Forum: Author Hangout

Agreed. That's the most likely candidate.

In my eyes, it's just an excuse to get a vacation in Europe on the taxpayers dime. There is nothing they do that cannot be done via teleconference.

In my eyes, it's just an excuse to get a vacation in Europe on the taxpayers dime. There is nothing they do that cannot be done via teleconference.

I do not think that US judges get reimbursed by tax dollars for attending such conferences.

Why not?

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/privately-funded-seminars-disclosure/judicial-conference-policy-judges-attendance

The President and members of Congress travel all the time to perform their business activities and we tax payers pick up the bills.

There is probably a lot of cheating on this, but AFIK, they are only supposed to do that for "official business".

Professional development is not "official business" for a judge.

Learning and understanding your profession better isn't official business?

Learning and understanding your profession better isn't official business?

No it's not. "Official Business" means it's part of doing the job you are getting paid for.

Therefore association with organizations such as the one mentioned above by Keet is an important aspect of doing your job.

Unless your employer makes it an explicit job requirement or you are in a position where you make the rules (like a legislator) it's not official business.

Neither of those is true for US judges and these kinds of conferences.

Since it's not a US court, it likely has to be reported.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/privately-funded-seminars-disclosure/faqs-privately-funded-seminars-disclosure
I find nothing in that to preclude expenses. There is also more than one way to get paid. Funds could be coming to IAJ from the US, and the IAJ paying for expenses out of it. That's the more likely source as it's SOP for many organizations.

I find nothing in that to preclude expenses.

From that link:

and offers to pay for or reimburse that judge, in excess of $415, must disclose financial and programmatic information on this website.

To me that disclosure requirement makes no sense if the government is paying for it out of tax dollars.

If they could get directly reimbursed by the government, it would make more sense to outright ban outside reimbursement.

You're thinking too literally. They don't have to be directly paid out for the trip. Take law enforcement upper echelons for example. 'Training' at interpol and other international bodies of their nature doesn't always require an expense report. Especially when the entity in question is already subsidized by the US. There is more than one way for Feds of all types, including judges, to get around paying for it themselves.

I didn't say they had to pay for it themselves. But US Federal judges have to file financial disclosures if the reimbursement by an outside party is more than around $400.

And if you are saying the IAJ is supported by US tax dollars, it's on you to offer some evidence of that.