Why editors and investigative journalists should investigate the use by federal judges of the new rules that became effective on April 10 for processing misconduct and disability complaints against their peers which will allow them to continue both to exempt themselves from any discipline and to support or tolerate with impunity their coordinated judicial wrongdoing (also at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/to_editors_investigators_17apr8.pdf ) Open Letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. the highest policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary, which on March 11, 2008, adopted the revised rules for processing misconduct and disability complaints filed by any person against a federal judge (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_CJRoberts_27mar8.pdf) Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Judicial Conference of the U.S., Presiding Officer c/o Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 Dear Mr. Chief Justice, Last February 9, I addressed to you, as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference, a letter* requesting that you cause the Conference to take cognizance at its March 11 meeting of my comment1 on the proposed Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct and Disability Proceedings. As expected, it adopted the Rules2. In my comment, I demonstrated that they are not different from the current ones that they replace. Hence, their application will have the same result as the official statistics show the current rules had from 1997 to 2006: Out of 7,462 complaints, the judges investigated only 7 and disciplined only 9 of their peers3. [see the graphs, infra] They systematically dismissed out of hand 99.88% of all complaints! Thereby the Judiciary self-exempted from any discipline and in effect abrogated an Act of Congress, i.e. the one enabling the making of those rules4. This presents you with the opportunity to do the right thing and be rewarded for it. How would you have felt if the Late C.J. Rehnquist could have done to you whatever he felt like it because he knew that he would reach his retirement before any of your complaints was investigated and led to his being disciplined, let alone his impeachment and removal? Your likely feeling of betrayal of trust, abuse, and impotence is shared by all those that complain in vain. They are left at the mercy of judges that can abuse their power to dispose of people’s property, liberty, and even life secure in the knowledge that their peers will protect them from any adverse consequences. As you would, they need a Champion for Justice. | The latter would ensure that all of you received the “Equal Justice Under Law” that has been denied them by ‘Unpunishable Judges Above Law’. Their enormous and uncontrolled power is in effect absolute power, the kind that corrupts absolutely. It turns a judgeship into a safe haven for coordinated judicial wrongdoing5. You can be the reluctant hero, who confronted with both the legal duty to safeguard the integrity of judicial process and the moral one of your oath ‘to do equal justice to the litigant and to the judge’, turns away from the comfort of complicit silence or willful ignorance and takes on the arduous task of denouncing judicial wrongdoing. A risky one, no doubt, which offers a commensurable reward: That of making a name for yourself as the Chief Justice who would not tolerate his peers’ wrongdoing6 to the detriment of “the general Welfare” and thus decided to expose the most secretive of the three branches so that “We the People” could see how they failed to discharge their duty, and how to ensure that others fulfill theirs, to “establish Justice”. Therefore, I respectfully request that you denounce the judges’ coordinated wrongdoing operated with impunity through their systematic dismissal of complaints against them. Your denunciation can become known as Justice Roberts’ I Accuse, the equivalent of Emile Zola’s exposure of abuse of power by government officials in the Dreyfus Affair7. Your moral courage can be that of Prometheus, who took the secrets of corruption from the judges to give our nation the fire of justice. Meantime, I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org |
Source: Judicial Business of U.S. Courts, 1997-2006 Annual Reports of the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO). These tables report on complaints filed and processed in the Federal Circuit, the District of Columbia, the 1st-11th circuits, the U.S. Claims Court, and the Court of International Trade. †The category “Special Investigating Committees Appointed” appears for the first time in the 2006 Table. Other tables similar to those above and accessible through the link below show the constant increase in the number of cases filed in federal courts and the contrast with the manipulated steady and decreased number of judicial misconduct complaints. Their source is 2005-2006 Judicial Facts and Figures, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_discipline/Facts_Figures_05-06.pdf All the original Tables from the AO sources are collected and reproduced in http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_draft_rules.pdf >sd:54-74, wherein they are accompanied by links to the originals. *********************************** Chapters of a Book in Progress Part I. The Facts of Coordinated Judicial Wrongdoing1. The Dynamics of Organized Corruption in the Courts: How judicial wrongdoing tolerated in one instance gives rise to the mentality of judicial impunity that triggers generalized wrongdoing and weaves relationships among the judges of multilateral interdependency of survival where any subsequent unlawful act is allowed and must be covered up3. The official statistics of judicial complaints filed and action taken that the judicial councils have produced and the Administrative Office published for 1997-2006 show that federal judges have engaged in the systematic dismissal of the 7,462 complaints filed, out of which they have disciplined only 9 peers! (page 8§III) Thereby judges have become unaccountable in their exercise of judicial power subject to no control, which is the hallmark of absolute power that corrupts absolutely. 