Latest news with #Rule11
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.
Time of India
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Timely intervention, says Goel; Karti highlights ‘underreporting'
New Delhi: The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings on Monday after reviewing a TOI report about rabies cases resulting from dog bites. "The news item contains some alarming and disturbing figures and facts," the bench observed. Former Union minister Vijay Goel, who has long been championing dog shelters, defined the move as a "timely and much-needed intervention" by the judiciary and said he would present data on the matter. In a press statement on Monday, Goel reiterated his key demands, including amendments to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, particularly on allowing relocation of biting dogs to a different place or shelter after sterilisation rather than being released in the original location under Rule 11. A national census of stray canines is also a demand. Goel's campaign has taken on renewed urgency following two dog attacks in Narela and Pooth Kalan, the latter resulting in the death of a six-year-old girl, who succumbed to rabies. Expressing strong objection to ABC Rule 20, which gives RWAs the responsibility of feeding stray dogs within private societies, appealed for a complete ban on street feeding — with legal consequences for violators. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "I'm trying to save both people and dogs from mutual hatred. If things continue this way, society will turn hostile towards animals," Goel said, responding to dog lovers who have allegedly threatened him online and branded him the 'enemy of animals'. Appreciating the move of the apex court, Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram, who is actively pursuing the matter with the central govt, posted on X, "Hope a holistic process is set into motion. Key asks: Enforce a no-dog-on-street policy, build shelters & house all strays. Vaccinate & neuter them, promote adoption with safety norms, ensure clear, humane & enforceable policy, hear & protect those who feel unsafe and fund authorities to act urgently & responsibly. " Chidambaram had even met PM Narendra Modi to discuss the problem on March 27. He claimed to have written to SP Singh Baghel, Union minister of state for animal husbandry and dairying, on July 24 regarding the review of ABC Rules and formulation of a national strategy to manage stray dogs. In his letter, he highlighted the underreporting of dog bite and rabies cases. "Your ministry has reported 3.7 million dog bites and only 54 suspected rabies deaths in 2024 as per National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) data. However, multiple independent bodies present contradictory evidence. For example, ICMR's national survey estimates 9 million animal bite incidents annually with up to 5,700 rabies deaths," he wrote. "While WHO maintains that India accounts for nearly 36% of global rabies mortality with 18,000-20,000 deaths annually. Furthermore, the health ministry's Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (2023) reported 286 rabies deaths — a sharp contrast to NCDC's 2024 figure of 54." The MP said that while ABC Rules might seem progressive in theory, it had "failed structurally and operationally". Chidambaram stated that sterilisation targets were routinely missed, and in most urban areas, they reached only 20-40%, far below the 70%+ required for an impact. "Municipalities suffer from severe manpower shortages, lack of coordination with NGOs and administrative paralysis. While the estimates suggest 6-10 dog bite incidents per minute, with serious injuries, the right of safety of citizens, especially children and the elderly, is being compromised," he maintained. Nanita Sharma, Supreme Court lawyer, contended that modifications to ABC Rules would be ineffective without committed sterilisation and immunisation efforts. "The problem is that govt and agencies are hand in glove and none of the agencies are doing their job diligently," Sharma said. "Had the municipal authorities sterilised and immunised 70% of the strays regularly, then the street dog population would have been contained. Relocation will, in fact, make it difficult to cover all strays. There is a need also to act logically and humanely towards these animals to reduce man-animal conflict. "
Express Tribune
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Justice for sale: true cost of plea bargains
