TEST COMPLAINT that you can support by filing it too to expose how judges intentionally deceive the public by pretending that it can complain about them although the judges know that they will dismiss 100% of its complaints so that the proposal to change the complaint Rules is a sham that confirms unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris

Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this test complaint
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This test complaint is also found at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:792

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the U.S.
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

  1. I and the people assembled with me, exercising our 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:111§3), which no statute or self-interested required ‘confidentiality’ can abrogate, file publicly this complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(jur:2418a) about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Merrick Gar-land, and their peers and colleagues in the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (the complained-about judges or the judges; DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct 06-30sep17 11-year period.

The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical references in blue) are contained in my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting* †

† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

  1. That is a fact established by the statistics(infra §C) that they were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:2623a) to submit and did submit to Congress and the public.
  2. The Act is to be construed broadly: It does not require complainants to show standing to file a complaint about a judge, whether by having suffered injury in fact as a result of the judge’s misconduct or disability complained about; meeting any residence requirement relative to the judge’s workplace or residence; or otherwise. Rather, it provides under §351(a) thus:

Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.

  1. The 15 complaints filed with DCC about J. Kavanaugh following his confirmation hearings in Sep. 2018 were transferred under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings(Rules; jur:125264; †>OL2:778) by C.J. Garland, who disqualified himself, to DCC Judge Karen Henderson, who in turn transferred them to you. You assigned them on October 10 to Ten Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich. In the third paragraph of the letter to him, you wrote thus:

I have selected the Judicial Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaints and any pending or new[1] complaints relating to same subject matter.

[1] Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street, Room 102G
Denver, CO 80257-1823

  1. Therefore, we respectfully petition you and all other officers to likewise transfer and process this complaint with the other 15 so that their processing may be informed by each other; all be used to detect judges’ patterns and trends of misconduct and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi; and their processing may lead to the independent investigation of the Judiciary’s unlawful interception of its critics’ communications.

A. The facts of the complained-about judges’ prejudicial conduct

  1. Through their 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them and 100% denial of the petitions for review, the judges have “engaged in §351(a) prejudicial conduct”. Indeed, they have:a. arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect that Act of Congress, which it is “the business of the courts” and its judges(infra ¶c) to enforce together with its other acts;

b. abused the self-disciplining power entrusted to them under the Act by exonerating them-selves from all complaints so as to evade any disciplinary action, thereby resolving in their favor the conflict of interests arising from being the target and the judges of the complaints;

c. breached their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453 whereby “[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers, colleagues, and friends as opposed to other parties to complaints], and do equal right to the poor [in connections to us] and to the rich [in IOUs on us that we gave the peers, colleagues, and friends who dismissed complaints about us], and that [we] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [us] as judges under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. [e.g., the Act]”. Instead, they administered ‘unequal protection from the law’ with respect to relationship to them by being 100% partial toward their peers, col-leagues, and friends when they became the target of complaints, all of which they dismissed;

d. disregarded their duty under the Code of Conduct, Canon 1, which requires them to “uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary”. They have shown that how they “discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] as judges under the…laws [such as the Act]” depends upon whether the person whose conduct they are judging is their peer, col-league, or friend, on whom they dependent for cover-up of their misconduct and disability;

e. prejudiced through interdependent partiality “the integrity of the judiciary”, of whose essential character for the “effective…administration of the business of the courts” they have imputed knowledge because the Commentary to Canon 1 provides thus: “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law”;

f. failed to maintain the “good Behaviour” required of them under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution “to hold their Offices”; defined by what their oath singles out, i.e., their pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [under the] laws”, such as the Act; and reiterated by Canon 1 in its Commentary “they must comply with the law”;

g. committed “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” prohibited by Canon 2, for under Canon 2A “reasonable minds with knowledge of the relevant circumstances after reasonable inquiry would conclude” that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ impossible for all the judges to independently deem that 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed over 11 years were properly dismissible but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement;

h. denied complainants the benefit intended for them under the Act of redress for the prejudice that they had suffered or witnessed relating to the judges’ misconduct or disability;

i. deprived complainants and the rest of the public of the working mechanism for complaining that the Act had provided for their protection from misconducting and disable judges;

j. showed reckless disregard for 100% of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability complained about in the 478 complaints filed about, and dismissed by, them, whose recklessness was aggravated by their systematic failure to investigate the complaints through the appointment of special committees, provided for under §353;

