Table of Exhibits ToEC:#
that provide the evidence gathered in 12 cases over 5 years showing that
a federal judgeship has become a safe haven for wrongdoing
due to the lack of an effective mechanism of judicial conduct control and
justifying an investigation to determine how high and to what extent wrongdoing has reached;
and that warrant the call for forming a virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists
centered on Judicial Discipline Reform.org to help prepare pro bono
a class action based on the representative case charging
that Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CA2)
and CA2 Judge Dennis Jacobs have engaged in
a series of acts of disregard of evidence and of systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints
forming a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing
that supports a bankruptcy fraud scheme and protects the schemers
by
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
|
Case name |
Filing date |
Closing date or status |
Docket no. |
Court |
Bank of Links to File:pg.# of brief docket |
||
|
1. |
In re Premier Van Lines (Ch. 7 bkr.) |
3/5/1 |
10/24/3 |
01-20692 |
WBNY |
cf. A:72§1 |
|
|
2. |
Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al. (AdvP) |
9/27/2 |
pending |
02-2230 |
WBNY |
||
|
3. |
Cordero v. Trustee Gordon |
1/15/3 |
3/27/3 |
03cv6021L |
WDNY |
||
|
4. |
Cordero v. Palmer |
2/4/3 |
3/27/3 |
03mbk6001L |
WDNY |
||
|
5. |
In re Premier Van et al. |
5/2/3 |
1/26/5dism’d |
03-5023 |
CA2 |
||
|
6. |
In re Richard Cordero (mandamus) |
9/12/3 |
denied 10/8/3 |
03-3088 |
CA2 |
||
|
7. |
Misconduct complaint v. Bkr. J. Ninfo, WBNY |
9/2/3 |
6/8/4 dism’d |
03-8547 |
CA2 |
||
|
8. |
Misconduct complaint v. Chief J. Walker, CA2 |
3/30/4 |
9/24/4dism’d |
04-8510 |
CA2 |
||
|
9. |
Cordero v. Trustee Gordon et al. |
1/27/5 |
cert. denied |
04-8371 |
SCt |
||
|
10. |
In re David &Mary Ann DeLano (Ch. 13 bkr.) |
1/27/4 |
on appeal |
04-20280 |
WBNY |
cf.C:1295§§A-B |
|
|
11. |
Cordero v. DeLano |
4/22/5 |
on appeal |
05cv6190L |
WDNY |
||
|
12. |
Dr. Richard Cordero v. David & Mary DeLano |
10/16/6 |
pending |
06-4780 |
CA2 |
|
CA2_dkt |
ToEC:# pages
Call for formation of class action and virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists.
ToEA:# pages
Pfuntner v. Tr. Gordon et al., WBNY> Cordero v. Gordon & Palmer, WDNY>
>Premier Van et al., CA2>Cordero v. Trustee Gordon et al., SCt...................................
ToED:>ToEAdd:>ToEPst:# pages
In re David & Mary Ann DeLano, WBNY>Cordero v. DeLano, WDNY.......... D:201
Add:221
Pst:251
___________________________
* The letters identify sets of PDF files containing exhibits of the cases cited above; and the numbers indicate the first page of the respective exhibits. The letters mean the following:
A= Appendix of exhibits of cases 1-9; C=this call; Tr=transcript of 3/1/5 hearing
D=Designated items in the record of cases 10-11; Add=Addendum to D; and Pst=PostAddendum.
The PDF files can be opened with Acrobat Reader v. 7, which can be downloaded from Adobe.com. They are found in the Attachments pane of this file (Statement facts & Table Exh). Clicking on the Bookmarks tab of a file will open a pane that may contain the file’s table of content. Some files, such as Text of Authorities Cited, may also be contained in suitably identified folders in this website.
The text of a referenced exhibit can be found by opening the PDF file within whose number range the reference’s page number falls. Such text can also be accessed through the block of hyperlinks to exhibits by pressing Ctrl and double clicking on the corresponding lettered hyperlink whose number is the same as that of the reference or is the next lower; e.g. if the reference is to C:275 click on C:271.
A. Judicial misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY
1. From Pfuntner before Judge Ninfo on appeal to CA2...............................................................................
B. Judicial misconduct complaint against Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., CA2
C. Misconduct by clerks leads to call for an investigation by motion to CA2 and by request to its Clerk of Court.................................
