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

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

I. Cases providing evidence for the investigation & the representative case

	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	A:565
2.	Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al. (AdvP)	9/27/2	pending	02-2230	WBNY	A:70	A:1551
3.	Cordero v. Trustee Gordon	1/15/3	3/27/3	03cv6021L	WDNY	A:158	A:458
4.	Cordero v. Palmer	2/4/3	3/27/3	03mbk6001L	WDNY	A:314	A:462, but see ToEA:156>A:462b
5.	In re Premier Van et al.	5/2/3	1/26/5dism’d	03-5023	CA2	C:169	C:422
6.	In re Richard Cordero (mandamus)	9/12/3	denied 10/8/3	03-3088	CA2	A:615	A:665g
7.	Misconduct complaint v. Bkr. J. Ninfo, WBNY	9/2/3	6/8/4 dism’d	03-8547	CA2	C:1, 63; E:1	ToEC§§A,D
8.	Misconduct complaint v. Chief J. Walker, CA2	3/30/4	9/24/4dism’d	04-8510	CA2	C:271	ToEC:§§B,F
9.	Cordero v. Trustee Gordon et al.	1/27/5	cert. denied	04-8371	SCt	A:1601	A:2229
10.	In re David &Mary Ann DeLano (Ch. 13 bkr.)	1/27/4	on appeal	04-20280	WBNY	cf.C:1295§§A-B	D:496
11.	Cordero v. DeLano	4/22/5	on appeal	05cv6190L	WDNY	Pst:1231	Pst:1181
12.	Dr. Richard Cordero v. David & Mary DeLano	10/16/6	pending	06-4780	CA2		CA2_dkt

V. Descriptive titles of the exhibits and comments

A. Judicial misconduct complaint against
Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY

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.]

11. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of February 11 and 13, 2004, to Justice Ginsburg as Circuit Justice for the 2^nd Circuit; to Judge Dennis Jacobs as the Circuit Judge eligible to become the next chief judge of the circuit; and to other members of the Judicial Council, 2nd Cir., requesting on the strength of the over 85 attached exhibits that they bring his complaint against Judge Ninfo and the other court officers to the attention of the Council and have it review C.J. Walker’s and CA2 clerks’ handling of the complaint so that the Council may launch an investigation of the judges and officers complained-against................... C:110

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.

A:674, 768Yet, 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 court of appeals. Do the mistakes of these court officers (C:139, 140) reveal the quality of their work generally or their non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated way of handling judicial misconduct complaints particularly?]

18. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Clerk Allen of June 8, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that his judicial conduct complaint, no. 03-8547, against Judge Ninfo was dismissed and indicating that the deadline for filing a petition for review by the Judicial Council is July 9, 2004................................................................................................................................... C:144

a) Order of Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, as Acting Chief Judge, of June 8, 2004, dismissing Dr. Cordero’s judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo, no. 03-8547, filed on August 28, 2003 [C:1, 63].................................................................. C:145

19. Allotment of the Justices of the Supreme Court among the circuits.......................... C:149

B. Judicial misconduct complaint against Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., CA2

22. Dr. Cordero’s 5-page Statement of Facts of March 19, 2004, setting forth a complaint under 28 U.S.C. §351 against C.J. Walker, addressed, under Rule 18(e) [C:98] of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints against Judicial Officers, to the circuit judge eligible to become the next chief judge of the circuit. C:271

Attachments:

a) the Official CA2 Complaint Form for filing complaints against judicial officers under 28 U.S.C. §372(c).......................................................................................................... C:276

b) Table of Documents.................................................................................................. C:279

Exhibits:

c) 25 pages of documents (listed in the Table of Documents, C:279§I) dated after the original judicial misconduct complaint of August 11, 2003, against Judge Ninfo and accompanying the Statement of Facts; among them are the following ones not already listed above:

7) Notice of the Bankruptcy Court, WBNY, of February 3, 2004, of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors and Deadlines ......................... C:289

[This notice concerns the voluntary bankruptcy petition, docket no. 04-20280, filed on January 27, 2004, by David and Mary Ann DeLano, who named Dr. Cordero among their creditors (C:598).]

8) Dr. Cordero’s Objections of March 4, 2004, to Confirmation of the Plan of Debt Repayment submitted by Debtors David and Mary Ann DeLano......... C:291

9) Dr. Cordero’s Outline of his Oral Argument on December 11, 2003, paper copies of which were delivered to the members of the CA2 panel on the day of argument.......................................................................................................... C:296

TABLE: Main Papers in In re Premier Van et al., docket no. 03-5023, CA2, with the numbers of the pages where they appear in the Appendix [cf. A:#] to Dr. Cordero’s opening brief [C:171]................................................................ C:301

d) Title page of the separate exhibits volume titled “Evidentiary Documents…” C:302

i) “Evidentiary Documents…”

[Comment: This separate volume of exhibits included pages A-1-507, which had accompanied Dr. Cordero’s complaint of August 11, 2003, against Judge Ninfo and other court officers (see the comments at ToEC>C:61 under a) above). As revised, those exhibits are now found mostly with the same page numbers in pages A:1-507. In addition, the “Evidentiary” volume included the following pertinent exhibits created in and since August 2003:

83. Dr. Cordero's motion of August 8, 2003, for Judge Ninfo to transfer Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., no. 02-2230, WBNY, to the U.S. District Court in Albany, NDNY, and recuse himself due to bias.................................................... A:674

84. Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 3, 2003, in CA2 for leave to file an updating supplement of evidence of bias in Judge Ninfo’s denial of Dr. Cordero’s request for a trial by jury.......................................................... A:801

85. Dr. Cordero’s motion of December 28, 2003, in CA2 for leave to brief the issue raised at oral argument by the CA2 panel hearing In re Premier Van et al, no. 03-5023, of CA2’s jurisdiction to decide that case................................... A:844

23. Dr. Cordero’s motion of March 22, 2004, in CA2 for CA2 C.J. Walker to recuse himself from In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, and from considering the pending petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc........................................................................ C:303

a) Table of Contents...................................................................................................... C:305

24. CA2 Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of March 24, 2004, acknowledging receipt of the complaint against C.J. Walker and imposing compliance with certain formal requirements for filing it................................................................................................... C:315

25. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 24, 2004, to Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, as the circuit judge eligible to become the next chief judge of the Circuit, asking in connection with the obstacles placed to filing his misconduct complaint of March 19, 2004, against C.J. Walker whether:

i) Clerk Allen violated FRAP Rule 25(4), which provides that “The clerk must not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or by any local rule or practice” ; and

ii) Clerk Allen handled the complaint as she normally does any other or as part of a pattern of coordinated acts aimed at preventing Dr. Cordero from filing his judicial misconduct complaint............................................................. C:316

Exhibit

a) Title page of the separate volume titled “Evidentiary Documents” supporting Dr. Cordero’s complaint of March 19, 2004, against Chief Judge Walker.... C:302 above

26. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 25, 2004, to CA2 Judge Robert D. Sack requesting that as member of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit he cause the Council to investigate:

i) why his judicial misconduct complaint charging disregard of the law and rules by Judge Ninfo and others has been dealt with by C.J. Walker disregarding the law at 28 U.S.C. §351 and the rules, such as those of the Council governing misconduct complaints [C:75], both of which require that such complaints be handled ‘promptly and expeditiously’; and

ii) why the Court of Appeals failed even to discuss the question of misconduct when dismissing his appeal in In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023 [see the entry and comment at C:119]....................................................................... C:319

27. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter of March 29, 2004, advising Dr. Cordero that his letter to Judge Sack was forwarded to her office and that the matter is under consideration........ C:320

28. Dr. Cordero’s resubmission of March 29, 2004, to comply with formal requirements imposed by Clerks MacKechnie and Allen, of the March 19 Statement of Facts of the complaint against CA2 Chief Judge Walker...................................................... C:271 above

Accompanied by:

29. unattached: Official CA2 Complaint Form for filing complaints against judicial officers under 28 U.S.C. §351.......................................................................................................... C:321

30. attached: 25 pages of documents (listed in the Table of Documents, C:279§I) which were created after the original judicial misconduct complaint of August 11, 2003 (¶ REF _Ref128734430 \r \h 22.c above).

