The reality is that rather not say. In the title of the article I quoted from a private letter, but perhaps because they think other practitioners. You may find that Amazon can contribute to your knowledge. Watching the judicial reform, which reduces mainly to an improvement of the judges (immunity, salaries, building palaces of justice), we see that in fact the very justice nothing changes. I am sure that there should be no such thing as a "bad judge" for the reason that these are our neighbors. Neighbors across the country, at home, on the landing – the usual "subjects" of our country, they are no more "citizens" than ourselves, such as teachers, doctors, public servants. Neither bad nor good – part of state system. They may not respect us, we may not respect them. What comes first – to understand it makes no sense, because all "good." I have repeatedly referred in his appeal against the station. 2 of the , which states that 'civil proceedings should create a respectful attitude toward law and justice. " I think that the legislator in this article showed the usual inaccuracy of expression – shall form, rather than 'must'. In our country no one ever owed nothing to anybody, and the word "should" habitually refers to all the people, part of which are judges, in the sense of "should be, but it does not happen." Perhaps, therefore appeal and supervisory authority is always muffled to this substantive law. It seems awkward to answer: ' we do not need you', so in response – silence.