Jump to a list of key articles  

Letter to

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

November 15, 2008

Dear Mr. Chief Justice,

I am addressing you as member of the Judicial Conference, as I did last June 9 and August 15, to put you on notice of the latest development in the judicial misconduct complaint concerning judicial involvement in a bankruptcy fraud scheme and the cover up of its evidence: Without any investigation, your colleague, CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, dismissed the complaint against his and his circuit peers’ twice appointee, i.e., Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY.

This dismissal illustrates the abuse of the self-discipline mechanism entrusted to you and your peers under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Abuse is worked through the systematic dismissal of misconduct complaints, whereby judges judging their peers, and all the more so their appointees (cf. Rule 21(c) 1^st sentence of the Rules for Judicial Conduct Proceedings) ensure unaccountability for their judicial power and ensuing coordinated wrongdoing.

It is confirmed by the statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which show that the 7,977 complaints concluded in the 1oct96-30sep07 11-year period gave rise to the appointment of merely 12 special com­mittees and only 11 disciplinary actions: 99.86% of the complaints were dismissed with no private or public discipline administered. The judges take care of their own to the detriment of outsiders.

As described in the complaint accompanying my June 9 letter to you, Judge Ninfo allowed Mr. DeLano, a banker for 39 years who at the time of filing his and his wife’s bankruptcy petition was and continued to be a bankruptcy officer at M&T Bank, to prepare their golden retirement without accounting for $673,657…in just one of the 3,907 cases that the Trustee had before the Judge. (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/DrCordero_JNinfo_ex_6jun8.pdf) 

To protect Mr. DeLano from an indictment for concealment of assets that would have induced him to plea bargain by ‘singing’ what he had learned about the scheme as a bankruptcy system insider, Judge Ninfo denied me every single document that I requested, including the DeLanos’ bank account statements, to defend against their motion to disallow my claim. Thereby he protected himself from implication in the scheme.

The District Court and CA2 joined in denying not only me, but also themselves every single document, which they needed to protect the integrity of judicial process and deserve “public confidence in [their] ability to redress misconduct”. (Rule 23(a))

So they all disregarded the inherently suspicious fact that the Trustee recommended and Judge Ninfo authorized the payment of $27,953 in legal fees, incurred to fight my discovery requests, by the DeLanos, who had declared in their sworn bankruptcy petition that they only had $535 in hand and on account.

This shows that CJ Jacobs’ dismissal through a “merits-related” stock order is part of the cover up of a bankruptcy fraud scheme driven by the two most insidious corruptors: money and unaccountable power. The accompanying petition for review discusses this and its certain dismissal by the 2^nd Cir. Judicial Council, which of the 345 petitions that it disposed of in that ‘96-‘07 period dismissed 100%.

Therefore, I respectfully request that you refuse to become accessory after the cover up and ‘seek informally’ (cf. Rule 5(a)) that the Council refer the complaint to the Conference under 28 U.S.C. §354(b)(1). Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Appeal to the Judicial Council

The Clerk of Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007

Dear Clerk,

I hereby petition the Judicial Council[1] for review of CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs’ order (O:page #) of October 7, 2008, which dismissed my misconduct complaint of June 6, 2008, under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §351 (the Act), against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY. I submit the following statements under penalty of perjury.

[1] This petition is filed under objection to the inherent partiality of judges judging their peers, friends, and appointees; their systematic dismissal of such complaints (Table [on page 4 of the appeal, reproduced below]); and CA2 judges’ self-interest in not finding their own two-term Appointee Judge Ninfo involved in a bankruptcy fraud scheme (¶¶14-15 infra).

1.   CJ Jacobs dismissed the complaint using these ready-made, fit-them-all conclusory statements (O:3), whereby he disregarded the requirement to “provid[e] the complainant with a full, particularized, but concise explanation, giving reasons for the conclusions reached”, (R.11C:18L5-6 = Rule 11 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings and Comment on it on page 18, Lines 5-6): (emphasis added)

The bulk of the allegations in the complaint are merely attacks on the correctness of the Judge's rulings in the bankruptcy proceedings. They are therefore dismissed as "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling." 28 U.S.C. §352(b)(1)(A)(ii) ; Rule 3(h)(3)(A), 11(c)(1)(B). Purely merits-related allegations are excluded from the Act to 'preserve[] the independence of judges in the exercise of judicial power by ensuring that the complaint procedure is not used to collaterally attack the substance of a judge's ruling." Rule 3 cmt. Such challenges can be pursued, to the extent the law allows, only through normal appellate procedures. [emphasis added]