31. The separate volume of exhibits after substituting “Exhibits” for “Evidentiary Documents” on its title page and removing the exhibits that were not referred to in the Statement of Facts, which changes were made to the original volume (¶22.d.i) above) to overcome the CA2 clerks’ filing obstacle (C:315; cf. C:316).

i) Title page of the separate volume titled “Exhibits”............................... C:324

32. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter of March 29, 2004, to Dr. Cordero, accompa-nying the removed Table of Contents and pages 1-25 from each of the five copies of the resubmitted Statement of Facts because they were duplicates of pages in the separate volume titled “Exhibits”............................................................................................................................ C:325

[Comment: What reason would the Clerk of Court herself have to waste her time determining whether a filing has duplicates or a table of contents? What harm is done by including them? None!, unless it is that the filing is a judicial misconduct complaint against the Chief Judge so that any pretext must be used to raise obstacle after obstacle intended to wear down the complainant and dissuade him from filing his complaint; and failing that, every means is used to eliminate from the complaint as much material as possible.]

33. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of March 30, 2004, acknowl-edging receipt of a complaint and giving notice of filing it on March 29 and docketing it under no. 04-8510............................................................................................................................................... C:326

34. Dr. Cordero’s motion of April 18, 2004, in CA2 for leave to update the motion for Chief Judge Walker to recuse himself from In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, with recent evidence of a tolerated pattern of disregard for law and rules further calling into question the Chief Judge’s objectivity and impartiality to judge similar conduct on appeal C:337

a) Table of Contents...................................................................................................... C:338

b) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:358

35. CA2’s order of May 4, 2004, by C.J. Walker, CA2 Judge James L. Oakes, and CA2 Judge Richard C. Wesley, denying Dr. Cordero’s motion of March 22, 2004, for “recusal of Chief Judge Walker from petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc” in In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023..................................................................................................................... C:359

36. CA2’s amended order, by C.J. Walker, J. Oakes, and J. Katzmann, of May 10, 2004, signed by Motions Staff Attorney Arthur Heller, denying Dr. Cordero’s motion for recusal of C.J. Walker.................................................................................................................................. C:360

37. Dr. Cordero’s motion of May 31, 2004, in CA2 for CA2 C.J. Walker either to state his arguments for denying the motions [of March 22, C:303; and of April 18, C:337] that he disqualify himself from considering the pending petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc and from having anything else to do with In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, or disqualify himself and failing that for CA2 to disqualify the Chief Judge therefrom C:361

a) Table of Contents...................................................................................................... C:363

b) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:379

9..... Excerpt from Dr. Cordero’s Request of May 31, 2004, that the FBI open an investigation into the link between the pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated disregard for the law, rules, and facts in the U.S. Bankruptcy and District Courts for the Western District of New York and the money generated by the concentration in the hands of individual trustees of thousands of open cases, including cases patently undeserving of relief under the Bankruptcy Code [see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases]....................................................................................................... C:381

38. CA2’s order of August 2, 2004, denying Dr. Cordero’s motion of May 31, 2004, (C:361) for Chief Judge Walker to recuse himself or be disqualified by the Court from In re Premier Van et al................................................................................................................................ C:389

39. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Clerk Allen of September 28, 2004, to Dr. Cordero notifying him of the dismissal of his complaint, no. 04-8510, against Chief Judge Walker and indicating that the deadline for filing a petition for review is October 29, 2004 C:390

Attachment

a) Order of Acting Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of September 24, 2004, dismissing as moot Dr. Cordero’s judicial conduct complaint, no. 04-8510, against Chief Judge Walker, [C:271] filed on March 29, 2004, because his complaint against Judge Ninfo had been “dismissed by order entered on June 9, 2004”.................................... C:391

[Comment: Actually, the complaint against Judge Ninfo was dismissed on June 8, not 9, by Judge Jacobs himself (C:145, 148) and was entered also on June 8 by the Court (C:144). This mistake further reveals with how little care this othewise perfunctory dismissal was dashed out. (cf. C:711)]

40. CA2’s statement of October 13, 2004, that Chief Judge Walker recused himself from further consideration of In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, contained at the bottom of the Court’s denial of Dr. Cordero’s motion to quash [C:719] the order of August 30, 2004, of Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo [C:744].................................................................................. C:393

[Comment: Dr. Cordero made his three motions of March 22, April 18, and May 31, 2004 (C:303, 337, 361) for C.J. Walker to recuse himself from considering his petition for rehearing (C:122) after the dismissal (C:119) of his appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023 [C:171]. The Chief Judge denied them without a word of explanation on May 10 and August 2 (C:359-360, 389). During all those months and thereafter other motions were denied by the panel of which the Chief remained a member just as the §351 judicial misconduct complaint against him by Dr. Cordero was dismissed on September 24 (C:391). Then unexpectedly on October 13, C.J. Walker had the Court state in an asterisk note at the foot of an order denying (C:393) something else that he had recused himself from In re Premier. He gave no explanation whatsoever therefor. Too little too late as well as doubtful.

Indeed, just a few days later, on October 26, the Court denied Dr. Cordero’s petition for rehearing in In re Premier (C:394). It stated that the denial was ordered “upon consideration by the panel [C:119] that decided the appeal”. That panel, of course, included C.J. Walker. The order did not state that the denial was ordered ‘by the remaining members of the panel’. Nor did it state the names of the deciding judges; it was simply signed by Arthur Heller, Esq., a motion staff attorney. Dr. Cordero’s motion for naming the judges who denied his rehearing motion (C:403) was not even filed and was returned.]

41. CA2’s order of October 26, 2004, stating that “upon consideration by the panel [C:119] that decided the appeal”, Dr. Cordero’s petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc in In re Premier Van et al. was denied............................................................................................ C:394

[Comment: No reason for that denial was provided either. Cf. Dr. Cordero’s brief petitioning to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to CA2 (A:1601) and its summarizing Table of Headings (A:1633), which point to CA2’s indifference to judicial wrongdoing and its failure to discharge its responsibility to safeguard the integrity of judicial process.]

42. Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 2, 2004, for CA2 to stay the mandate after denying his petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc in In re Premier Van et al., 03-5023 C:395

43. Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 3, 2004, for CA2 to state the names of the panel members that denied his motion for panel rehearing (returned unfiled)................ C:403

44. Dr. Cordero’s motion of November 8, 2004, for CA2 to report In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, to the U.S. Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405] for investigation of the evidence of a bankruptcy fraud scheme................................................................. C:404

a) Table of Contents...................................................................................................... C:405

[Comment: The motion to report In re Premier to the U.S. Attorney General was returned unfiled. However, the duty that Congress imposed under §3057(a) (C:405) on judges to report bankruptcy fraud is independent from whether anybody has any case in any court.

Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. §351(b) “on the basis of information available to the chief judge of a circuit” such chief judge can “identify a complaint for purposes of this chapter” on judicial misconduct in order to proceed under it “and thereby dispense with the filing of a written complaint”. Despite the refusal to file that November 8 motion, Chief Judge Walker received information about the support given by Judge Ninfo and others to a bankruptcy fraud scheme and could have proceeded based thereon either to launch an investigation under §351 or to report the information to the Attorney General under §3057(a) (C:405).

The fact is that the Chief Judge first received such information when Dr. Cordero filed his opening brief of July 9, 2003, (C:171) in In re Premier, of whose panel the Chief was a member. He received even more corroborating and updating information in the several motions that Dr. Cordero subsequently filed (C:108 & D:426; C:296, 381; D:441A:674, 768), as well as in the complaint against Judge Ninfo of August 11, 2003 (C:1 & 63; E:1), in the letter to him of February 2, 2004 (C:105) and in the motions that followed. Why did Chie Judge Walker fail to take any action to perform his duty to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system in the circuit of which he is supposed to be the foremost steward?]

