19. Answering that question would bring up a very incisive one: Had these two officers engaged in similar conduct in any of the other cases on which they had worked together? They had had the opportunity to do so, for a subsequent PACER query showed that between April 12, 2000, and June 26, 2004, Trustee Gordon had been the trustee in 3,383 cases, out of which 3,382 had come before Judge Ninfo! (C:1406§C) Astonishing!, for how could a single trustee take care of examining the debtors’ financial affairs and ascertaining the good faith of their petitions and dealing with the creditors and collecting the assets and liquidating them and holding auctions, and reviewing accountants’ reports and making distribution and filing reports and attending hearings, and and and of each of such an overwhelming number of cases? (D:458§V) This would beg the question why had Trustee Schmitt and her supervisor, U.S. Trustee for Region 2 Deirdre Martini allowed one person to take on so many cases in such a short period of time? And how many millions of dollars worth of assets has Trustee Gordon been in charge of liquidating? How many other questions would it take to pierce the web to reveal the motives linked to their personal relationships?
20. Dr. Cordero made Chief Judge Walker aware of these and similar concerns. Indeed, the Chief Judge was a member of the panel that was drawn –randomly?- to decide his appeal from Pfuntner in Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2. (docket at A:1285) As such, the Chief was supposed to read Dr. Cordero’s brief of July 9, 2003 (A:1303), which also included appellate arguments concerning the arbitrary, unlawful, and suspicious way in which Judge Ninfo (A:302, 306) and District Judge David G. Larimer, WDNY, (A:315, 339, 343, 350) denied Dr. Cordero’s application for default judgment against Premier Owner David Palmer (A:290-95), who had nevertheless been defaulted by Bankruptcy Clerk of Court Paul Warren (A:303; 304).
21. Moreover, Chief Judge Walker was the officer with whom Dr. Cordero lodged his misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo of August 8, 2003, (C:1, 63) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. That statute imposes on the circuit chief judge the duty to “expeditiously review” such complaints. (28 U.S.C. §352(a)) Anyway, the Chief should have investigated a complaint like that which cast doubt on the integrity of a judge and the fairness of justice that he administered.
22. What is more, the Chief Judge was a member of the panel that decided Dr. Cordero’s petition of September 12, 2003, for a writ of mandamus, no. 03-3088, CA2, (A:615) requesting that Judge Ninfo be disqualified for bias and disregard for the rule of law and that Pfuntner be transferred outside his web of personal relationships to an impartial court, such as the U.S. District Court in Albany, NDNY. More still, he learned of additional charges through Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 3, 2003, to update the evidence of Judge Ninfo’s bias. (A:801) Even more, the Chief had the opportunity to hear about Judge Ninfo’s misconduct during Dr. Cordero’s oral argument of Premier Van et al. on December 11, 2003; and even read the argument’s written version that Dr. Cordero handed out to him and the other panel members on the day of argument. (C:296)
23. Nevertheless, CJ Walker did nothing other than deny those requests. (A:876, 664) Yet, he had the duty to review or “promptly appoint a special committee to investigate” the complaint (28 U.S.C. §353(a)). Instead, he let six months go by without taking any action on it. So on February 2, 2004, Dr. Cordero wrote to him to inquire about the complaint’s status (C:105), pointing out that the duty of promptness was imposed on the Chief not only under the Act, but also under the Circuit’s own rules, that is, Rule 3(a) of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. (C:75) This time the Chief did something else: He had Dr. Cordero’s letter returned to the sender! (C:109)