What are some legal action can you take if a judge treats you unfair because of your race? Would you be able to take any legal matter since they are protected by the governmetal immunity?
135731
yes you can!!\nhuman rights act in the uk relates to fairness of trial.\njudges are not protected my such immunity, as they doing their job wrong.
536670
Well, the problem is -- until these people have actually been charged with and convicted of some crime, she can't just remove them, absent a supermajority vote of the House.\n\nImproper conduct for a judge may be nothing more than a violation of a judicial ethical rule, and could be something as simple as allowing the appearance of impropriety. It can happen where the judge has never broken the law or even never actually done anything unethical -- just the appearance is enough to remove the judge sometimes. But just that appearance is not grounds for forcibly removing an elected official from office. They need to actually have done done something illegal, generally at felony level.\n\nAs far as the guy who had cash in his freezer, that's suspicious but not illegal.
55733
I would contact a lawyer and see if there is any federal regulations against that type of discrimination and if there is sue them under that.
576718
It is unconstitutional to be convicted by only 11 jurors unless your daughters attorney agreed to there being only 11.\n\nCall either of these two people, tell them what happened:\nGenoveva Perez\nFair Defense Act Appointment Designee\n936-538-8173\n\nBerenice Juan\nAssistant Fair Defense Act Appointment Designee\n936-538-8177
540449
Yes sadly with alot of liberal judges all they have to do is use the gay card or a race card and judges feel they have been treated wrong.\n\nEvidence, specialists to testify about her behavor,  and try to get her to testify as to what he says.
473807
Sometimes judges had personal experiences in the past with similar situations in cases that they try.  Thus, they decide in such a manner the way they experienced the case which should not be the case.  Appeal your case by a petition for review by the higher court citing the bias of the judge.
93240
Of course it isn't fair!  So much of our legal system is biased in favor of the perceived 'victim' that it all-too-often MAKES a victim.  Soooo many groups whine & complain about being oppressed & disadvantaged- when they're actually the ones with the advantage.  That's the problem with special rules for some- there will always be those willing to abuse them.
523255
The person who filed the Small Claims Court complaint either:\n\n1.  Failed to show up at the hearing also; or\n2.  Showed up in Court, and the Judge did not believe the evidence provided to support the complaint.\n\nSo, lucky for you, the Judge DISMISSED the case.  However, he dismissed the case without precluding the plaintiff from re-filing the complaint (i.e. without prejudice to his right to file a new complaint against you).  This means that IF the plaintiff wants to, the plaintiff can re-file the complaint against you - and you will have to respond.\n\nIf the Judge had dismissed "WITH prejudice," the plaintiff would not be able to re-file the complaint against you.  (If you are served with a new complaint,  DO NOT MISS THE HEARING!  You were lucky this time: do not tempt fate.)
605912
Wow...I got dizzy reading.....but I see your point.\nYes...it would be passing judgement on the original judger.\nSo...true....everybody just walks around the planet judging everything...all the time. Every thought is a judgement! LOL\nSo we're all judging each other and we all think we have the frickin' right to tell someone else not to judge somebody.\nI'm so confused now....can't type....head.... hurts....\nBut...if I came to you and said, 'don't judge me', you would say to me...."but your'e judging me"...and I'd say to you....'well, you judged me first'...and then you'd say, 'no...you judged me first by judging that I'd judge you'....\nWhat would Judge Judy do?
74293
You probably need a lawyer. If you can't afford one call the BAR Association and see if they recommend one who will work for free or cheap. Or call the Judge's office and ask his secretary what to do. Good luck.
200786
Here's the problem.\n\nUntil someone has received a fair trial (and sometimes even then), it's often very difficult to determine if they really are guilty, or if they are innocent. Because the state/government has significant legal resources available, the only way to ensure a fair trial is to make sure the defendant/accused has legal representation.\n\nBut remember that the criminal defendant only has legal representation for the initial trial and any guaranteed appeals. They do not have unlimited access to an attorney for any other claims they wish to make. And even if the attorney is appointed by the state (meaning, free for the defendant), that's part of the taxes we pay.\n\nAs to CIVIL trials, the rules are different. Each side has to pay their own legal bills,  or get someone else to pay the legal bills. His parents are paying his. That's just one of the unfair realities of a society where money makes a difference.\n\nUnless you can find someone to pay your legal bills, or find an alternative, then there will be an imbalance. Have you looked at free/low-cost legal clinics, non-profit legal aid organizations, pro bono (free) legal referral services? There are options out there.\n\nThat being said, even with imbalanced legal representation, if the judge is doing his/her job, the fact that your ex has been in jail should count significantly toward qualifications as a parent. Just don't let the process intimidate you. Don't get emotional. Just make sure the court is aware of all the facts.