45. CA2’s order of November 8, 2004, denying Dr. Cordero’s motion to stay the mandate, before Judge Oakes and Judge Katzmann..................................................................... C:420

46. CA2’s order of November 8, 2004, issuing the mandate............................................ C:421

47. Docket of In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, as of May 15, 2006................. C:422

C. Misconduct by clerks leads to call for an investigation by motion to CA2 and by request to its Clerk of Court

48. Dr. Cordero’s motion of February 9, 2004, for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing and for a stay of the mandate due to the CA2 clerk’s untimely notification to him that his appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, had been dismissed; and CA2’s order of February 23, 2004, granting it........................................................................... C:441

49. Dr. Cordero’s motion of April 11, 2004, for declaratory judgment that CA2 officers intentionally violated law and rules as part of a pattern of coordinated wrongdoing to complainant’s detriment and for CA2 to launch an investigation.............................. C:442

a) Table of Contents....................................................................................................... C:443

a) Table of Exhibits......................................................................................................... C:464

50. Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 11, 2004, to the parties served with his motion for declaratory judgment.............................................................................................................................. C:465

51. Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 12, 2004, to Circuit Executive Milton transmitting confidentially to her a package of information and asking that she take action concerning his motion for declaratory judgment and to that end “I also request that you restrict the circulation of this letter to people that are not in a position to retaliate against me” [cf.C:537 below]............................................................................................................................................... C:466

Exhibits

a) Dr. Cordero’s motion of April 11, 2004, for declaratory judgment............. C:442 above

b) Dr. Cordero’s Memorandum of March 30, 2004, to the parties on the facts, implications, and requests concerning the DeLanos’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, docket no. 04-20280, WBNY..................................................................................... C:469

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:469

52. Clerk of Court MacKechnie’s letter of April 13, 2004, to Dr. Cordero returning to him his April 11 motion and advising him that it was not filed because misconduct complaints do not allow motion practice and the Chief Judge cannot launch an investigation since he was named in the complaint............................................................................................. C:491

[Comment: However, Clerk MacKechnie cited no legal provision for her allegation. Nor could she have cited any because 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. do not prohibit motion practice at all, a subject on which those sections are silent, as are also the Council’s Rules Governing §351 complaints (C:75).

Likewise, Rule 18(e) of those Rules (C:98) provide that when the chief judge is the subject of a complaint “responsibilities of the chief judge under these rules will be assigned to the circuit judge eligible to become the next chief judge of the circuit”.

This shows how Clerk MacKechnie abused her power by acting in self-interest to prevent Dr. Cordero’s April 11 motion (C:442), which complained against her and clerks under her authority, from reaching the CA2 judges formally. In so doing, she deprived him of access to the Court for judicial determination of a controversy, for the protection of his legal rights, and for the safeguard of his interests. (Cf. C: 509, 513 and 777).]

53. Dr. Cordero’s request of April 18, 2004, to Clerk MacKechnie to review her decisions concerning Dr. Cordero’s complaint against the clerks’ pattern of mishandling his judicial misconduct complaints..................................................................................................... C:492

a) Table of Contents....................................................................................................... C:493

54. Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 19, 2004, to Circuit Executive Milton accompanying a copy of his April 18 request to Clerk MacKechnie for review.................................................. C:508

55. Letter of Fernando Galindo, Acting Clerk of Court, of April 27, 2004, to Dr. Cordero returning unfiled his April 18 request to Clerk MacKechnie to review her decisions because “The Rules governing the judicial conduct procedure (28 U.S.C. §351) does (sic) not allow motion practice”........................................................................................................ C:509

[Comment: Neither Clerk Galindo cited in support of that allegation any provision of §351 et seq. or the Council’s Rules Governing §351 complaints (C:75); cf. the entries and comments at C:491, 513 and 777]

56. Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 28, 2004, to Clerk MacKechnie and to the attention of Deputy Allen objecting to their decision to return unfiled his April 18 request for review and the conflict of interest in not allowing the panel of the Court in session to pass judgment on a legal question involving a complaint against the clerks............................................. C:510

57. Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 29, 2004, to Circuit Executive Milton concerning her lack of response to his April 12 and 19 letters (C:466, 508) despite her request to him in her March 30 letter (C:143) that he “direct any future question to me”, and that he did so confidentially in his April 12 letter to her (C:466), nevertheless Clerk MacKechnie was able to make reference to it in her April 13 letter to him (C:491)....................................................... C:511

Exhibit

a) Dr. Cordero’s letter of April 28, 2004, to Clerks MacKechnie and Allen C:510 above

58. Circuit Executive Milton’s letter of May 14, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that Clerk MacKechnie “acted in a manner that is consistent with the rules governing judicial conduct matters, 28 U.S.C. §351 [which] do not allow motion practice” and that the Circuit Executive does not have jurisdiction to refer a matter to the FBI............................... C:513

[Comment: One would reasonably expect that the Circuit Executive of a judicial circuit would reflexively cite the specific provision of a legal instrument in support of her contention, and all the more so if the instrument was created by the circuit itself, as is the case with the “rules governing judicial conduct matters” (cf. 75), which Executive Milton simply mentioned generally.

Executive Milton could not have cited any provision in particular because as a matter of fact those Rules (C:75) do not even mention motion practice, let alone prohibit it. Since she can be imputed with knowledge of Rules that she herself referred Dr. Cordero to, did she simply pretend that they prohibit motion practice in order to dispose of Dr. Cordero’s complaint and get rid of him? Was this what also Clerk of Court MacKechnie (C:491), Acting Clerk of Court Galindo (C:509) and Clerk Allen (C:777) did?

The likelihood that Executive Milton may have made up such pretense is increased by the disingenuous statement that she did not have jurisdiction to refer the matter to the FBI. The fact is that nobody needs “jurisdiction” or authority to bring a matter to the FBI, just as nobody needs it to report to the police a crime or a belief that a criminal offense may have been committed.

On the contrary, the broad language of 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) (C:405) imposes a duty to make a report to the U.S. Attorney on any judge that may have just a reasonable belief, not even evidence, that a bankruptcy law has been violated. (cf. C:404) Since Executive Milton is appointed by and works for judges, she could invoke such provision, that is, if she needed to invoke any, to make such report to the U.S. Attorney or the FBI.]

59. Dr. Cordero’s motion of May 15, 2004, for declaratory judgment that the legal grounds for updating an appeal’s opening and reply briefs and expanding upon their issues also apply to similar papers under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 16.................................................... C:514

a) Table of Contents....................................................................................................... C:518

60. Dr. Cordero’s letter of June 19, 2004, to CA2 Chief Judge Walker, stating that the CA2 judicial misconduct orders and materials have not been made publicly available, as required under Rule 17(a) and (b) of the Judicial Council’s Rules Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers, and requesting that those orders and materials be made available to him for his research and writing use before the deadline of July 9, 2004 (C:144) for submitting his petition for review of the dismissal (C:145) of his complaint against Judge Ninfo (C:63).............................................................................................................. C:530

a) Rule 17(a) and (b) of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints against Judicial Officers.................................................. C:531

61. Dr. Cordero’s letter of June 30, 2004, to Chief Judge Walker, stating that the Court’s archiving of all judicial misconduct rules in the National Archives in Missouri! except those for the last three years constitutes a violation of Rule 17 (C:531; also at C:96) of the Judicial Council’s Rules Governing Misconduct Complaints.................................... C:533

a) OfficeDepot catalog page on binders and number of pages they can hold...... C:536

[Those binders could have been used to hold the orders and keep them at the CA2 courthouse so as to ensure their availability to the public, as required by law and rule, rather than send them to the National Archives in Missouri.]