F. Appeal to the Judicial Council from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against C.J. Walker.................................................
G. Appeal to the Judicial Conference of the U.S. from the denials by the Judicial Council of the petitions for review of the dismissals of the complaints against Judge Ninfo & C.J. Walker........................
2. Offices in Rochester and Buffalo
L. Submissions to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer of evidence of a pattern of systematic dismissal of com-plaints about judicial wrongdoing in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme further protected by preventing complaints from reaching the Judicial Conference.............................................................................
A. Contact information with references to exhibits for background to investigatees................................................................................................ ToEC:76
1. Contact information organized alphabetically......................... ToEC:76
2. Official Directory of the Bankruptcy Court in Rochester and Buffalo, NY....................................................................................... ToEC:89
3. Contact information with detailed index to exhibits, organized by categories listed in the order in which the Follow the money! investigation may proceed.............................................................. ToEC:271
B. Searches on PACER for two trustees and one bankruptcy attorney and its return of docket information about, and hyperlinks to, their more than 7,800 cases before Judge Ninfo............................. ToEC:91
C. List of tables interspersed among the exhibits of all Tables of Exhibits..................................................................................ToEC:101
D. List of reproduced tables........................................................ ToEC:105
***************************************
1. The separate volume of exhibits that accompanied the misconduct complaint against Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, (C:1, 63) had its pages numbered A-#. The “A” stood for the Appendix to the opening brief of Appellant Dr. Richard Cordero in In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2 (C:172). That Appendix had been titled, and consisted of the, “Items in the Record” (cf. FRBkrP 8006) of the cases appealed from, to wit, Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., no. 02-2230, WBNY, and its appeals to the District Court, i.e. Cordero v. Trustee Gordon, no. 03cv6021L, and Cordero v. Palmer, no. 03-6001L, WDNY.
2. That brief in Premier (C:172 & A:1301) and its Appendix (A-1-430) were filed in CA2 bearing the date of July 9, 2003. By the following August 11 when Dr. Cordero filed his judicial misconduct complaint under 28 U.S.C. §351 against Judge Ninfo (C:1, 63), other documents, such as letters, motions, and dockets, had been filed in both Pfuntner (e.g. A:490, 497, 462) and Premier (e.g. A:468, 469, 507). He had numbered their pages consecutively from the last number in the Appendix and added them to it chronologically upon their being filed while on its Table of Items he entered their titles thematically under appropriate headings.
3. Those documents showed continued wrongdoing by Judge Ninfo and other court officers as well as what appeared to be coordination with CA2 clerks not to docket Dr. Cordero’s appeal properly so as to cause its dismissal. Hence, just as the July 9 Appendix, the volume of exhibits (A-1-507) accompanying the complaint was titled “Items in the Record” (cf. C:61) and its pages bore the numbering format A-#. All those documents are in the PDF files A:1-260, A:261-352; & A:353-733.
4. The documents created after the August 11 complaint against Judge Ninfo were similarly added to the Appendix. By the time when Dr. Cordero filed his judicial misconduct complaint of March 19, 2004, against CA2 Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., (C:271) additional motions and orders had been produced in Pfuntner and Premier. They too showed or discussed evidence that CA2 judges supported, whether by indifference or intent, judicial wrongdoing, for even judges are subject to the principle that ‘a person is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his or her acts’. Consequently, some of those documents were filed with the complaint against the Chief Judge in a volume titled Evidentiary Documents, subsequently renamed Exhibits (ToEC:315, 324); the format used to number its pages was A:#. The same format was used for other documents created as Dr. Cordero pursued his dismissed appeal by petitioning for panel rehearing and hearing en banc (ToEA:42§5), and subsequently his petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. (ToEA:51§D)
5. However, other documents that were not filed in such proceedings, were not added to the Appendix. Among them are most of those connected with the pursuit of the misconduct complaints and the appeals to entities other than CA2, such as the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Department of Justice and the FBI; and the Judiciary Committees of both chambers of Congress. (ToEC:§§D-K) They form the bulk of the documents listed on this Table whose pages bear the numbering format C:#.
