Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org is a non-partisan and non-denominational website that advocates judicial reform, first at the federal level, through legislation prohibiting and penalizing judges’ acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts. Such acts have become so consistent as to form a pattern of conduct pointing to the judges’ coordination of wrongdoing. The factors behind this conduct are the judges’ refusal to discipline themselves in court through the statutory mechanisms therefor, the resulting immunity from prosecution that they enjoy as a matter of fact, and the pursuit of unethical or illicit benefits that becomes an insidious motive when wrongdoing is riskless. Given these factors, the website has developed and keeps refining a plan of action to achieve judicial reform. Its first step to eliminate the wrongdoing within the courts that judges have felt safe to engage in is to expose through investigative journalism its prolongation outside the courts, where benefits are managed and enjoyed: illegal financial activity.  (Motive of Judicial Wrongdoing & Strategy to Expose It; Dynamics of Corruption)

Home     Search     Contact Us   

Jump to a list of key articles  

If a link does not work, copy and paste it in the address bar of your browser and remove any blank space and "%20"

between characters. Some files may take several minutes to download due to their large size.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/for_Firefox_users.pdf

by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@hotmail.com

 

How You Can Contribute

To Exposing Judges’ Wrongdoing

In Light Of Offshore Leaks’ Revelations Of Financial Wrongdoing

 

 

1. What Offshore Leaks are and

how tax evasion and money laundering harm all of us

 

Offshore Leaks are the leak of 2.5 million financial files on 260GB of data to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in Washington, D.C., and its report thereon, released last April 3, revealing how more than 120,000 offshore companies and trusts in 170 countries manage between $21-32 trillion in private financial assets, including the trillions involved in the tax evasion and money laundering committed with their assistance and tax haven status by public officers, celebrities, and bankers acting for their wealthy clients and for their own accounts; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Legal_news.pdf >Ln:176.

 

By comparison, the FY13 U.S. budget is $3.8 trillion, the Gross Domestic Product is $16.2 trillion, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf, and the national debt stood on April 18 at $16.78 trillion, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np .

 

Tax evasion and money laundering aggravate the deficit and spread criminality and official corruption. They harm all of us.

 

 

2. The Investigative Journalists have the expertise to expose

federal judges’ financial wrongdoing and bring about the exposure of their non-financial too

 

Wrongdoing of any nature committed by judges corrupts them, their judiciary, and their administration of justice. It constitutes a denial of the fundamental due process right to appear before a fair and impartial court, for a judge that is foremost concerned with not being caught for her wrongdoing will disregard the law to safeguard that interest to the detriment of litigants and the rest of the public. Judges' financial wrongdoing only renders more likely their non-financial wrongdoing.

...

 

That warrants Dr. Cordero's proposal to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for them and him jointly to:

 

1)   publish, http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:98§2, the verifiable facts of federal judges’ wrongdoing already stated in his study of wrongdoing by both the Federal Judiciary and its judges, id. >21§§A-B;

2)   further pursue the leads in his study through investigation, 102§4, that would substantially benefit from the unique expertise, software, and contacts that they developed during their Follow the money! investigation of the Offshore Leaks files; and

3)   promote and execute a related multidisciplinary academic and business venture, 119§1 -which may interest the reader too- intended to lead to judicial reform, 130§5, including citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline, 160§8.

     ...

Therefore, Dr. Cordero respectfully requests that you, in your own and the public’s interest, email at the addresses below the Consortium and its journalists to express your support for his offer to make a presentation to them of his joint publication, investigation, and venture proposal. He also requests that you invite your colleagues, id. >a&p26-27, to email the Journalists or cosign your emails to them, which can be sent to:

ICIJ Director Gerard Ryle: gryle@icij.org

ICIJ Deputy Director Marina Walker: mwalker@icij.org

the ICIJ journalists: investigations@icij.org

 ...

 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf 

 

***********************************************************************

 

Who or what caused

The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico73a

to kill their series of stories that suspected

Then-U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor(51§B),

the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court,

of concealing assets of her own?

 

Was there a quid pro quod?(61§1)

 

Can the findings of professional and citizen journalists(125¶180)

investigating these queries

change the course of the presidential campaign and the outcome of the election

and set in motion a process of judicial accountability and discipline reform?