62. Dr. Cordero’s letter of July 1, 2004, to Fernando Galindo, CA2 Chief Deputy of the Clerk of Court, concerning the warning to him by Clerk Harris, Head of the In-take Room, that if he nodded a third time in the reading room while reading misconduct orders, she would call the marshals on him [cf.C:466 above]....................................................... C:537

63. CA2’s order of August 2, 2004, denying Dr. Cordero’s May 15 motion [C:514] for declaratory judgment that the legal grounds for updating opening and reply appeal briefs and expanding upon their issues also apply to similar papers under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 16........................................................................................................................... C:540

D. Appeal to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo, WBNY

64. Dr. Cordero’s petition of July 8, 2004, to the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, addressed to Clerk of Court MacKechnie, for review of the dismissal of his judicial misconduct complaint of August 11, 2003, against Judge Ninfo and other court officers, docket no. 03-8547, CA2.................................................................................................... C:551

a) Table of Contents....................................................................................................... C:551

b) Table of Exhibits......................................................................................................... C:561

8. Table of CA2 Judicial Misconduct Orders: orders made available to Petitioner Dr. Cordero on July 1, 2004, by CA2 to be read in its Reading Room two weeks after he requested them to prepare his petition to the Judicial Council for review of the dismissal of his complaint, no. 03-8547, CA2, against Judge Ninfo, WBNY, but no docket-sheet record was available, though required under Rule 17(a) [C:96]; and dissenting opinions and separate statements by Judicial Council members, if written, were not available (listed in the order in which they were found in the CA2 2003 binder)..................................................... C:564

9. Table of All 15 Memoranda and Orders of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders (text at C:1611) sent in May and July 2004 to Dr. Cordero from the General Counsel’s Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts [cf. C:681] and showing how few complaints under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. are allowed to reach the Judicial Conference as petitions for review of judicial council action [as of July 2004; cf. C:973 et seq.]..................................................................................... C:566

10. Title page of the Report of September 23, 2003, of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, presented by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist........................................................................................................... C:567

(a) Report of September 23, 2003, of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference, and Reports of March and September 2003 and March 2004, of the Judicial Conference’s Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, all stating that there are no pending petitions for review of judicial council action on misconduct orders................... C:568

11. Supreme Court of the United States 2003 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary: from 7,924 filings in the 2001 Term to 8,255 in the 2002 Term; www.supremecourtus.gov.............................................................................. C:573

[Comment: In a society as litigious as ours, as further shown above by the number of filings in the Supreme Court alone, can it reasonably be assumed for a second that it is a natural occurrence that for years in a row there is not a single petition for review to the Judicial Conference from any of the 13 circuits in connection with judicial misconduct complaints under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq.? (C:1711)

It would be patently untenable to pretend that not even one of all the §351 complainants to the chief judges was dissatisfied with a chief judge’s final order concerning his complaint so as to petition one of the judicial councils for review thereof under §352(c). It is just as untenable to allege that not a single petitioner to any of the councils was “aggrieved” under §357(a) by a council’s action so as to petition the Judicial Conference for review thereof. It is equally untenable to even suggest that of all the complaints filed during the course of years there is not one meritorious enough for any of the councils to refer under §354(b) to the Conference.

Consequently, it necessarily follows that the occurrence of “no pending petitions for review of judicial council action on misconduct orders” is the result of the non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated determination of the judges of the 13 councils, with the conniving approval of those who are also members of the Conference, both to prevent complaints, not to mention their own action on them, from being reviewed and to put an end to them at the earliest stage possible.

The Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring respect for the rule of law through its application not only by, but also to, judges. Hence, it too is to blame for having allowed the entrenchment of the attitude of flagrant disregard for the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 by judges, chief judges, and their councils and Conference, and for having tolerated its deleterious effect on the integrity of judicial process. (Cf. A:1662§D; ToEC:>C:973 and Comment thereunder)]

12. News release of the Supreme Court of June 10, 2004, on the Organizational Meeting of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer upon appointment by Chief Justice William Rehnquist; http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/ press/pr_04-13-04.html C:574

13. Statement of Mr. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, of May 26, 2004, regarding the new Commission on Judicial Misconduct; http://judiciary.house.gov........ C:576

17. The DeLano Bankruptcy Petition, A test case that illustrates how a bankruptcy petition riddled with red flags as to its good faith is accepted without review by the trustee and readied for confirmation by the bankruptcy court......... C:578

18. Notice of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WBNY, of February 3, 2004, of Meeting of Creditors and Deadlines after the joint filing on January 27, 2004, by David and Mary Ann DeLano of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, docket no. 04-20280, under Chapter 13 of U.S.C. Title 11................................................................ C:581

(a) Certificate of Mailing containing names and addresses of the DeLanos’ creditors and other parties.................................................................. C:583

[Comment: The list includes Dr. Cordero, who was named by the DeLanos as one of their creditors (C:598); see also other addresses at C:619, 1051, and ToEC:§VII.]

19. Petition by David DeLano and Mary Ann DeLano, dated January 26, 2004, for voluntary bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. Chapter 13, with Schedules A-J. C:585

(a) Statement of Financial Affairs............................................................... C:605

20. Chapter 13 Plan for Debt Repayment of David and Mary Ann DeLano, dated January 26, 2004................................................................................................. C:617

21. Useful addresses for investigating the judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme revealed by the DeLano case (see also other addresses at C:583)............................................................................................................................. C:619

65. Acting Clerk of Court Fernando Galindo’s letter of July 9, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero his 10-page petition for review of July 8 because “It has been the long-standing practice of this court to…establish the definition of brief as applied to the statement of grounds for petition to five pages” (emphasis in the original).......................................................................................... C:621

[Comment: However, such practice was nowhere stated to give notice to potential petitioners so that they would not waste their time, effort, and money writing more than 5 pages. How odd: a federal court of appeals that either does not understand or disregards the fundamental notion of notice as a prerequisite for achieving fairness in judicial process.]

66. Dr. Cordero’s letter of July 13, 2004, to Acting Clerk Galindo accompanying his revised petition for review and protesting CA2’s failure to give notice of the practice of limiting petitions for review to five pages; and demonstrating the inconsistency of requiring that petitions not be submitted with any other documents................................................ C:622

67. Dr. Cordero’s petition to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., of July 8, 2004, addressed to Acting Clerk of Court Galindo, as reformatted and resubmitted on July 13, 2004, containing the statement of grounds for review under Rules 5 and 8(e)(2) of this Circuit’s Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct Complaint [C:82 & 86], of the dismissal of his complaint against Judge Ninfo........................................................................................................... C:623

a) Title page of the separate volume of exhibits after the exhibits attached to the July 8 petition were refused for filing................................................................................ C:628

b) Table of Exhibits of the separate volume of exhibits.......................................... C:629

22. Chief Judge Walker violated his obligations under 28 U.S.C. §351 and the Judicial Council implementing rules [C:75] with respect to the complaint against Judge John C. Ninfo, II, in several substantive aspects so as to raise the reasonable inference that the complaint’s dismissal was also decided in violation thereof................................................................................................ C:632

23. A Chapter 7 Trustee with 3,383 cases! How the Trustee showed that with such workload he could not and did not pay attention to the facts and merits of each case; yet, Judge Ninfo and the U.S. Trustee protected him from a complaint about his performance and fitness to serve and even dismissed claims of negligence against the Trustee without allowing any discovery............. C:641

[Comment: The cases of Chapter 7 Trustee Kenneth Gordon can be seen, as reported on the stated dates by PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) in section „C. Searches on PACER…“ (ToEC:91¶2), Through the hyperlinks there, the PACER reports are available in PDF and WORD files. Furthermore, those with access to PACER can access the docket itself of each case through the active hyperlinks in the WORD files.

For a current list of such cases, log in to PACER directly through, http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/, click on „Query“, and enter the values „Gordon, Kenneth“. This will return a list of hyperlinks with permutations of the name Kenneth W. Gordon through which the cases can be accessed where he appears as party (pty), trustee (tr), or attorney (aty).

The number of cases thus found will make it possible to establish the rate at which Trustee Gordon adds new cases every day. This was a suspiciously overwhelming rate when such comparative exercise was last performed on the number of cases that he had on November 3, 2003, and June 26, 2004. (C:1406¶¶16-18)]

All of the above also holds, mutatis mutandis, for the cases of Chapter 13 George M. Reiber.]