6. Likewise, other documents were generated after David and Mary Ann DeLano filed their voluntary bankruptcy petition In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY, on January 27, 2004. (D:23-60) Therein they named Dr. Cordero among their creditors (D:40), because of his claim against Mr. DeLano in Pfuntner, in which Dr. Cordero was 3rd party plaintiff and Mr. DeLano 3rd party defendant. After that claim was disallowed by Judge Ninfo at the sham evidentiary hearing (Pst:1255§1) in Bankruptcy Court on March 1, 2005, Dr. Cordero appealed to the District Court in Cordero v. DeLano, no. 05cv6190L, WDNY. For that appeal, he designated supporting items in the record of In re DeLano (cf. FRBkrP 8006) and numbered their pages D:#. But then District Judge David Larimer and the Bankruptcy Court Reporter engaged in a common effort to deprive Dr. Cordero of the incriminating transcript of that evidentiary hearing. When they failed and the Reporter had to send the transcript to Dr. Cordero eight month later (ToEC:§I), he used it to write his appellate brief of December 21, 2005 (Pst:1231).
7. In the intervening eight months many documents had been produced and filed. Dr. Cordero collected and filed them with his brief as an Addendum to the initial volume of designated items; he identified its pages as Add:# with their page numbers continuing the last number in the first, D:# volume. Similarly, after the DeLanos filed their answer to that brief, Dr. Cordero filed his reply of February 8, 2006 (Pst:1381), which was accompanied by a Post-Addendum, with pages identified as Pst:# and their numbers continuing from the last in the Addendum.
8. All those documents share a key element, namely, they contain or discuss evidence of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts so consistently detrimental to Dr. Cordero alone as to exclude coincidental mistakes due to mere incompetence on the part of judges and their staffs. Incompetent people would have erred roughly half of time in favor of, and the other half against, the same person. Instead, the consistent impact on the same target as well as the sheer number and increasing blatancy of the wrongful acts reveal a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme. For its part, the systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints has protected the schemers.
9. That pattern of wrongdoing provides a solid basis for Judicial Discipline Reform’s call for a virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists to help pro bono prepare a class action to expose it together with the motive or benefit for which judges have engaged in it. In so doing, the members of that firm should be guided by the underlying question: Has a federal judgeship become a safe haven for wrongdoing and, if so, how high and to what extent has wrongdoing reached?
1. Dr. Richard Cordero’s letter of August 11, 2003, to Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, setting forth a judicial misconduct complaint under 28 U.S.C. §372(c)(1) [Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, now at U.S.C. §351 et seq.; see it in the Text of Authorities Cited] against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, and other court officers at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York......................................................... C:1
Attachments:
a) the Official CA2 Complaint Form for filing complaints against judicial officers under 28 U.S.C. §372(c)(1)......................................................................................................... C:3
b) Dr. Cordero’s Statement of Facts of August 11, 2003, submitted [as an exhibit, hence the page numbering format E:#] in support of the complaint under §372(c)(1) against Judge Ninfo and other court officers set forth in his August 11 letter to Clerk MacKechnie (C:1)............................................................................................................ E:1
i) Table of Contents.................................................................................................. E:4
c) Judge Ninfo’s order of July 15, 2003, requiring, among other things, that Dr. Cordero, who lives in New York City, participate in a series of “discrete” “discreet” hearings in Rochester, NY, in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., docket no. 02-2230, WBNY.. E:55
2. Title page of the separate exhibits volume titled “Items in the Record…”.................. C:61
a) “Items in the Record…”
[Comment: This separate volume of exhibits consisted of pages A-1-430 of the items in the record in the District Court, WDNY, which pursuant to FRAP 6(b)(2)(B)(i) was redesignated for the appeal In re Premier Van et al., docket no. 03-5023, CA2; those pages, bound separately, accompanied Dr. Cordero’s opening brief of July 9, 2003, in CA2 (C:169). The volume also included pages A-431-507 containing exhibits added between July and August 2003. As revised, those exhibits are now found mostly with the same page numbers in pages A:1-507 of the PDF files in the A 1-2229 folder. (see also ToEC:5§IV above)]
3. CA2 Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Clerk Patricia Chin-Allen of August 25, 2003, acknowledging Dr. Cordero’s judicial conduct complaint of August 11, 2003, but returning it due to improper form concerning the use of the old 28 U.S.C. §372(c) complaint form and a statement of facts exceeding the 5-page limitation; and providing a copy of the new 28 U.S.C. §351 complaint form.............................................................. C:62
[Comment: A comparison shows that there is no difference between the old and the new complaint forms, except that the latter refers to §351 as the legal basis for the complaint.]