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/20120_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

 

Tweet:            Who had #NYTimes #WPost #Politico kill their stories of assets concealment by Obama's

#Judge #Sotomayor? http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

 

Judicial Unaccountability and Self-exemption from Discipline

In the U.S. Federal Judiciary

resulting from the judges' concerted circumvention of

the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and its Rules of application

De facto guaranteed immunity from accountability and discipline for

the exercise of judicial power over people's property, liberty, and even lives,

as shown by the official statistics on the judges' disposition of complaints against them,

has given rise to institutionalized coordinated wrongdoing in the federal judiciary.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power",

whose essential quality is unaccountability,

"corrupts absolutely".

Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 3, 1887

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow-money/unaccount_jud_nonjud_acts.pdf

and then there is money!"the root of all evil", 1 Timothy 6:10

In calendar 2009 alone, U.S. federal judges ruled on $325.6 bl. at stake in consumer (predominantly non-business) bankruptcies. In non-consumer bankruptcies, they dealt with additional $10s of billions.

In the FY05-09 period, 6,142,076 bankruptcies of either type were filed in the federal bankruptcy courts involving over $1 trillion. Yet, only 0.23% of those bankruptcies of either type were reviewed in the federal district courts and only 0.07% in the federal circuit courts although bankruptcy cases concerned 79% of the 7,808,450 new cases filed in the federal courts during that 5-year period.

 Such de facto unreviewability of bankruptcy cases breeds unaccountability and the enormous amounts of money at stake engenders corruptive greed. As a result, federal judges that need not fear exposure can decide such cases with disregard for due process

process and allow those decisions to stand regard-less of how wrongly, in self-interest, and corruptly those cases are decided. http://Judicial-Discipline -Reform.org/statistics&tables/bkr_stats/bkr_as_ percent_new_cases.pdf

When unaccountable power, the key element of absolute power, strengthens the growth and is in turn fed by the root of all evil, money, the result is that both corrupt absolutely. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/Dynamics_of _corruption.pdf

How A Bankruptcy Fraud Scheme Works: Its basis in the corruptive power of the lots of money available through the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and unaccountable judicial power; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_ money/How_fraud_scheme_works.pdf

 

 

                        Percentage of Bankruptcy Cases of Total New Cases in FY05-09[1]

1. 

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

2. 

# of new cases & appeals in US courts

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

Totals

%

3.

In bankruptcy courts[2]

1,782,643

1,112,542

801,269

1,042,806

1,402,816

6,142,076

6,142,076/

 

 

 

 

7,808,450

=79%

4.

Civil in dis cts

253,273

259,541

257,507

267,257

276,397

1,313,975

5.

Criminal in dis cts

+69,575

+66,860

+68,413

+70,896

+76,655

352,399

6.

In district courts[3]

=322,848

=326,401

=325,920

=338,153

=353,052

+1,666,374

7.

Bkr/

(bkr+civil+criminal)

 

 

 

 

 

=7,808,450

8.

Bkr/

(bkr + civil)

 

 

 

 

 

6,142,076

+1,313,975

=7,456,051

6,142,076/

7,456,051

=82%

9.

Bankruptcy appeals and withdrawals to district courts[4]

3,000

3,389

3,164

2,383

2,313

14,249

 

 

14,249/

6,142,076

=0.23%

10.

Bkr appeals to BAPs[5]

921

881

887

716

749

+4,154

18,403/

6,142,076

=0.3%

11.

Bkr appeals to dis cts and BAPs

  3,921

  4,270

  4,051

  3,099

 3,062

=18,403

12.

Bkr appeals to

regional circuit courts[6]

865

821

845

773

793

4,097

4,097/G1

=0.07%

13.

All appeals to regional circuit courts[7]

68,473

66,618

58,410

61,104

57,740

312,345

4,097/G11

=1.31%

14.

Civil pro se cases in district courts[8]

76,314

69,919

70,240

70,948

71,543

358,964

358,964/

1,313,975

=27%

15.

Pro se bankruptcy appeals in circuit courts[9]

236

261

252

243

314

1,306

1,306/

4,097

=32%

16.

All pro se appeals in circuit courts[10]

28,559

28,671

25,167

28,055

27,805

138,257

138,257/

312,345

=44%

17.