68. CA2 Clerk MacKechnie’s cover letter by Deputy Allen of July 16, 2004, to Dr. Cordero acknowledging receipt of his petition to the Judicial Council, wrongly referring to it as of February 13, rather than July 13, 2004, for review of the dismissal of his complaint, docket no. 03-8547, CA2, against Judge Ninfo; and returning the also unaccepted separate volume of exhibits.............................................................................................................. C:651

69. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of July 30, 2004, to Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and the other members of the Judicial Council to let them know that neither the volume of exhibits nor the table of exhibits accompanying his petition for review was accepted by CA2 for filing but instead both were returned unfiled and sending a copy of the table as well as of the 5-page petition to each of them............................................................... C:652

a) List of member of the Judicial Council, 2nd Cir., to whom Dr. Cordero sent the letters of July 30, 2004............................................................................................................ C:653

70. Dr. Cordero’s letter of July 31, 2004, to CA2 Clerk MacKechnie accompanying a resubmitted separate bound volume of exhibits for the petition for review and requesting that she file it so that the members of the Judicial Council may request and obtain from her any or all exhibits........................................................................................................ C:654

a) Title page of the separate volume of exhibits resubmitted by Dr. Cordero on July 31, 2004, to Clerk MacKechnie for her to make available to any member of the Judicial Council requesting any or all of them on the basis of the table of exhibits accompanying his letter of July 30 to each of them.............................................. C:655

71. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter of August 3, 2004, accompanying the return unfiled of Dr. Cordero’s resubmitted volume of exhibits and the copies of July 30, 2004, of the table of exhibits and the 5-page petition to Judge Dennis Jacobs............................................ C:656

72. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of August 13, 2004, accompanying the return of Dr. Cordero’s copies of July 30, 2004, of the table of exhibits and the 5-page petition to Chief Judge Walker............................................................................................................ C:657

73. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of August 18, 2004, accompanying the return of Dr. Cordero’s copies of July 30, 2004, of the table of exhibits and the 5-page petition to Judge J. Straub (cf. C:652).................................................................................................. C:658

74. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of August 27, 2004, to Chief Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, and other members of the Judicial Council providing them an update (cf. C:652) of his July 8 and 13 petition for review (C:623).................................................................. C:659

a) Dr. Cordero’s statement regarding his petition to the Judicial Council for review [C:623]of the dismissal [C:144] of the complaint against Judge Ninfo [C:63] and updating it with evidence as of August 27, 2004, pointing to lots of money generated by fraudulent bankruptcy petitions as the force driving the complained-about bias and pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts by Judge Ninfo and others in WBNY and WDNY C:660

b) Entries updating to August 27, 2004, the docket of In re David and Mary Ann DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY.................................................................................................. C:666

75. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of August 31, 2004, on behalf of CA2 Judge Dennis Jacobs and Judge Jose Cabranes, both of whom “forwarded your unopened letter to this office for response”, and of C.J. Walker, as well as of September 3, 2004, on behalf of CA2 Judge Guido Calabresi, returning to Dr. Cordero his August 27 letters without any action taken..................................................................................................................................... C:667

76. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of October 6, 2004, notifying Dr. Cordero of the Judicial Council’s order of September 30, 2004, denying his petition for review of the dismissal of his complaint, docket no. 03-8547, against Judge Ninfo....................... C:671

a) Judicial Council’s order by Circuit Executive Milton of September 30, 2004, denying Dr. Cordero’s petition for review............................................................................ C:672

[Comment: This order gives no explanation for the denial other than indicating “for the reasons stated in the order dated June 8, 2004” (C:145) that dismissed Dr. Cordero’s complaint, docket no. 03-8547, against Judge Ninfo (C:63; cf. C:781); and wrongly stating that complaint’s filing date as August 8, 2003, instead of August 28, 2003 (C:73)]

F. Appeal to the Judicial Council from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against C.J. Walker

84. Dr. Cordero’s petition of October 4, 2004, to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., addressed to Clerk MacKechnie, for review of Acting Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs’ order of September 24, 2004, dismissing (C:391) his judicial misconduct complaint, docket no. 04-8510, against Chief Judge Walker (C:271).............................................................................................. C:711

85. Clerk MacKechnie’s cover letter by Deputy Allen of October 7, 2004, to Dr. Cordero acknowledging receipt of his October 4 petition to the Judicial Council for review of the dismissal of his complaint against C.J. Walker............................................................ C:716

86. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of October 14, 2004, to Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara, EDNY, and other members of the Judicial Council submitting exhibits in support of the petition for review of the dismissal of the complaint against C. J. Walker and requesting an investigation.................................................................................................................. C:717

a) Table of Exhibits for consideration by the members of the Judicial Council in the context of the October 4 petition for review of the dismissal of the complaint against C. J. Walker.................................................................................................................. C:718

4. Dr. Cordero’s motion of September 9, 2004, in CA2, to quash the order of Judge Ninfo of August 30, 2004, to sever a claim from the case on appeal In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, in order to try it in the bankruptcy case In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY, thus making a mockery of the appellate process.... C:719

(a) Table of Contents...................................................................................... C:722

(b) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................... C:739

1. Judge Ninfo’s letter of November 19, 2003, to CA2 Clerk MacKechnie submitting copies of his four decisions of October 16 and 23, 2003, in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., no. 04-20280, WBNY, after having received from an unstated source a copy of Dr. Cordero’s CA2 Motion Information Sheet of October 31, 2003, that accompanied his motion in CA2 for leave to file in In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, CA2, an updating supplement of evidence of bias in Judge Ninfo’s denial of Dr. Cordero’s request for a trial by jury........................................ C:743

5. Judge Ninfo’s order of August 30, 2004, for Dr. Cordero to take discovery of Debtor Mr. DeLano by severing Dr. Cordero’s claim against the Debtor from the CA2 case In re Premier Van et al., no. 03-5023, for the purpose of trying it in Bankruptcy Court in In re DeLano, no. 04-20280................................................................................................... C:744

6. Dr. Cordero’s motion of August 14, 2004, in DeLano, WBNY, for docketing and issue of the proposed order, transfer, referral, examination, and other relief.......................................................... C:752

i) Table of Contents.................................................................... C:752

ii) Dr. Cordero’s proposed order of August 14, 2004, to be issued by Judge Ninfo in In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY, for docketing and production of documents, investigation, etc.............. C:770

iii) Phone bill showing faxes sent by Dr. Cordero to J Ninfo’s fax no. (585)613-4299, thus belying the court’s assertion that Dr. Cordero’s documents had not been docketed because they had not been received.................................................................... C:772

10. Table of dates of key documents as of October 14, 2004, concerning Dr. Cordero’s judicial misconduct complaints in the Court of Appeals, docket nos. 03-8547 and 04-8510, CA2, and the petitions to the Judicial Council for review of the dismissals of those complaints [see updated version at ToEC:107].................................................................................................. C:773

87. Useful information about the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit:

a) Table of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the members of the Judicial Council, displayed in tabular format for mail merge (see also this information displayed as block addresses at C:112 and cf. ToEC:79§VII)................................. C:774

b) Official information about the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit found in March 2006 at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/................................................................ C:775

88. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of October 20, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero the exhibits submitted on October 14 (C:717) to Chief Judge Walker and Judges Jacobs and Straub and stating that “You cannot supplement the file in the judicial complaint procedure”............................................................................................................................................... C:777

[Comment: Clerk Allen cited no rule prohibiting the supplementation of judicial complaints, for there is no such prohibition either in the CA2 Rules (C:75) or in the statute at 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. (cf. the entries and comments at ToE:C>C:491, >C:509, and >C:513)]

89. Clerk MacKechnie’s letter by Deputy Allen of November 10, 2004, notifying Dr. Cordero of the Judicial Council’s order of November 10, 2004, denying his petition for review of the dismissal of his complaint, docket no. 04-8510, against Chief Judge Walker.... C:780

a) Judicial Council’s order by Circuit Executive Milton of November 10, 2004, denying Dr. Cordero’s review petition.................................................................................. C:781

[Comment: This order gives no explanation for the denial other than indicating “for the reasons stated in the order dated September 24, 2004” (C:391) that dismissed Dr. Cordero’s complaint, docket no. 04-8510, against Chief Judge Walker (C:271) When judges can deny a petition, particularly one concerning a complaint against one of their own, let alone their chief judge, without giving any explanation whatsoever, what incentive do they have, not to mention what assurance do they give the petitioner and the public at large, that they even read the petition that they denied?]

90. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of November 29, 2004, to CA2 Judge Robert A. Katzmann and other members of the Second Circuit Judicial Council and Court of Appeals explaining the factual basis and legal reasons for them to report evidence of judicial wrongdoing linked to a bankruptcy fraud scheme...................................................... C:782

a) List of judges to whom Dr. Cordero sent his November 29 letter with attachments C:783

Attachments:

b) Sample of Dr. Cordero’s personalized request of November 29, 2004, to Judge Katzmann and each of the other judges to make a report under 28 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405] to the Acting U.S. Attorney General that an investigation should be had in connection with offenses against U.S. bankruptcy laws...................................... C:785

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:785

ii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................... C:802

91. Circuit Executive Milton’s letter of December 13, 2004, to Dr. Cordero returning on behalf of CA2 Judge Jose Cabranes his October 14 (C:717) and November 29 letters (C:782) and request (C:785), and stating that “you have exhausted your remedies and therefore, you have no further recourse to pursue those matters before the Judicial Council…I advise you to direct your inquiries to other agencies if you feel that they may be of assistance to you.”..................... C:811

92. Letter of Chief Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, of January 27, 2005, replying to Dr. Cordero’s November 29 letter (C:782) that “The subject matter of your complaint relates to proceedings in the Western District of New York and as to which I have no personal knowledge” and suggesting that he file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, WDNY.. C:812

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 and C.J. Walker

93. Title page of Dr. Cordero’s petition of November 18, 2004, to the Judicial Conference for review of the denials by the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., (C:672, 781) of his petitions for review (C:551, 711) concerning the dismissals (C:145, 391) of his complaints no. 03-8547 and 04-8510, CA2 (C:63, 271)............................................................................................. C:821

i) List of members of the Judicial Conference to whom Dr. Cordero sent a copy of his November 18 petition for review............................................................. C:822

a) Dr. Cordero’s petition of November 18, 2004, to the Judicial Conference for review of the denials by the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., of his petitions for review of the dismissals by the CA2 Acting Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of his complaints against Judge Ninfo, WBNY, and Chief Judge Walker, CA2............................................ C:823

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:824

ii) Table of key documents and dates in the procedural history of Dr. Cordero’s judicial misconduct complaints (updated at ToE:C107).............................. C:844

iii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................... C:845

94. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of November 20 and 27, 2004, to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and each of 25 other members of the Judicial Conference, accompanying his review petition and requesting that each move the Conference to consider the petition formally and make a report under 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405] to the Acting U.S. Attorney General of the evidence of an offense against the bankruptcy laws.......................... C:851

a) Table of contact information about the members of the Judicial Conference to whom Dr. Cordero addressed his letters of November 20 and 27, 2004, and information on how to update it to the current membership and to find the Internet links to all federal courts.............................................................................................................. C:852

95. Dr. Cordero’s letter of November 26, 2004, to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit, accompa-nying his November 18 petition to the Judicial Conference for review (C821), and requesting that she a) intimate to the Conference to consider it; b) suggest to Justice Stephen Breyer to study this case in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee; and c) make a report under 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405] to the Acting U.S. Attorney General of the submitted evidence of bankruptcy fraud................................................................................................................ C:855

96. Reply of Bradford A. Baldus, Senior Legal Advisor to Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, of December 3, 2004, returning Dr. Cordero’s November 18 and 20 petition (C:821) and letter (C:851) to Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, and stating that ‘only submissions accepted for filing by the Administrative Office may be considered by the Judicial Conference and, otherwise, a member of it has no authority to informally intervene in regard to the matters addressed in Dr. Cordero’s submission’............................................................................................................................................... C:856

[Comment: Who can possibly believe that a person, and all the more so if in a position of authority, cannot -let alone would not take the initiative even for personal reasons to- approach a colleague, whether formally or informally, to ask or suggest that he or she take a certain action, especially one that flows from a legal duty imposed on both of them? (cf. ToE:C>C:1119 and >C:1124)

When a senior legal advisor and a clerk of court allow themselves to make a statement so patently at odd with reality, do they reveal thereby a problem with their professional competence or rather a manifestation of the exercise by their superior, that is, the chief judge in particular and federal judges in general, of judicial power unfettered by any self-discipline or outside supervision and control?]

97. Form letter of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, by M. Blalock, of December 6, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero his November 18 and 26 petition (C:821) and letter (C:851) to Justice Ginsburg, and stating that ‘the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to cases and controversies and that the Court does not give advice or assistance or answer legal questions on the basis of correspondence’...................... C:857

98. Reply of Mr. Leo M. Gordon, Clerk of the U.S. Court of International Trade, of December 9, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero his November 18 and 27 petition (C:821) and letter (C:851) to Chief Judge Jane A. Restani, and stating that although a member of the Judicial Conference, Judge Restani “is not authorized to take any action on her own on such matter unless it is referred to her directly by the Conference” ........................................................ C:858

[Comment: Neither the Conference nor anybody else has to authorize a judge to discharge his or her duty under 28 U.S.C. §3057(a) (C:405) to report to a U.S. attorney a belief, not even evidence, that a violation of a bankruptcy law has been committed. What was the motive of these judges for giving precedence to their relation to other members of their powerful class, namely, that of federal judges inside and outside the Conference, over their duty imposed on them by the law of Congress and the oath they took to apply it?]

99. Letter from Robert P. Deyling, Esq., Assistant General Counsel at the General Counsel’s Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, of December 9, 2004, stating that no jurisdiction lies for further review by the Judicial Conference of the orders of the Judicial Council dismissing Dr. Cordero’s petition for review of the dismissals of his complaints............................................................................................................................................... C:859

[Comment: Mr. Deyling does not reveal any awareness that Dr. Cordero’s petition contains a detailed jurisdictional argument (C:825§II). That argument was for the Conference to evaluate and determine its implication for the petition, not for Mr. Deyling in his capacity as clerk of Conference. (C:865)]

100. Fax of December 13, 2004, from John K. Rabiej, Chief of the Rules Com-mittee Support Office at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts providing a complete set of requested rules................................................................................................................... C:861

a) Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United Stats for the Processing of Petitions for Review of Circuit Council Orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act [of 1980]........................................................................................................................ C:862

[Comment: These rules are current even though they still refer to 28 U.S.C. §372(c), the old legal basis for misconduct proceedings, rather than the current basis at 28 U.S.C. §351. The latter forms part of 28 U.S.C. Chapter 16, enacted by Pub. L. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle C, §11044, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1856, which amended §372.

The failure to update those rules even after two years by December 2004, shows how little the Judicial Conference has used them. Indeed, at that time it had only issued 15 orders in the 24 years since the adoption of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (C:1611, 682). Only a person motivated by a powerful incentive could pretend to believe or try to make others believe that in 24 years there were only 15 complaints from all the complainants in the whole of the United States deserving of a decision by the Judicial Conference. What could that incentive be? (cf. C:837§B; A:1662§D)

101. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of December 18, 2004, to Chief Judge Haldane Robert Mayer, Federal Circuit, and other members of the Judicial Conference objecting to the December 9 letter of Mr. Deyling (C:859) and stating that as the equivalent of a clerk of court at the Administrative Office on behalf of the Judicial Conference, Mr. Deyling lacks authority to pass judgment on a jurisdictional issue, let alone block a petition for review from reaching the Conference; and requesting that they withdraw or cause the withdrawal of his letter and cause the Administrative Office to forward the petition to the Conference for its review....................................................................................................................... C:865

a) List of members of the Judicial Conference to whom Dr. Cordero sent his December 18 letter of objection................................................................................................... C:872

102. Clerk Gordon’s reply of December 23, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero his November 18 review petition (C:821)and December 18 letter (C:865) to Chief Judge Restani, and stating that Judge Restani has no authority to take action on her own [cf. C:858], and that Dr. Cordero has not met the conditions to permit review of his matter by the Judicial Conference.......................................................................................................................... C:875

[Comment: The fact that in over a quarter century since the adoption of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §351) only 15 complaints (C:682, 1611) have ‚met those conditions’ shows that federal judges inside and outside the Judicial Conference have intentionally made up those conditions so as to systematically prevent complainants from having their complaints and their treatment by councils and chief judges reviewed by the Conference. (cf. C:840§IV; ToEC:>C:973 and Comment; http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2005/tables/s22.pdf)]

103. Letter of Mark J. Langer, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of December 27, 2004, returning to Dr. Cordero his November 18 review petition (C:821) and December 18 letter (C:865) to Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, and stating that the latter “does not have the authority to grant the relief sought” [cf. C:858 above] C:876

104. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of January 8, 2005, to Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr., and other judicial and administrative officers to request that a) Mr. Deyling’s letter of December 9, 2004 (C:859) be declared ultra vires and withdrawn; b) the petition for review of November 18 (C:821) be forwarded to the Judicial Conference and its handling at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts investigated; and c) a report of the evidence of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme be made to the Acting U.S. Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405]....................................................................... C:877

I. Attachments:

a) Table of the Accompanying Document and Exhibits........................................ C:880