117643
Well if you're looking for court opinions then why are you posting on Y Answers?  Each state has it's own laws regarding this, and then there are federal rules as well.  In either case the laws all make it a crime for failing to show if you don't have an excuse that is considered valid under the law.  Next if taking an Oath is a violation of your beliefs you can state that to the judge who can then just make you affirm/promise that you'll follow the rules/law.  \n\nAgain though without knowing the state your talking about it's hard to provide much more then that.
531153
tell all of this to the judge. if its your first offense maybe he will go easy on you. just be honest with him..be sure and be well groomed. be calm. and only answer what is asked.\n\ngood luck
427158
It will be a hard case to win, so what i would do is just appeal the comp decission and you will be assigned a new judge and see where it goes from there.  Then try suing your employer, but it is gonna be a hard case to try with a comp decission already in place.
415314
I used to get called a prarrie nig&er racism is ignorance in the first degree! Be proud of who you are and file a complaint with your employer and see if this qualifies for harrassment, maybe get a restraining order agasnt her!
596476
I suppose if you're going to find anyone here to agree with you wholeheartedly, it would be someone in my line of work.\n\nBut I don't think I can.\n\nCriminals, worthless as they are, are still present in this country.  As such, they are entitled to all the same protections and privileges you and I are by virtue of being present in this country.\n\nThe issue is that they use those protections far more often than you and I do, because they're out doing the very things you've talked about, where you and I aren't.\n\nYou and I have the right to take legal action against someone who causes us harm, either directly or indirectly.  Whether or not what we're doing at the time was legal or had merit is an issue to be weighed by a judge or jury.  If you or I broke into someone's house, got trapped in a garage and had to eat dog food, a judge or jury would decide what we were due, just as a judge or jury would decide what we were due if we were walking down the street and got hit by a drunk driver.\n\nI don't think it would be fair to tell people that just because of what they were doing, they're not entitled to anything because of the bad thing that happened to them.  If it were, prostitutes (regardless of how you feel about them), could not file criminal charges against someone who beat them, raped them, or killed them.  Using the logic you might want to apply to these kinds of situations, the prostitute was breaking the law (same as the burglar), so she shouldn't be afforded any legal protections (same as the burglar).  \n\nThe law is very dynamic....what might be considered illegal today, under a certain set of circumstances, might not be considered illegal tomorrow, under a slightly different set of circumstances.  Civil judges and juries have enough to decide about a case like you're talking about without having to also decide if what the plaintiff was doing at the time was a violation of criminal law as well (after all, that's why we have criminal courts).  What the plaintiff was doing at the time of the "injury" is certainly relevant and I'm fairly sure a judge or jury is allowed to consider it in some manner, but to tell people they can't sue someone just because what they were doing might have been against the law, or because we as a society don't like what they were doing, doesn't seem to be a good idea.\n\nLook - you're absolutely right when it comes to criminals taking advantage of the law in some cases.  But those cases, I suspect, are few and far between (but like anything else, they make the news because they are spectacular), and I'm certain they are the exception, not the rule.  And of course, we don't know what the criminal plaintiff has received as compensation... could be a judge or jury decided that one dollar was enough in some of these cases.  \n\nBut...no matter the awards, I think it's important to recognize that criminals don't, "have so many rights"...they have the same rights as law-abiding citizens do, and that's probably how it should be (but I'll repeat: they use them WAY more than the rest of us do).  Let the judge or the jury decide what someone's case is worth, don't just say they don't have a case because we don't like what they were doing at the time.
178965
Double standards.\nAnd they can insult you for being white but then insist it's not racist.