 

October Terms in the Supreme Court[11]

 

 

18.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

19.

 

04

05

06

07

08

Totals

%

20.

Cases disposed of by the SCt by full opinion

85

82

74

72

83

396

396/

7,808,450

=0.005%

 

[1]  Source of statistics on U.S. courts’ caseload: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness.aspx

For an overview of such caseload, see Judicial Caseload Indicators, in Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts >Judicial Business [2005-2009];

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/JudicialBusiness2009.pdf

[2]  Table 6 U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2005–2009, 2009 Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts > 20;

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/JudicialBusinespdfversion.pdf

Cf. Table F. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts—Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 200[5-2009]; e.g. http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/appendices/F00Sep09.pdf.

[3] Table S-7. U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Filed, by Origin, During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2005 Through 2009; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/tables/S07Sep09.pdf 

[4] Table C-2A. U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Commenced, by Nature of Suit, During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2005 Through 2009; > http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/appendices/C02ASep09.pdf 

[5]  Table B-10. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels—Appeals Commenced, Terminated, and Pending, by Circuit, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 200[5-2009]; http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness.aspx >Judicial Business 200[5-2009]

[6] Table B-3. U.S. Courts of Appeals—Sources of Appeals and Original Proceedings Commenced, by Circuit, During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2005 Through 2009; http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/appendices/B03Sep09.pdf

[7]  Id.

[8] Table S-24 or S-23. Civil Pro Se And Non-Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 200[5-2009]; e.g.,

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness2005.aspx

[9] Table S-4. U.S. Courts of AppealsSources of Pro Se Appeals, 200[5 and 2009], Judicial Business 200[5-2009], Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts; e.g., http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness.aspx

[10]   Id.

[11]  “The Court's Term begins on the first Monday in October and ends on the preceding day the next year. The October Term 2008 begins on October 6, 2008.” http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx. By contrast, when the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts uses a comparable 12 month period to measure the business of all other courts, it begins counting such period from October 1 and ends it on September 30 of the following year, and refers to the period as the fiscal year of the year in which the period ends; e.g. its FY08 began on October 1, 2007, and ended on September 30, 2008. Its calendars year run from January 1 and to December 31 of the same year. As for its annual report, it covers the fiscal year in the name of the report. So its 2009 Annual Report states “This report on the business of the Federal Judiciary for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009,…”;

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/JudicialBusiness.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2009/JudicialBusinespdfversion.pdf

 

***********************************************

 

Proposed Plan of Action to Investigate and Expose

Coordinated Judicial Unaccountability

 

ACADEMIC AND BUSINESS VENTURE PROPOSAL

For the Study of Evidence of a Judicially Condoned Bankruptcy Fraud Scheme

and Multidisciplinary Research on, and Investigation of, the Federal Judiciary

that Apply Ethics to Determine an Honest Person’s Duty vis-à-vis Wrongdoing

and Generate the Findings To Produce Scholarly Writings

and  Offer Educational, Consulting, and Representative Services

to Clients as Part of Advocating Judicial Accountability and Discipline Reform

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/DeLano_course/17Law/DrRCordero_aca&biz_venture.pdf

 

The DeLano Case a hands-on, role-playing, fraud investigative and expository course that studies real cases revealing the legal and practical conditions giving rise to  a bankruptcy fraud scheme  and trains law, journalism, and accounting school students in understanding complex interpersonal systems  by piercing explanatory façades with perceptive positing and searching for, and processing of, evidence through the application of dynamic analysis of conflicting and harmonious interests.

cf. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/DeLano_ course /17Law/DrRCordero_course&project.pdf >Dn:3, 8-11, 52-54

The Disinfecting Sunshine on the Federal Judiciary Project an academic and business venture consisting of multidisciplinary research and investigation to expose the workings of the most secretive branch of government, its abuse of its self-policing system to self-exempt from discipline, and the thus induced participation by judges in riskless coordinated wrongdoing; and advocating official investigations of the Judiciary and legislation transferring the policing of judges’ conduct to an independent citizens board for judicial accountability and discipline

cf. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/DeLano_ course /17Law/DrRCordero_course&project.pdf >Dn:1