4. Unimpeachable judges are judges above the law, Yet the Constitution provides judges with no immunity, nonetheless through the self-exemption from discipline judges have managed the feat that in the 218 years since the creation of the federal judiciary the number of judges impeached and removed from the bench is 7! 5. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Study Committee and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States had access to, and actual or constructive knowledge of, the official statistics showing the systematic dismissal by judges of complaints against them, yet they issued the Breyer Report and the Draft Rules Governing the Processing of Complaints, respectively, that pretended that the system of judicial self-discipline has worked effectively and can even be improved through the Draft Rules as if judges had ever been and were now willing to risk self-incrimination through the exercise of self-discipline...a sham! a. The Revised Rules Governing the Processing of Judicial Misconduct Complaints Adopted by the Judicial Conference of the U.S. on March 11, 2008, Will Not Stop Judges From Systematically Dismissing Them. Rule 2(b) provides that the rules are mandatory unless there is a finding of "exceptional circumstances," which is an easy finding to make since no two cases are ever identical. Through that pretext, “a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference”, that is, any judge or judicial body that handles complaints can suspend the application of any rule. In practice, the rules will be optional. The “mandatory” nature of the rules is illusory! Detailed analysis of the revised rules is available at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_rules.pdf. See what to do about the rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/how_petition_redress.pdf. b. Why there is a need and how to join forces to inform the public as well as members of Congress that the Revised Rules in effect authorize the systematic dismissal by federal judges of judicial misconduct and disability complaints against their peers. A new and effective system of judicial accountability and discipline must be adopted to replace the current system of judicial self discipline set up by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §351-364). This Act of Congress has been in practice abrogated by the Judiciary through such the judges' systematic dismissal of complaints against them: The official statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the graphs based thereon (supra) show that in the 10-year period 1997- 2006, there were filed 7,462 judicial complaints, but the judges disciplined only 9 of their peers!, thus dismissing 99.88% of all complaints! 6. Evidence of AG Michael Mukasey's incapacity to investigate former colleagues in the judiciary engaged in wrongdoing, lest he incriminate himself | Part II. In re DeLano or the case of a judicially supported bankruptcy fraud scheme1. The Salient Facts of The DeLano Case showing a bankruptcy fraud scheme as well as the support or toleration of bankruptcy, district, and circuit judges that show how a bankruptcy fraud scheme works 2. Judges that impair even the appearance of justice administered in public by disposing of motions with the circling of the words "Denied" or "Granted" and of cases with a summary order form of "Affirmance" or "Reversal" under Local Rule 0.23 and without any oral argument under Local Rule 34 of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 3. Issues Presented For Review to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Dr. Richard Cordero v. David and Mary Ann DeLano, docket no. 06-4780-bk, CA2; appellant's brief 4. How a court of appeals runs into a disqualifying conflict of interests when asked to review the decision of a bankruptcy judge, its appointee under 28 U.S.C. §152, who has supported or participated in a bankruptcy fraud scheme Part III. A Plan of Action to Counter Judicial Wrongdoing1. Analysis of Judicial Misconduct by Identifying Motive and Strategy to Expose it Through the Joint Effort of Judicial Misconduct Complainants and Citizens Concerned About Judicial Integrity 2. Two Approaches to Reforming the Judiciary: from inside the courts and from the outside 3. Programmatic Proposal to Unite Entities and Individuals to Use Their Resources Effectively in Our Common Mission to Ensure Integrity in Our Courts by Engaging in Specific Activities and Achieving Concrete Objectives 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 10; all in PDF 4. Synopsis of the proposal for a Watergate-like Follow the Money! investigation from the mandatory annual financial disclosure reports of judges, filed in Washington, DC, through the public property registries of county clerks' offices, to wherever concealed assets are found and can help answer the question whether for lack of accountability and discipline a federal judgeship become a safe haven for the coordinated wrongdoing 5. How You Can Help to Take the First Concrete Step Toward the Implementation of the Programmatic Proposal Through the Formation of the Virtual Firm on the Internet of Investigative Journalists and Lawyers to Expose Judges Engaged in Coordinated Wrongdoing and Thereby Cause Official Investigations that End Up in the Enactment of Judicial Discipline and Accountability Legislation a. Table of Division of Labor for the Formation of the Virtual Firm of Investigative Journalists and Lawyers described in the Programmatic Proposal b. Summarize your judicial misconduct complaint in 350 or fewer words to convince newspapers and bloggers of the need to investigate how judges engage in misconduct and self-exempt from any discipline 6. Proposal for a Citizens Board of Judicial Accountability and Discipline, composed of individuals unrelated and unresponsive to judges and not appointed by them, to process in public judicial conduct and disability complaints by requiring judges to account for their conduct and meting out discipline Go back to the top |
http://www.quickregister.net |