Listen to article The Communist Manifesto (Marx, 1996) opens with a spectre, an idea so disruptive that it promised to upend entire class structures and build a society where development was free and fair. The dream, of course, was grand. But like most idealisms, it tripped over its blind spot: humans. Marx theorised systems but underestimated their participants. William Golding may have understood better: we do not destroy systems, we build them to destroy themselves. Plea bargaining, in Pakistan, is one such self-defeating system. A mechanism born of necessity, marketed as reform, and now repurposed as cover for legalised impunity. It started with a logic: courts are overwhelmed, cases drag on for decades, prisons are overcrowded. Let the accused confess, pay back a portion of what they stole, and be released. On paper, it's pragmatic. In practice, it's industrial-scale laundering – of money, names and responsibility. In the United States, plea bargains function within a known structure. There's Rule 11, sentencing guidelines, judicial supervision. It is flawed, certainly, and often accused of coercing confessions from the poor. But the system at least performs its due process. There is a courtroom. There is a record. There is the illusion of checks. Pakistan, in contrast, has no need for illusions. Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance allows for what is called "voluntary return" or a "plea bargain"— terms that suggest civility. What actually happens is that the accused confesses, offers a settlement figure, and in return is granted freedom. No trial. No conviction. No record. No stigma. We don't even pretend this is justice. We just call it "recovery". And some recover remarkably well. The public was defrauded in three separate housing projects by an individual who settled each case with NAB without conviction. Each time, he re-emerged with a fresh business name, a clean legal history, and a ready market. This is not a loophole. This is the system. At the centre of it stands the NAB chairman. He decides who gets to bargain, what the terms are, and when the deal is done. The courts are often little more than silent endorsers. Victims are not asked. The public is not told. The media may report a number, but the documents stay tucked away. And still, we insist on calling this deterrence. As though the quiet return of stolen wealth is the same as punishment. As though justice can be transacted like a tax dispute. The logic unravels when you start asking who actually benefits. The accused avoids prison. The state reclaims a portion of the loss. And the public, the ones defrauded, receive nothing. No apology. No compensation. No closure. A man who steals from the state pays the state and walks away. It's restorative, yes, but only for the powerful party in the room. The rest of us are left watching from the gallery. In another time, we held public trials. Witch-hunts, literal ones. The Salem witch trials were brutal, but at least they were honest about their spectacle. Now we conduct no trial at all. Guilt is negotiated, not examined. Evidence is sidestepped in favour of receipts. The public is asked to believe that the return of a few billion rupees justifies the loss of accountability. We have created a justice system with no memory. No scars. No institutional record. A man can offend, confess, pay, and return to public life as though nothing happened. Repeat offenders are welcomed back into business. Sometimes even into politics. And we nod approvingly because the docket is lighter. And what of those who don't or can't bargain? They rot in jails that barely qualify as habitable. The accused poor are thrown into remand cells where illness spreads faster than legal representation. Those accused of petty theft or minor offences endure years awaiting trial. They do not get settlements. They get silence. Plea or drown. That's the real choice. And yet, we continue to treat the return of embezzled funds as a moral victory. When Changpeng Zhao of Binance was fined $4.3 billion in the United States, he still served time, albeit only four months. Sam Bankman-Fried, the FTX founder who refused to settle, got 24 years. The contrast is staggering, but also revealing. In the US, even the largest financial criminals receive punishment, but it still reflects the same inequality: cooperation is rewarded, wealth softens consequences, and high-profile plea deals come with PR statements, not moral reckoning. It's not a triumph of justice, it's a controlled descent. But even that descent exists. In Pakistan, there is no fall at all. Accountability ends with a cheque. The wealthier the crime, the better the outcome. This isn't just unsustainable, it's corrosive. It erodes what little faith remains in institutions. It reinforces the idea that laws are for the poor, and negotiations are for the elite. It teaches that crime, when well-funded, is not only survivable, it's reversible. Plea bargaining doesn't need to be abolished. But it must be reformed beyond recognition. All agreements must be made public. Repeat offenders must be disqualified. Judicial oversight must be meaningful, not procedural. And the power to investigate must be distinct from the power to pardon. Most importantly, victims. Whether individuals or the public at large, must have a place at the table. Until then, what we have is not justice. It is a system of selective mercy, reserved for those who can afford it. Because here, justice isn't blind. It knows exactly who you are. And how much you're worth.