From an activity to an  institution for Equal Justice Under Law

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/DeLano_course/17Law/DrRCordero_aca&biz_venture.pdf

1. (kind of activity) a multidisciplinary academic and business venture

a) guided by ethical, public service, and financial considerations and

b) consisting of

(i) wide-angle technology-based desk research and

(ii) a test-case-focused Follow the money! field investigation for

2. (participants) students earning a higher educa-tion degree, in general, and those at law, accounting, and journalism schools, in particular, and/or a team of experts in their own right to

3. (end goal) bring about

a) legislation enabling

b) the establishment of a government independent citizens board for judicial accountability and discipline composed of party unaffiliated members entrusted with subpoena power and charged with publicly holding judges’ accountable, subject to discipline, and liable for damages so as to ensure that “justice is administered without respect to persons and according to the Constitution and the laws" [1]; by taking concrete steps to

4. (means) expose

a) the Judiciary’s and judges’ modus operandi in disregard of ethical standards and due process requirements;

b) their abuse of power to dispose of cases and make procedural rules in self-interest;

c) their wrongdoing in coordination among themselves and with other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems;

d) the benefits they grant to themselves and the insiders;

e) the harm that they inflict upon outsiders and the public at large;

f) judges’ and insiders’ concealed assets, money laundering, and other unethical or illegal activity; through

5. (publication) the students and/or the team of experts making

a) a multimedia public presentation at the university auditorium simultaneously

b) broadcast from

(i) the radio and TV station and website of the university’s journalism and mass communication program,

(ii) traditional media entities, and

(iii) citizens journalism websites and

c) a subsequent tour of presentations and press conferences,

d) at all of which a brochure and CD are distributed;

e) a documentary;

f) a series of Émile Zola’s I Accuse!-like articles; and

g) a free e-newsletter; which are apt to

6. (strategy)

a) outrage the public and

b) set off a rash of similar media investigations until the critical mass of the clamor provoked by the exposed wrongdoing

c) compels law enforcement authorities and Congress to conduct their own official investigations, resulting in

d) confirmatory and revelatory findings that

e) embarrass, shame, and deprive of moral standing judges who are thus caused to resign, as Justice Abe Fortas had to in 1969; and

f) heighten the demand for, and force,

g) the passage of effective judicial accounta-bility and discipline legislation; thereby

h) taking judicial accountability and discipline

(i) from the hands of judges handling in self-interest judicial misconduct complaints by exempting their colleagues from any investigation and discipline and

(ii) out of their turf, the courts, where judges are held not suable at all or only before peers partial to them, and

i) putting it in the hands of a citizens board for judicial accountability and discipline; a by-popular-demand process triggered by the discovery of

7. (types of information) information covering the spectrum from

a) the appearance of ethical improprieties revealing unfitness of character for judicial office; through

b) unfairness and partiality pointing to dereliction of the fundamental judicial duty of affording due process of law; to

c) criminal activity engaged in individually or coordinated with others, whether as a prin-cipal or a passively enabling accessory, within an institution amounting to a corrupt enter-prise, that warrants impeachment and removal from office; and is gathered from

8. (information sources)

a) judges’ publicly filed financial, seminar attendance, honoraria and gifts disclosure reports;

b) written opinions, articles, newsletters, speeches, and official news of the Judiciary;

c) court calendars, case dockets and records, annual reports, and statistics;

d) archived records;

e) property registries and other public records;

f) biographies of, and interviews with, judges, their clerks, and bankruptcy and legal systems insiders;

g) newsmedia reports and law websites and blogs;

h) accounts of dealings with judges and insiders submitted by the public; by applying

9. (techniques)

a) legal, economic, corporate, and news data and social networks research and analysis;

b) computer forensics;

c) database correlation;

d) literary forensics;

e) fraud & foren­sic accounting and auditing;

 f) statistics;

g) investigative journalism’s techniques for interviewing and developing sources;

h) private investigators’ personal and technical surveillance techniques;

i) nonviolent civic action means;

j) mass communications techniques for designing a public message and deploying a public relations campaign;

k) multimedia and marketing techniques for the life presentation, packaged distribution, and sale of research products and services, such as