4. Dr. Cordero’s Statement of Facts of August 27, 2003, after the original August 11 Statement was shortened to 5 pages and its legal basis was switched from §372(c) to §351 of 28 U.S.C.; submitted to the CA2 Clerk in support of his August 11 complaint against J. Ninfo and other court officers............................................................................................ C:63
Attachments:
a) Official CA2 Complaint Form for filing complaints against judicial officers under 28 U.S.C. §351..................................................................................................................... C:68
b) Dr. Cordero’s original 54-page Statement of Facts of, 2003, submitted as an exhibit in support of his complaint against Judge Ninfo and other court officers set forth in his 2-page August 11 letter to Clerk MacKechnie (C:1)...................................... E:1 above
c) Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 11, 2003, to CA2 Clerk MacKechnie lodging a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo and others.............................. C:1 above
d) Judge Ninfo’s order of July 15, 2003, requiring, among other things, that Dr. Cordero, who lives in NYC, participate in a series of “discrete” “discreet” hearings in Rochester, NY.................................................................................................... E:55 above
5. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of September 2, 2003, acknowledging receipt of Dr. Cordero’s judicial conduct complaint, but returning the separate volume of exhibits and stating that she awaits submission of conformed exhibits that do not include material not referenced in the Statement of Facts .......................................................................... C:71
[Comment: On whose instructions and for what practical purpose was a court clerk asked to waste her time checking whether each of the exhibits in a 507-page volume of exhibits was referenced in the Statement of Facts?!]
6. Title page of the separate volume of exhibits, after renaming its statutory basis for judicial misconduct complaints from §372(c)(1) to §351 of Title 28 U.S.C., and complying with Deputy Allen’s requirement of removing from the volume the exhibits not referenced in the Statement of Facts...................................................................................................... C:72
7. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen, dated September 2, 2003, but received by Dr. Cordero on September 10, acknowledging receipt of a complaint under §351, dated August 27, 2003, and received on August 28, 2003, and giving notice of docketing it under no. 03-8547............................................................................................................................. C:73
8. Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq............................................................................ C:75
a) Complaint form stating its legal basis as §351 and accompanying the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers......................................................................................................................... C:101
9. Dr. Cordero’s letter of February 2, 2004, to the Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, inquiring about the status of the complaint against Judge Ninfo and updating its supporting evidence...................................... C:105
Exhibits
a) CA2 Clerk Allen’s acknowledgment of September 2, 2003, of filing Dr. Cordero’s §351 complaint against J. Ninfo (as in C:73).................................................................... C:107
b) CA2 order of November 13, 2003, granting Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 3, 2003, for leave to introduce in the record of his appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, an updating supplement on the issue of Judge Ninfo’s bias [A:801] C:108
[Comment: This order was attached to show that CA2 had established the precedent for the updatability of evidence concerning Judge Ninfo’s bias.]
10. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of February 4, 2004, acknowledging receipt of Dr. Cordero’s five copies of his February 2 inquiring and updating letter to Chief Judge Walker, and stating “I am returning your documents to you. A decision has not been made in the above-reference matter. You will be notified by letter when a decision has been made”..... C:109
[Comment: Yet, it stands to reason that an update 6 months after the original complaint of August 11, 2003, was most pertinent precisely because a decision had not yet been made and the updating information could be useful in making it.]
a) List of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the Justice and judges members of the Judicial Council to whom Dr. Cordero sent his letters........................... C:112
[Comment: See also this information displayed in tabular format for mail merge at C:774.]
Attachment and Exhibit
b) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:113
I.5. CA2 summary order of January 26, 2004, by CA2 Chief Judge Walker, CA2 Judge James L. Oakes, and CA2 Judge Robert A. Katzmann, dismissing Dr. Cordero’s appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, for lack of jurisdiction because the orders appealed from were interlocutory, non-final orders C:119
[Comment: This order is included here to show that CA2 did not even mention the issue of judicial wrongdoing that Dr. Cordero had timely and repeatedly raised in his opening brief (C:172) and motions (C:108 & D:426; C:296; C:381; D:440). In those documents, Dr. Cordero had stated that the acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts by Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo and others were so numerous, so protective of the local parties and injurious to Dr. Cordero alone, the only non-local and pro se party, as to form a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing in support of bankruptcy fraud.
