38.     Dr. Cordero made Chief Judge Walker and Judge Jacobs aware of these developments by appealing to the Judicial Council and writing to Judge Jacobs (C:995, 1000, 1025). This time they acted promptly: They reappointed Judge Ninfo to a new 14-year term as bankruptcy judge! (ToEC:§H)

39.     Meanwhile, Dr. Cordero appealed Judge Ninfo’s disallowance of his claim to the District Court, WDNY, Judge Larimer presiding. This Judge showed again, as he had in Pfuntner (ToEC:47>1107-08 & Comment), that he supports the bankruptcy fraud scheme. He refused to order the DeLanos to produce even a single document that could shed light on the 39-year veteran banker’s incongruous and implausible declarations. (ToEC:111; Add:951, 1022; ToEAdd:231§VI) He even attempted to prevent Dr. Cordero from obtaining the transcript of the sham evidentiary hearing (C:1001, 1083; cf. ToEA:135§3), for what happened there incriminates Judge Ninfo as Mr. DeLano’s biased Chief Advocate. Such advocacy derives from the fact that Mr. DeLano’s attorney in Pfuntner is Michael Beyma, Esq., of Underberg & Kessler (A:1552; Pst:1289§f), the law firm of which Judge Ninfo was a partner when he was appointed to the bench (Add:636); so he felt Mr. DeLano to be his client, whereby he forfeited his position as an impartial arbiter who should have no interest in the controversy before him. The transcript also shows that Mr. DeLano’s testimony corroborates Dr. Cordero’s claim against him. (Pst:1281§d; ToEC:55>Comment>2^nd ¶)

IV.    Call for a virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists to help prepare pro bono a class action centered on a representative case against these judges to expose the systematic dismissal of complaints supporting a bankruptcy fraud scheme and reveal how high and to what extent wrongdoing has reached

40.     Congress adopted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act to “restor[e] personal responsibility and integrity in the bankruptcy system [and] respond to…the absence of effective oversight to eliminate abuse in the system.” HR Report 109-31, pg.2: Purpose and Summary For its part, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) has produced the 1997-2005 Reports of Complaints Filed and Action Taken under the Judicial Conduct Act (C:973), which together with its previous annual Reports shows that the judges’ systematic dismissal for over a decade of 28 U.S.C. §351 judicial misconduct complaints could not have occurred but for their unlawful coordination to insulate themselves from such complaints. (ToEC:40>Comment) The relation between those official findings is what the 11 cases discussed here show, to wit, the abuse has developed into a bankruptcy fraud scheme and judges have mishandled §351 complaints to, among other things, protect the scheme and the schemers. (C:1291)