10. (products)

a) oral and textual descriptions of the sociogram of the interpersonal relations of the judicial “guild”;

b) patterns in judicial writings and events evincing bias toward and against parties and ideologies;

c) lists, tables, and graphs of unlawful practices and trends or suspicious deviations from standards;

d) reports on the quantitative and qualitative impact of judicial wrongdoing on the administration of justice and the public’s legal and economic welfare;
 

e) summaries in a standardized format of verified accounts of judicial abuse of power and coordinated wrongdoing submitted by the public;

f) biographies and ratings of judges;

g) multimedia products and serial publications, including

h) a website, i) scholarly and investigative journalism articles,

j) documentaries and

k) a journal of judicial power and unaccountability studies;

l) seminars;

m) conferences;

n) research, consulting, and litigation services; all of which contains added-value expertise that generates market demand and develops

11. (institutional effort) visibility, reputation for professionalism, and recognition for work in the public interest that support for the formation of

a) an independent, party and church neutral, research, investigative, and teaching entity for the study of the most secretive and unaccountable branch of government, the Federal Judiciary, that attains the highest standards of scholarship;

b) a fair and courageous watchdog of judges’ ethics and respect for due process;

c) a firm of court litigators of test cases; and

d) a center for the advocacy among the public and in Congress of the establishment of a citizens board for judicial accountability and discipline; which are

12. (income sources) financially supported through

a) the sale of its products and services;

b) bookings of its presentations;

c) clients seeking expert advice, research, representation or publicity for cases exhibiting egregious wrongdoing and denial of due process;

d) students following a course of study for academic degree;

e) participants in seminars and conferences;

f) donations from the public and sponsors that understand the importance for our democratic form of government of the administration of Equal Justice Under Law.

[1] See the footnotes at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ DeLano_course/17Law/DrRCordero_aca& biz_venture.pdf

 

How do Federal Judges

Violate Due Process and Get Away With It?

 

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/why_j_violate_due_pro.pdf  

 The answer to that question is that they have nothing to fear from violating due process.

...a judge may further his wrongdoing through a blatant, intentional violation of a party’s Constitutional guarantee of due process of law and realistically face nothing other than a reversal of a decision. If the case is remanded, it may be even back to him so that he may give the appealing party another round of violations of due process that will wear him down emotionally and deplete his economic resources.

...Such reversal is totally inconsequential, for it is not other judges who evaluate the reversed judge’s performance and make any recommendation for his promotion to a higher court, not to mention promote him to it....

  A Watergate-like Follow the money! Journalistic Investigation Into

Institutionalized Judicial Wrongdoing

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/DrCordero-journalists.pdf

 ...You can use the DeLano case1 to conduct a pinpointed Watergate-like Follow the money! journalistic investigation reminiscent of that led once by Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The exposure of coordinated or tolerated wrongdoing by judges all the way to the judiciary’s top can cause such public outrage as to pressure law enforcement authorities and Congress into opening their own investigations; their findings can cause politicians to adopt legislation to render judges accountable for their actions and amenable to discipline. The reaction to the AIG bonuses illustrates the soundness of this strategy.

 ...For the bloggers and investigative journalists that expose evidence of coordinated judicial wrongdoing there are rewards awaiting them: 15 minutes of fame; a Pulitzer Prize; a bestseller or movie hit like All the President’s Men; the election as Time's Person of the Year; the title of ‘Our Generation’s Woodward/Bernstein’; and the most lasting and meritorious one of the recognition of a grateful nation for contributing to bringing our legal system closer to the inspirational ideal of “Equal Justice Under Law”.

1 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/DeLano _course/17Law/  DrRCordero_course&project.pdf >Dn:7

 

Chapters of a Book in Progress

Chapter I. The Facts of Coordinated Judicial Wrongdoing

1. 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 wrong-doing and weaves relationships among the judges of multilateral interdependency of survival where any subsequent unlawful act is allowed and must be covered up

2. The Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Judges Have Semi-annually Received Official Information About the Self-immunizing Systematic Dismissal of Judicial Conduct Complaints, But Have Tolerated It With Disregard for the Consequent Abuse of Power and Corruption

3. 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 systemat-

ic 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.  Such unaccountability encompasses both judicial and non-judicial acts and thus, the whole of a judge's conduct. It also includes the meetings of the Federal Judiciary's highest court administration policy-making body, namely, the Judicial Council of the United States, composed of the 13 chief circuit judges, the chief judge of the Court for International Trade, 12 representative district judges, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is its presiding member.