Yet, CA2 disregarded the evidence of such wrongdoing and simply dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. By so doing, the Court treated the appeal as if it were merely an action game where observance of formal rules took precedence over the substance of the process, that is, a determination of rights and duties by impartial judges acting in accordance with law. Thereby CA2 also failed to discharge its duty to safeguard the integrity of judicial process.
Moreover, the Court’s dismissal of the case on formal grounds not only ignored the substance of the appeal, but it also showed indifference to the practical consequence of its action, namely, it sent Dr. Cordero back to biased Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo and District Judge David G. Larimer to be worn down in litigation before them. Indeed, these judges had so repeatedly disregarded the rule of law and the facts that it was foreseeable that they would keep abusing Dr. Cordero’s rights all the way until their issuing of a final order or judgment, that is, if Dr. Cordero, a pro se party, had not been forced by exhaustion to settle or surrender his claims.
For what extrajudicial motive, aside from the legal merits of the case, the CA2 judges proceeded with such disregard for “the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” is one of the key questions that must be answered in light of the compelling and abundant evidence of a bankruptcy fraud scheme.
For a summary of early evidence, up to August 2003, of such wrongdoing by Judge Ninfo and other court officers, see the detailed Table of Contents (E:4) of the Statement of Facts supporting Dr. Cordero’s complaint against them of August 11, 2003.
On how the allegation that the district court orders are non-final and thus, unappealable is wrong as a matter of law and in practice, see C:124§§II-IV, and A:1652§3]
12. Dr. Cordero’s petition of March 10, 2004, to CA2 for panel rehearing and hearing en banc of the dismissal of his appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2..................... C:122
a) Table of Entries from the Appendix (A-1-507)....................................................... C:138
13. Letter of Chief Judge Robert N. Chatigny, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, of March 1, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that “The Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers…appear to make no provision for requests for expedited handling of complaints”............................................................... C:139
[Comment: Yet, the copy sent to C.J. Chatigny of the letter to CA2 C.J. Walker (C:105) showed precisely how 28 U.S.C. §351 and the Judicial Council Rules require ‘prompt and expeditious action’. Did he even read that letter?]
14. Letter of Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, SDNY, of March 2, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that “The letter appears to state that you have filed a complaint of judicial misconduct and that you are not satisfied with the result”............................................................................................ C:140
[Comment: However, the letter to C.J. Mukasey stated precisely that CA2 C. J. Walker had failed to provide any response for six months since the filing of the complaint against Judge Ninfo. Can these judges read with understanding or is there any other motive for their patently mistaken responses?]
15. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of March 22, 2004, to Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes and other members of the Judicial Council who had not replied to his letters of February 11 and 13, requesting a reply from each.............................................................................. C:141
16. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter of March 29, 2004, advising Dr. Cordero that his letters to Circuit Judges Calabresi and Straub were forwarded to her office and that “Judicial Conduct Complaint 03-8547 [against Judge Ninfo and others] is under consideration”. C:142
[Comment: “Under consideration” since August 28, 2003 (C:73), seven months!, yet 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. require ‘prompt and expeditious action’ (cf. C:105). So during all that time and for months thereafter C.J. Walker and the other judges of CA2 and the Judicial Council tolerated the misconduct of a judge, who kept affecting the integrity of judicial process and inflicting enormous material injury and tremendous emotional distress on a particular, identifiable individual, Dr. Cordero.
Was the determinative consideration for their attitude precisely that the person complained-against was a judge, that is, one of their own? Did they not want to set a disciplinary precedent that one day could be turned around and applied against them, whether justifiably or in retaliation for having investigated, let alone disciplined, one of their brethren? Or were they not able to condemn conduct that they had themselves engaged in at an earlier time in their judgeships or were still engaging in? Their toleration of the conduct of Judge Ninfo as well as the other court officers complained-about in spite of the ever more blatant evidence of a bankruptcy fraud scheme and protection for the schemers shows that there is something very wrong going on.]
17. Letter of Karen Greve Milton, Circuit Executive, of March 30, 2004, to Dr. Cordero responding to his March 22 letters to members of the Judicial Council (C:141) and advising him that his judicial conduct complaint against Judge Ninfo is a “matter pending before the Court”................................................................................................................... C:143
[Comment: But under 28 U.S.C. §351 it is the chief judge of the circuit who decides how to handle the complaint, not the cour