1. Statement of Facts of December 18, 2004, and Request of January 8, 2005, for an investigation into both the Adminis-trative Office of the U.S. Courts’ rules-noncomplying handling of the petition for review under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq., submitted to the Judicial Conference on November 18, 2004 (C:821) and the Office’s treatment of Petitioner Dr. Richard Cordero................................. C:881

2. Key Documents and Dates in the procedural history as of January 8, 2005, of the judicial misconduct complaints filed with CA2 Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., and the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, dockets no. 03-8547 and no. 04-8510, submitted in support of the petition for review to the Judicial Conference of the United States [updated to May 22, 2006 at ToEC:1007]..................... C:886

II. List of addressees and their addresses................................................................ C:887

a) Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit and Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference;

b) Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Chair of the Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders; and

c) William R. Burchill, Jr., Associate Director and General Counsel of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

105. Letter of District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, of January 12, 2005, to Dr. Cordero stating that he received Dr. Cordero’s documents of November 20, 2004 (C:851) which include the review petition to the Judicial Conference, but that the Judge is unable to present them to the Conference as requested because his term on the Conference expired on 2004................................................. C:889

[Comment: However, his duty under 28 U.S.C. §3057(a) (C:405) did not expire and he, like all his colleagues, could and should have reported the evidence of a bankruptcy fraud scheme to the U.S. Attorney General.]

106. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of February 7, 2005, with supporting files stating that he has received no response to his letter of January 8 (C:877) and requesting that action be taken on that letter and its request; sent to:

a) Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter;

b) General Counsel William R. Burchill.................................................................... C:890

c) Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, to whom Dr. Cordero complained that he was told by the Office of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, (202) 502-2400, that his January 8 letter to her (C:877)would have been forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel, William Burchill, Esq.; so he questioned the reason-ableness of forwarding a letter of complaint about Mr. Burchill’s Office to the complained-about person in charge of that Office................................................................................. C:891

107. Judge Winter’s letter of February 15, 2005, to Dr. Cordero stating that the Judicial Conference does not have jurisdiction for further review of his complaints.......... C:893

[Comment: Judge Winter refused to allow the whole Judicial Conference Commit-tee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, which he chairs, to consider Dr. Cordero’s jurisdictional arguments (C: 825§II, 865, 881). Thereby he took it upon himself to decide for the whole Committee, thus excluding even the possibility that other Committee members might have a different view of the matter or even be persuaded by Dr. Cordero’s arguments to refer the petition to the Conference. His refusal was all the more unjustifiable because in the entire history of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 the Conference has not made a single pronouncement on the scope of its jurisdiction, as shown by the meager 15 orders that it had issued during all that time (C:681-683, 1611). Therefore, the Conference had never considered the arguments presented by Dr. Cordero in favor of exercising jurisdiction over his review petition of November 18, 2004 (C:823).]

108. Chief Judge King’s letter of February 18, 2005, by Clerk Charles R. Fulbruge, III, and signed by Deputy Clerk Nancy H. Gray replying to Dr. Cordero’s letters of November 20 and December 18, 2004, (C:821, 865) and February 7, 2005 (C:890), and stating conclusorily that the Judicial Conference does not have jurisdiction once a judicial council has denied a petition for review because such denial is under 28 U.S.C. §352(c) “final and conclusive and shall not be judicially reviewable on appeal or otherwise”.............................................. C:896

[Comment: Just as Mr. Deyling failed to do (C:859), Chief Judge King’s responder failed to reveal even a mere awareness that Dr. Cordero’s petition contains a detailed jurisdictional argument (C:825§II). Hence, in neither case was there a discussion of his points of law and practical considerations militating in favor of the Judicial Conference passing judgment itself on the scope of its own jurisdiction as a step preceding the exercise of such jurisdiction by reviewing the petition.]

109. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 7, 2005, to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting that he cause the Judicial Conference to pass judgment on the threshold issue of jurisdiction to review his petition for the reasons argued in the petition itself (C:823) as well as in the accompanying:.................................................................................................................... C:897

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:898

a) ADDENDUM of March 7, 2005, to the Petition’s section II “The Judicial Conference Has Jurisdiction Over This Appeal Because The Complainant Was “Aggrieved” under 28 U.S.C. §357(a) By The Judicial Council”, to request that the Conference consider the threshold argument for taking jurisdiction over the Petition of November 18, 2004 (C:823)............................................................................................................ C:899

b) Dr. Cordero’s motion of February 17, 2005, to request that Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) due to lack of impartiality..... C:905

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:906

ii) Table of References........................................................................................... C:933

110. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 24, 2005, to Judge Winter requesting that he formally submit to the other members of the Committee as well as to the Judicial Conference the following attachment:.......................................................................................................................... C:935

a) Dr. Cordero’s Reply of March 25, 2005, to the Chairman of the Committee for the Review of Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders on the statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. §331 for the whole Committee to review all petitions for review to the Judicial Conference and on the need for the Conference to decide the issue of jurisdiction................................................................................................... C:936

i) Table of Contents................................................................................................ C:937

ii) Table of Exhibits................................................................................................. C:950

7. Dr. Cordero’s Statement of March 12, 2005: Judge Ninfo’s bias and disregard for legality can be heard from his own mouth through the transcript of the evidentiary hearing of the DeLano Debtors’ motion to disallow Dr. Cordero’s claim against Mr. DeLano, held on March 1, 2005; and can be read about in a caveat on ascertaining its authenticity that illustrates the Judge’s tolerance of wrongdoing........................................................................... C:951

[See that transcript in the Tr file in the D Add Pst Tr folder.]

(a) Table of Contents.............................................................................. C:951

111. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of March 26, 2005, to Judge Pasco M. Bowman and the other members of the Judicial Conference Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, requesting that they cause the Committee as a whole to consider Dr. Cordero’s arguments for having the petition for review forwarded to the Judicial Conference and deferring to it the determination of the threshold issue of the scope of the Conference’s own jurisdiction.......................................................................................... C:967

a) List of Committee Members to whom Dr. Cordero sent his March 24 (C:935) and 26 letter with his March 25 Reply to the Chairman (C:936)....................................... C:968

b) Table of Exhibits of the March 26 letter to Committee members....................... C:969

112. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 28, 2005, to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting that he have the Conference request the Review Committee to submit to it Dr. Cordero’s petition so that the Conference may decide the issue of its own jurisdiction under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and eventually decide the petition................................ C:971

113. Reply for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, Member of the Review Committee, by Bradford A. Baldus, Senior Legal Advisor to Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, of April 26, 2005, returning Dr. Cordero’s March 26 (C:967) letter and supporting documents (cf. C:969) and stating that “Any submissions to the Judicial Conference of the United States, or a committee thereof, must be made to the appropriate individual in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.”................................................ C:972

[Comment: However, the Administrative Office will withhold such submissions and not forward them to the intended body or officer (ToEC:>C:859, 891) and will not take any action on even a petition addressed to it ((ToEC:>C:685)]. Do judges and their clerks know the uselessnes of such advice but nevertheless give it in order to get rid of a complainant by giving him the round around? (cf. C:812)

114. 1997-2005 Reports of Complaints Filed and Action Taken Under Authority of 28 U.S.C. §§351-364 and 372(c) During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, [of the year reported on], in Judicial Business of the United States Courts, Annual Reports of the Director, by Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, http://www.uscourts.gov/judbususc/judbus.html................................................ C:973

115. Supreme Court’s 2005 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary.......................... C:980.k

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2005year-endreport.pdf

116. Judicial Facts and Figures, published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts............................................................................................................................................. C:980.t

http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialfactsfigures/contents.html

a) Table 1. Total Judicial Officers. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts..................................................................................................... C:980.w

b) Table 2.1. U.S. Courts of Appeals (Excludes Federal Circuit). Appeals Filed, Terminated, and Pending, Summary of 1990-2005........................... C:980.x

[Comment: The statistics of workload of the courts contained in the Supreme Court’s 2005 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary (C:980k) show that there were 7,496 case filings in the 2004 Term. Only 9 justices managed to hear oral argument in 87 cases and to dispose of 85 in 74 signed opinions. (C:980.q; for the 2000-2004 workload statistics see A:1965)

The Report goes on to state that „Filings in the regional courts of appeals rose 9 percent to an all-time high of 68,473, marking the 10th consecutive record-breaking year and the 11th successive year of growth.“ (C:980r) That steady growth started from 40,893 cases filed in 1990, as shown in „Table 2.1. Appeals Filed, Terminated, and Pending (Excludes Federal Circuit) Summary of 1990-2005“, (C:980.x) contained in „Judicial Facts and Figures“ published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (C:980.t). That Table also shows that 38,961 cases were terminated in 1990 while 61,975 were in 2005.