The complaint's allegations of bias, cover-up, and conspiracy are wholly unsupported, and are therefore dismissed as "lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred." 28 U.S.C. §352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Rule 11(c)(1)(D). A decision for or against a party does not evidence bias. Nor do several such decisions. The Complainant has pointed to nothing other than the decisions themselves to support his claims of bias. [emphasis added]

2.   Dr. Cordero’s five-page complaint was supported by references to more than 600 pages of exhibits, listed on a Table of Contents and contained in a separate paper volume as well as on a CD. The complaint, the ToC, and the CD were served on the Chief Judge, each member of the Judicial Conference, its secretary at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, and Circuit Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Those documents, the dismissal order, and this petition can be downloaded in the 21MB file at: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/DrCordero_JNinfo_ex_6jun8.pdf The references here are to the pages in that file.

3. Indeed, the complaint pointed for support of its claims to

a) the bankruptcy petition with its implausible, incongruous, and unsupported declarations in its Financial Affairs Statement, Schedules A-J, and debt repayment plan filed in Judge Ninfo’s Court by Debtors David and Mary Ann DeLano on January 27, 2004 (04-20280, WBNY; D:23; ¶7 infra; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/DeLano_docs.pdf >V);

b) their 1040 IRS forms for 2001-03 (D:186) id. >VII;    

c) official documents evidencing their string of eight mortgages and the cover letter of their attorney, Christopher Werner, Esq.  (D:341) id. >VIII;  

d) the printouts of screenshots of “County Clerk’s Office Electronic Records Indexing”

that though lacking DeLano-specific infor-mation Mr. Werner passed off as explanation of those mortgages and Chapter 13 Trustee George Reiber unquestioningly accepted (D:477, 492) id.>;

e) the Trustee’s “Findings of Fact and Summary of 341 Hearing” (never mind that there is no such thing as a ‘341 Hearing’ under 11 U.S.C. §341 or anywhere else in the Bankruptcy Code) and his undated and unsigned sheet titled “I/We filed Chapter 13 [sic] for one or more of the following reasons” (Add:937), which despite their shockingly perfunctory and unprofessional content, scribbles, and interlineations were accepted also unquestioningly as the “Trustee’s Report” by

f) Judge Ninfo in his order confirming the DeLanos’ plan (Add:941);

g) CA2’s incompetent 3-liner order that dismissed Dr. Cordero’s appeal by citing two cases that are objectively inapplicable to the DeLanos’ bankruptcy since they do not deal with a case under Chapter 13 of individuals with a regular income adjusting their debts, or bankrupts’ refusal to provide documents supporting their petition, or even fraud, much less its being cured by “equitable mootness”, but rather concern complex Chapter 11 company reorganizations involving special debt-release arrangements with non-parties and their unraveling by recoupment from innocent parties (CA:2180; 2198§II)); and

h) the substandard transcript in Pidgin English by Court Reporter Mary Dianetti of the evidentiary hearing of the DeLanos’ artifice of a motion to disallow Dr. Cordero’s claim against them (CA:1732§2), at which Judge Ninfo manifested his bias for Mr. DeLano and his lawyer, Michael Beyma, Esq., a partner of the law firm in which the Judge was a partner at the time of his appointment by CA2 to the bench, and at which the Judge behaved as the law firm’s attorney for Mr. DeLano and allowed Atts. Beyma and Werner to wave answers to Mr. DeLano while the latter was on the stand giving testimony that confirmed Dr. Cordero’s version of the events in question (Tr:i-189; Pst:1255§E).  

6.   CJ Jacobs’ intent to misrepresent is confirmed by the fact that he did not even hint at who the DeLanos are. What unlikely bankrupts! Indeed, Debtor David DeLano was a 39-year veteran of the banking and financing industries who at the time of filing his and his wife’s bankruptcy petition was and continued to be employed by a major bank, M&T Bank, precisely as a bankruptcy officer. Mrs. DeLano was a Xerox technician, trained to think in a methodical, step-by-step fashion. During Mr. DeLano’s long career as an insider of the bankruptcy system, he has learned about how other insiders have coordinated their wrongdoing to give rise to a bankruptcy fraud scheme. The latter includes Judge Ninfo, for he can confirm whatever debtor’s plan he wants, however unlawful it may be, and deny whatever incriminating document he does not want, however pertinent it may be to verify the petition, and do so by any arbitrary means (D:355, 387) while relying on District Judge David Larimer (CA:1735§B, 1762§C), and his two times appointers, the 2^nd Circuit judges, to dismiss any challenge to his decisions (CA:2192§I).

cont. at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/21appeal/2DrCordero_

JudCoun_10nov8.pdf