Economic Times
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Economic Times
Blake Lively hits back hard, moves to sanction Justin Baldoni's team over explosive and improper Taylor Swift extortion claims
Blake Lively is taking legal action against Justin Baldoni's team, alleging they falsely accused her of trying to extort Taylor Swift. Lively's legal team claims these accusations are baseless and intended to smear her reputation. She's also seeking records related to alleged harassment during the "It Ends With Us" shoot, claiming the investigation was delayed and biased. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Why is Blake Lively calling the accusations 'wilfully improper'? What are the details of the legal motion Blake Lively filed? Why does Lively claim the investigation wasn't handled properly? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What did the judge say about the letter from Baldoni's team? FAQs Tensions are escalating between Blake Lively and her It Ends With Us co-star and director, Justin Baldoni Blake Lively is seeking legal action against Justin Baldoni's legal team for making a false claim about Taylor their letter last week alleging that her team attempted to extort Taylor Swift in return for her public support, Blake Lively filed a motion Monday to sanction her "It Ends With Us" co-star and director Justin Baldoni and his team, as per a report by The has filed for sanctions in response to what she describes as a "wilfully improper" accusation against Taylor Gottlieb, Blake's lawyer, swiftly retorted in a statement that all of these alleged accusations are categorically denied by us; they are utterly disconnected from reality and cowardly attributed to purportedly anonymous sources, as per a report by The legal team claims the allegations are baseless and intended to smear her for the actress claim that claims made by Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman have "no reasonable basis in law and clearly were brought for an improper purpose" and that they were filed as a "obvious" means of "sowing harassing media narratives against Ms. Lively."The 30-page motion was filed Monday in New York's Southern District court filing stated, "These public attacks, along with the Rule 11 Plaintiffs' numerous claims against Ms. Lively that have no legal or factual basis, are wilfully improper and warrant sanctions,' as per a report by The actress' legal team filed a second motion on Monday to obtain documents related to the "It Ends With Us" probe into the alleged sexual harassment and retaliation campaign of its Lively's "Fourth Set of Requests for Production," Lively's team filed a letter motion to "compel" Wayfarer Studios and the "It Ends With Us" film to produce materials. The motion sought witness recordings and documents from Wayfarer's "alleged 'neutral' workplace investigation into Lively's sexual harassment and retaliation claims.""When Ms. Lively first expressed her concerns in May 2023, Wayfarer failed to look into them, even though it was legally required to do so," the four-page letter sent to Judge Lewis J. Liman stated."She may have also been spared the retaliatory smear campaign by Wayfarer and its Co-Defendants if her complaints had been promptly investigated, as required by law," the letter Wayfarer put off starting this investigation for years, until late January 2025. Wayfarer had already publicly and vehemently refuted Ms. Lively's claims by then, and she and a number of other people were sued for $400 million for making the same claims that are currently the focus of this "neutral" in widely reported media interviews by January, its attorney had repeatedly accused Ms. Lively of requested investigation items were described as "highly relevant" and required to "ensure that witness engagement has been proper and has been put at issues by Wayfarer" by Lively's team at the end of the lawyers moved to have the letter removed from the court's records on Thursday, and their request was approved."It took the court less than 24 hours to see through Mr. Freedman's irrelevant, improper, and inflammatory accusations, strike them, remove them from the court, and warn Mr. Freedman that further misconduct may be met with sanctions," a spokesperson at the time said in a letter's only goal is to "promote public scandal" by making baseless accusations against Lively and her attorney based on knowledge and to Lively's legal team, Baldoni's lawyers falsely accused her of attempting to extort Taylor Swift, describing the claims as legally baseless and intended to harm her reputation. She is now asking the court to sanction them for what she calls a "harassing media narrative."Lively claims she faced sexual harassment and retaliation while filming and calls the production's late and allegedly biased investigation a "charade." She wants documents and recordings to show that her concerns were ignored and that the investigation was not truly objective.
New Indian Express
21-05-2025
- New Indian Express
Madras HC orders reinstatement of employee of ordnance factory after 15 year battle
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ordered the reinstatement of an employee of the Ordnance Factory with lesser punishment almost 15 years after he was asked to take compulsory retirement on charges of doubtful integrity after finding him keeping in possession a computer floppy containing copies of official communications without any authorisation. A division bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar passed the orders recently to reinstate K Saravanan, an upper division clerk employed with the Heavy Alloy Penetrative Project, Tiruchy, an arm of the Ordnance Factory Board. He was asked to go on compulsory retirement on July 26, 2011 by the management for violation of the Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He approached the CAT against the order. The tribunal found that there was nothing to question the employee's integrity and the punishment was 'shockingly disproportionate and vindictive'. It set aside the order of compulsory retirement with the rider of a lesser punishment. During arguments in the high court, the management submitted that the Ordnance Factory is linked to national safety and the charges were serious. The bench reasoned, 'Even assuming that the photocopies were in the personal possession of the employee, no consequential prejudice was caused to the management, since he had not shared such official communications with any third person. In this view of the matter, both the charges can only be held to be minor in nature, which may not warrant the maximum penalty.' The bench ordered his reinstatement with a minor penalty within three months.
