(1) A judge should remain true to the law and preserve his professional skills and not be challenged by partisan interests, public shouts or criticism.  The fact that a state status provides is expressly, or by construction, that state courts can apply its provisions does not mean that it cannot be “recovered” and that it can be applied by s 79 of the Justice Act in the exercise of federal jurisdiction. The assumption to which Mason J referred in John Robertson and which must apply to both material and procedural laws will ensure its applicability to federal jurisdiction, unless the statute is applicable for any reason other than the reason why state courts have been designated by the state as instruments for enforcing that law. …  An example in the second category of provisions requiring functions beyond the reach of s 79 would be those that cannot be performed within the Commonwealth judiciary. In Mellifont v Attorney-General (Q), Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ: What was the problem? The district court was a state court. The law was an act of state. But the jurisdiction that was exercised was federal. The laws of one policy were enforced by the officers of another. Proceedings have been initiated for alleged violations of Commonwealth law, and attempts have now been made to pay state taxpayers` money in this (unsuccessful) trial on the orders of the other policy. From this point of view, there is every reason to think about why a state statute should apply to this state court. (3) A judge should provide the necessary financial information, including the disclosure of gifts and other valuables, in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations and guidelines of the Justice Conference. Guns are common sense rules.
They should be applied within the framework of constitutional requirements, statutes, other court decisions and decision-making laws and in all relevant circumstances. The code must be interpreted in such a way as not to undermine the essential independence of judges in judicial decisions. The rapid organization of the Tribunal`s activities requires that a judge devote sufficient time to judicial functions, participate in court on time, expedite the decision on submission issues, and take appropriate steps to ensure that court staff, complainants and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to do so. In Fencott [(1983) 152 CLR 570 to 608 by Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ], it was stated, “Ultimately, it is a matter of printing and practical appreciation as to whether a non-federal claim and a federal claim related to a proceeding fall within the scope of a case and therefore the scope of a case.” However, references to “printing” and “practical judgment” cannot be considered a contestant review. The considerations of printing and practical assessment are relevant, as the question of jurisdiction generally arises before evidence is provided and often before the submissions are complete. It is therefore necessary to decide on limited information. But the issue is not at large. What is a single controversy “depends on what the parties have done, the relationships between or between them, and laws that bind rights or commitments to their behaviour and relationships [Fencott (1983) 152 CLR 570 to 608 by Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ]. There is only one thing when different claims result from “common transactions and facts” or a “common substrate of facts” [Philip Morris (1981) 148 CLR 457 to 512 by Mason J], that the facts on which the claims depend “do not completely coincide” [Fencott (1983) 152 CLR 570 to 607 by Mason J, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ] in which the various claims are linked in such a way that the determination of one is essential for determination [Philip Morris (1981) 148 CLR 457 to 512 by Mason J], for example.
B in the case of a third-party procedure or if there are alternative claims on the same damage and if the determination of one requires either the other otios