d. Despite all that borrowing, they declared household goods worth only $2,910 (C:1439) …that’s all they pretend to have accumulated throughout their combined worklives, including Mr. DeLano’s 39 years as a bank officer, although they earned over a 100 times that amount, $291,470, in only the three fiscal years of 2001-03 (C:1499)…Unbelievable!;
e. They also strung together mortgages since 1975, through which they received $382,187 (Add:1058) to buy their home; yet in 2005, that is, 30 years later, they lived in the some home but still owed $77,084 and had equity of merely $21,415 (C:1438). Mindboggling! (Add:1058¶54)
34. Although the DeLanos have received over $670,000, as shown by even the few documents that they reluctantly produced at Dr. Cordero’s instigation (ToEC:110), the officers that have a statutory duty to investigate evidence of bankruptcy fraud or report it for investigation not only disregarded such duty (ToEC:111), but also refused to require them to produce (Add:1022) documents as obviously pertinent to any bankruptcy petition as the statements of their bank and debit card accounts…for such documents would show the flow of the DeLanos’ receipts and payments and thereby reveal the fraud that they had committed and that the officers had covered up. Judge Jacobs too disregarded the Statement that Dr. Cordero sent him analyzing these incongruous declarations (C:1297¶¶15-17) and had it returned to the sender (C:1317).
35. What has motivated these officers to spare the DeLanos from having to produce incriminating documents? (D:458§V) All have been informed of the incident on March 8, 2004, that to a reasonable person, and all the more so if charged with the duty to prevent bankruptcy fraud, would have shown that the DeLanos had committed fraud and were receiving protection from exposure: Trustee Reiber unlawfully allowed his attorney, James W. Weidman, Esq., to conduct the meeting of creditors (28 CFR §58.6(10); 11 U.S.C. §341) where the latter unjustifiably asked Dr. Cordero whether and, if so, how much he knew about the DeLanos’ having committed fraud, and when he would not reveal what he knew, Att. Weidman, with the Trustee’s approval, rather than let him examine them under oath, as §343 requires, while officially being tape recorded, put an end to the meeting after Dr. Cordero had asked only two questions! (D:79§§I-III; Add:889§II)
36. Judge Jacobs too was informed of this incident (C:272). Yet he did not conduct any investigation or ask for any documents, such as the tape of that meeting of creditors or, after the effort to impede the holding of the adjourned meeting failed, the transcript of such meeting, which contains incriminating statements by Attorney Werner of his having destroyed documents of the DeLanos. (C:1299¶¶21-33) Nor did he respect his duty of promptness in handling a misconduct complaint. The one of March 19, 2004, against his colleague, Chief Judge Walker, was in its seventh month when on September 24 Judge Jacobs “dismissed [it] as moot [because] the Complainant’s judicial misconduct [against Judge Ninfo] was dismissed by order entered June 9, 2004”. (C:392) Yet it took Judge Jacobs another 2½ months to dismiss it!? And still he got wrong the date of that earlier dismissal that he himself had written, and that was entered, on June 8 (C:144, 148), a mistake revealing the lack of care with which he wrote an otherwise perfunctory decision (cf. C:711).
37. As CJ Walker had done, Judge Jacobs condoned with his inaction Judge Ninfo’s misconduct, thus encouraging him to engage in more brazen bias and disregard for the rule of law: Dr. Cordero submitted a statement on June 9, 2004, to Judge Ninfo showing on the basis of even the few and incomplete documents that the DeLanos had produced (ToEC:62¶¶5-11; D:165, 167, 178, 186, 189; C:1415) that they had fraudulently concealed assets, and requesting that they be referred to the FBI and that Trustee Reiber be removed (D:193). Judge Ninfo reacted by joining the DeLanos in a process abusive maneuver that used
a) a motion to disallow Dr. Cordero’s claim (D:218; cf. D:249; ToED:210§II);
b) an order directing Dr. Cordero to take discovery of that claim in Pfuntner (D:272; cf. D:440) only for every single document that he requested (D:287, 310, 317) to be denied by both the DeLanos (D:313, 325) and the Judge (D:327; cf. ToEA:153§7) and
c) a sham evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2005 (Pst:1255§E; cf. C:193§§1-3) that ended as predetermined in disallowing Dr. Cordero’s claim and stripping him of standing to participate further in DeLano (D:20§IV, ToEC:109).
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Table of Cases all in PDF