k. showed reckless indifference to the rights and well-being of complainants and the rest of the public by leaving them exposed to 100% of the prejudice caused by the misconduct and disability complained about, and any additional prejudice at the hands of the exonerated judges, who were left free of any deterrent to further committing misconduct and indulging in disability; and at the hands of other judges who, realizing that misconduct and disability had no adverse consequences for judges, committed misconduct and indulged in disability;

l. disregarded Canon 3 providing that “The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities”, for the number of extra-judicial activities highlighted on their individual page on the DCC website allows ‘the math of perfunctoriness’(OL2:760) to demonstrate how lack of time accounts for 93%(OL2:457§D) of appeals being disposed of through the clerk-filled out, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like dumping forms of summary orders(jur:43§b);

m. intentionally “prejudic[ed] the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and the persons to whom they swore to administer justice, We the People, for it is a torts tenet that “people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their acts”. By dismissing 100% of the complaints and denying 100% of review petitions, the judges rendered their misconduct and disability riskless, which enabled their further prejudicial misconduct and disability. Worse yet, they emboldened themselves and others to commit misconduct and indulge in disability of ever more diverse nature, to a greater extent, more frequently, and of higher gravity. While dismissing and denying for over a decade, they saw their foreseeable prejudice become a fact, whose continued occurrence they intended;

n. deceived potential and actual complainants by pretending that their complaints would be fairly and impartially processed although the judges intended to dismiss 100% of them, thus running the Act’s complaint mechanism as a sham that works fraud on We the People.

B. Action requested

  1. Therefore, we respectfully petition the judicial officers processing this complaint to:
  2. deem and treat this complaint as the public document that it already is; and make it available to the public easily and widely as it progresses through the stages of its processing;
  3. communicate to us and the public the judges’ answers; and afford the opportunity to reply, for it would constitute partiality toward them to take their answers at face value;
  4. in the interest of justice for the complainants and public confidence in judges, make the 478 complaints and their dismissal orders, review petitions, and denials public, and transfer them under Rules 25 and 26 to be processed impartially by DCC-unrelated §353 special commit-tees, whose members need not be judges or lawyers (next) and which can replace the failed mechanism of judges –priests, police officers- judging their peers, colleagues, and friends;
  5. hold fact-finding public hearings on this and all other complaints to ascertain the causes for complaint, which hearings Judge Anthony Scirica, Chair of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, stated at the October 30 hearing on Code and Rules proposed changes are conceivable as part of the Committee’s work; and let independent fact-finders, i.e., news anchors and editors, investigative reporters, and journalism professors(OL2:777¶21c), conduct them to find whether dismissing complaints not matter the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability turned into all judges’ pattern of action that became the Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi(OL2:756¶¶9-11);
  6. have independent IT, mail, and phone forensic experts investigate the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications(OL2:781), such as mine by email, mail, phone, my website, PayPal, GoFundMe, LinkedIn, and FB accounts(*>ggl:1); and make their findings public:

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq.JDR@gmail.com;   tel. (718)827-9521

Subscribe for free to
the series of articles of
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power;

at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

C. Links to official court statistics on complaints about judges and their analysis

  1. Article on official statistics on complaints about J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers and their analysis using “the math of abuse”: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf
  2. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_ JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf
  3. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_ complaints_v_judges.pdf
  4. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 15 reporting courts: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf
  5. Article on statistics and math: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through ‘dumping forms’: unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like orders; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:760, 457§D

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

s/Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City

Published by

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., is a doctor of law and researcher-writer attorney. He is a member of the New York State Bar and lives in New York City. He earned his doctorate of law from the University of Cambridge in England, where his thesis dealt with the integration of the banking industry in the European Union. He earned a French law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, where he concentrated on currency stability and the abuse of dominant positions by entities in commerce, similar to American antitrust law. He also earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan, where he concentrated on the use of computers and their networks to maximize workflow efficiency and productivity. Dr. Cordero worked as a researcher-writer at the preeminent publisher of analytical legal commentaries, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, a member of West/Thomson Reuters. There he wrote commentaries on the regulation of financial activities under federal law. Currently at Judicial Discipline Reform, he is promoting the creation of a multidisciplinary academic and business team to advocate judges’ accountability and discipline reform. The need for such reform is based on his analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, who are the models for their state counterparts. That analysis is set forth in his study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts: Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you and your colleagues of the evidence of judicial wrongdoing so that you may learn how to join the effort to expose it and bring about judicial reform. Contact him at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net. Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it. * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Leave a Reply