well as a previous record of misconduct, the SC imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal,' the SC said in a statement. 'The SC also reminded all court employees to be role models of responsibility, competence, and efficiency. They are expected to do their jobs with the highest level of care as officers of the court and agents of the law,' it added. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - It's not just Trump: Federal judges are also targeting universities
President Trump's assault on higher education is unprecedented in scope and impact, but not unprecedented in concept. A group of 13 federal trial and appellate judges beat him to the punch by almost a year. Trump has used the extraordinary powers of the executive branch to freeze billions of dollars of funding for seven leading universities, demanding changes in their curricula and administration. The judges were more selective, targeting only Columbia University, while foreshadowing the same educational intrusion that Trump later deployed with a vengeance. On May 6, 2024, the judges sent a boycott letter to Columbia's then-president, calling the university 'ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism and hatred for diverse viewpoints,' where 'disruptors have threatened violence, committed assaults and destroyed property.' They declared they would refrain from hiring Columbia graduates as judicial clerks unless the university imposes 'serious consequences for students and faculty who have participated in campus disruptions,' and institutes conservative curricular and faculty hiring reforms. On Mar. 7, the Trump administration announced, using strikingly similar language, the cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts due to Columbia's 'continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,' including the failure 'to stop radical protestors from taking over buildings on campus.' Additional cancellations, totaling more than $5 billion, have now been imposed on Harvard, Cornell, Brown, Princeton, Penn and Northwestern (where I am an emeritus law professor). The parallel is unmistakable. It was the judges who first sought to use the control of government funds and contracts — through the employment of clerks — to pressure compliance with their educational views and societal objectives. Trump is a wrecking ball, with no regard for norms, conventions or past practices. We expect judges to be more judicious. We especially expect them to comply with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits leveraging clerkship appointments for extra-judicial objectives. Canon 3B(3) of the code states that judges must make hiring decisions, including law clerks, 'fairly and only on the basis of merit.' In addition, Canon 2B prohibits the exploitation of their position to achieve non-judicial purposes by 'lend[ing] the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge.' The Columbia boycott has nothing to do with the merits of unknown future applicants, who will not graduate until 2027 or 2028, and are uninvolved in the misbehavior of last year's Gaza protesters. Instead, it is intended to coerce Columbia into taking unspecified disciplinary measures against 'disrupters,' and undefined steps to broaden 'viewpoint diversity on the faculty and across the administration — including the admissions office.' The ethics rules have no exception for professedly honorable objectives. Law clerks are public employees, provided to judges for assistance in deciding cases. It is improper to dangle such positions before third parties as inducements to advance a judge's ideological agenda, no matter how seemingly virtuous. Unfortunately, the code of conduct can only be enforced by committees of federal judges, who are predictably protective of their colleagues in all but the most egregious circumstances. Formal complaints have been lodged against some of the boycotting judges under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, but they have all been dismissed. The most recent dismissal came earlier this month from a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council, sitting in Chicago. Obviously conscious of their own prerogatives, the panel members stressed the 'sensitive and highly confidential' relationship between judge and clerk. Thus, 'commensurate with the importance and sensitivity of the position, judges have broad discretion in the selection of their law clerks,' apparently limited only by anti-discrimination and anti-nepotism rules. The panel's 12-page order simply ignores the glaring ethical problem inherent in withholding clerkships to compel the behavior of entire universities. In other contexts, the use of government jobs as rewards or penalties has been recognized as corruption. The panel, however, treats the boycott as though it were simply one more criterion for employment, akin to grade point average or law review membership. No one would have noticed, or cared, if the individual judges had simply chosen to exclude Columbia graduates from consideration, but that was never the purpose of publishing their open letter. The judges' boycott was more than an exercise in personal choice. It was an attempt to enforce compliance with their stated demands. In that regard, Canon 2B prohibits judges from using their official position to benefit their 'private interests,' which is an apt description of exploiting clerkships to coerce a judge's curricular preferences. The panel shrugged off that problem in one sentence, saying the boycott's goal was 'to improve the quality of legal education [which] concerns the law more generally and not the judges' private interests or the private interests of others.' This interpretation recasts ideological objectives, such as hiring more conservative professors, as law improvement. It consequently opens the door to all sorts of other abuses, so long as they are characterized as serving the public interest. By that reasoning, a federal judge could refuse to hire a local university's graduates unless the athletic department fires the football coach. A federal judicial appointment, however, does not include a roving commission to cure perceived social ills through employment boycotts. Judges may offer clerkships to whomever they choose. What they must not do is use the threat of non-hiring to extract concessions from third parties. Trump surely did not need the example of a judicial boycott to embark on his campaign to remake higher education in his own image. Federal judges, on the other hand, should be embarrassed by their participation and endorsement of such proto-Trumpian tactics. Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