5. 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!

Chapter II. Judges' adoption and application of rules to self-exempt from discipline

1.  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!

2.  Evidence of AG Michael Mukasey's incapacity to investigate former colleagues in the judiciary engaged in wrongdoing, lest he incriminate himself.

3. Then-CA2 Judge Sonia Sotomayor earned $3,773,824 since 1988 + received $381,775 in loans = $4,155,599 + her 1976-1987 earnings, yet disclosed assets worth only $543,903 thus leaving unaccounted for in her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee $3,611,696 - taxes and the cost of her reportedly modest living and likewise withheld from it the DeLano Case, which reveals her participation in a cover-up of concealment of assets as part of a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/SCt_nominee/J Sotomayor_in tegrity/12table_JSotomayor-financials.pdf.  

See also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/SCt_ nominee/Senate/1DrCordero-Senate.pdf

Go back to the top

Chapter III. Statistics of Coordinated Judicial Wrongdoing

1.  Collected official statistics 1oct96 to 30sep09 of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts from which it follows that federal judges abuse the system of judicial self-discipline established under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §§351-364) by system-atically dismissing complaints against their peers; whereby they ensure their unaccountability and riskless coordinated wrongdoing; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/judicial_misconduct_com plaints.pdf

2. Statistics showing that the de facto unreviewability of bankruptcy cases, where around $.5 trillion is at stake annually, leads to corruptive greed, disregard for due process, and coordinated wrongdoing. A proposal for a multidisciplinary academic, investigative, and business venture; http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/statistics &tables/bkr_stats/bkr_as_percent _new_cases.pdf

Chapter IV. A judicial misconduct complaint that illustrates judges' disregard for the law resulting from their unaccountability

1. The corruptive effect of unaccountable judicial power is illustrated by the judicial misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY [1], for his bias and abuse of judicial power in his support of toleration of a bankruptcy fraud scheme. It was filed, as required by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §351), with the chief circuit judge of the federal circuit court that reappointed that judge to a second term of 14 years (cf. 28 U.S.C. §152).

2. That constitutes an insurmountable conflict of interests, for if the chief circuit judge were to investigate the bankruptcy judge, the chief and his circuit judge peers could end up being incriminated in having supported or tolerated the bankruptcy fraud scheme. That conflict derives from, and in turn reinforces, the dynamics of corruption in a close-knit group of people. As a result of such disregard for legality and conflict of interest, the complaint has been lingering with CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs since June 8, 2008, despite the requirement under the Act and the Rules for Conduct and Disability Proceedings, that such com-

plaints be dealt with "promptly" and "expeditiously"; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/10status_ inquiry_15aug8/5toCJ_Jacobs_15aug8.pdf

3. See also Open Letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the highest court administration 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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_ complaints/ DrCordero_CJRoberts_9feb8.pdf .

4. Petition For Review to the Judicial Conference of the U. S. and its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the denial of January 9, 2009, by the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit of the petition for review of November 12, 2008, of the dismissal of October 7, 2008, by CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the judicial misconduct complaint of June 9, 2008, against U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, docket number 02-08-90073-jm [1];

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/25 Committee/7DrCordero-JConfere nce_ 28feb9.pdf

Go back to the top

Chapter V. In re DeLano or the case of a judicially supported bankruptcy fraud scheme

1. 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.

Go back to the top

Chapter VI. A Plan of Action to Counter Judicial Wrongdoing

1. 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/ 10all 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

7. 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 ).

Go back to the top

Chapter VII. How-to

1. Advice on Filing a Judicial Misconduct Complaint Against a Federal Judge; http://Judi cial-Discipline-Reform.org/ Follow_money/complaint_ advice.pdf

2. How to Develop the Case Summary  on one side of a sheet of paper with hyperlinks to supporting documents and The Synoptic Paragraph that further summarizes the case in 150 Words or Less; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Summary_&_synoptic_paragraph.pdf

 

     

©2006 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved.   Home   Terms of Use   Contact Us   Search