The Administrative Office has also published the reports of judicial misconduct complaints filed in the period beginning on October 1, 1996 and ending on September 30, 2005. (C:973-980.j) It covers not only the regional courts of appeals, including the Federal Circuit, but also two national courts, that is, the Court of Claims and the Court of International Trade, for a total of 15 courts. It shows that for the administrative year ending on September 30, 1997, 679 complaints were filed. (C:980.i) However, in the year ending on September 2005, only 642 complaints were filed. (C:973) So today there are fewer complaint filed with 15 courts against judges than nine years ago and there is less than one complaint out of every 100 cases that „disappointed litigants“ appeal to just 12 courts. That is unbelievable!

So a society that has shown to become dramatically more litigious toward everybody, excluding judges, has become less contentious toward 2,133 circuit, district, and bankruptcy judges. Oh, judges!, ever so civil, patient, and understanding of one’s point of view. (C:980.w) How ridiculous!, particularly since that same society is ever more prone to road rage, school shootings, and violence against judges, as shown „by the horrific murders of a U.S. District Court judge’s husband and mother by a disappointed litigant, and the terrible incident in Atlant in which a judge, court reporter, and deputy were killed in the Fulton County courthouse“, as stated by the Supreme Court in the same 2005 Year-End Report (C:980.l)

What is more, the judicial councils took no action on any of those complaints but one kind: dismissal. So they dismissed 212 complaints in the administrative year 1997 (C:980.j) only to increase their dismissals to 267 out of a smaller total of complaints in 2005 (C:974).

This is not just preposterous; this is a pattern where the last nine years are representative of the last 25 since the enactment of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (C:576, 1384). It is the pattern of intentional and coordinated disregard by chief judges of the courts of appeals and the judges of the judicial councils of an Act of Congress inimical to their interests as a class of people, the abrogation in practice of the only legislation disciplining the only people above the law: federal judges. It has led to only 15 Conference orders since 1980 (C:682, 1611)

Why would officers sworn to apply the law „without respect to persons“ (28 U.S.C.§453) disregard their oath when it comes to applying the law in a disciplinary setting to their own peers, which redounds to the detriment of all the complainants to whom they thereby denied the relief that they were seeking and entitled to?

In light of the evidence and taking account of the dynamics of webs of personal relationships, two reasonable answers to that question present themselves. One derives from the determination of judges to exempt themselves from the principle, to which everybody else is subject, that if the judges reviewing the complaints have themselves engaged in the type of conduct complained about, then if they were to declare it unbecoming of a judge and deserving of displine, they would be incriminating and exposing themselves to being the target of the same discipline.

The other answer is that judges disregard complaints against their peers in order to avoid their retaliation. So if today they were to pay any attention to a complaint, not to mention set up a special committee or call in a standing committee under 28 U.S.C. §§353(a) and 356(b), respectively, to examine the complained-about judge, then if tommorrow they were the subject of a complaint, the formely investigated judge or his friends, allies, and accomplices would take the opportunity to retaliate by investigating them and perhaps even going so far as disciplining them.

Such conduct involves judging ‚with’ regard to persons, contrary to their oath of office. It illustrates the axiomatic principle that due to inescapable grave conflict of interests, one cannot sit in judgment of oneself or of those in one’s web of personal relationships. Judges do and the result is that they act in self-interest, taking the easy, unprincipled way out in dereliction of duty and to the detriment of complainants and the integrity of judicial process.

‚Big deal! Why would we judges ever indispose ourselves with our peers with whom we will spend the rest of our professional lives as Article III life-term appointees or renewal 14-year term bankruptcy judges? Why create for ourselves an avoidable hostile work environment and the repellant reputation of an unreliable class traitor just because one Joe or Jane thought in their very impeachable judgment that a judge had misbehaved or even broken the law? Who cares! Let them deal with it for the short time they will be upset! They will get over it, trust us!, since we judges are the last resort of those complainants.’

Such is the mentality arising from the dynamics of a web of personal relationships whose members are endowed with unappellable judicial power. It rests on a judicial system of self-discipline inherently flawed: Federal judges have no incentive to do what is right but inimical to themselves because they do not have to fear any adverse consequences of doing what is wrong. Consequently, they have taken out of service the machinery of judicial discipline that they are supposed to run. However, that does not mean that they are idle. Far from it, the evidence shows, as further discussed in the next sections, that they operate or tolerate the operation of a bankruptcy fraud scheme.]

117. 2003 Annual Report of the Court of Appeals, 2^nd Circuit....................................... C:980y-1

118. United States Courts, Second Circuit Report 2004................................................... C:908z-1

H. Comments in response to the invitation by CA2 for public comments on the reappointment of Judge Ninfo to a new term as bankruptcy judge

119. Notice of CA2 inviting members of the bar and the public to submit by March 30, 2005comments regarding the reappointment of Bankruptcy Judges Michael J. Kaplan and John C. Ninfo, II, to a new term of office,; posted at the time on CA2’s website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/....................................................................................... C:981

120. Dr. Cordero’s letter of March 17, 2005, to Second Circuit Executive Karen Greve Milton in response to the CA2’s invitation to comment on the reappointment of Judge Ninfo C:982

a) Table of Exhibits......................................................................................................... C:983

i) Table of all of Judge Ninfo’s orders in Pfuntner and DeLano [updated to December 9, 2005]........................................................................... C:984§II

24. Dr. Cordero’s motion of October 23, 2003, for Judge Ninfo to provide a definite statement of which of his oral version of October 16, 2003, or his written version entered in the record on October 17 is the official version of his “Order Denying Recusal and Removal Motions and Objection of Richard Cordero to Proceeding with any Hearings and a Trial on October 16, 2003”)........................................................ C:989

25. Judge Ninfo’s order of October 28, 2003, denying in all respects Dr. Cordero’s motion for a definite statement...................................................................... C:991

b) List of hearings presided over by Judge Ninfo in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al, docket no. 02-2230, and In re David and Mary Ann DeLano, docket no. 04-20280, WBNY, as of March 14, 2005 [updated to December 9, 2005] (cf. C:1278).................... C:993

121. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of March 18, 2005, to CA2 Judge James L. Oakes and other judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Judicial Circuit commenting against the reappointment by the CA2 of Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo....................................... C:995

a) Table of Exhibits......................................................................................................... C:996

b) List of judges to whom Dr. Cordero sent his March 18 letters........................... C:997

122. Dr. Cordero’s supplement of August 3, 2005, to his March 17 comments against the reappointment of Judge Ninfo, dealing with the refusal of the Judge’s Bankruptcy Court Reporter, Mary Dianetti, to certify that her transcript of her own stenographic recording of the evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2005, would be accurate, complete, and untampered-with; and pointing to the incriminating content of the transcript that would reveal how at that hearing Judge Ninfo disallowed Dr. Cordero’s claim in DeLano by becoming the on-the-bench advocate for ‘Bankrupt’ Mr. DeLano and by misusing the hearing as part of an artifice to eliminate Dr. Cordero from the case before he could prove the bankruptcy fraud scheme:

a) Dr. Cordero’s cover letter of August 4, 2005, to Circuit Executive Milton requesting that she submit the supplement and its exhibits to the CA2 and the Judicial Council so that they 1) consider in the reappointment process the evidence showing that the series of acts of Judge Ninfo and others in his court of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts form a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing that supports a bankruptcy fraud scheme and 2) report it under 18 U.S.C. 3057(a) [C:405] to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales..................... C:998

b) List of judges to whom Dr. Cordero sent the August 3 supplement................ C:999

c) Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of August 4 and 5, 2005, to CA2 Judge Barrington D. Parker and other judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Judicial Council accompanying the supplement.............................................................................. C:1000

d) Supplement of August 3, 2005, to the March 17 comments against the reappointment of Judge Ninfo.......................................................................................................... C:1001

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:1002

ii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................... C:1021

123. Circuit Executive Milton’s letter of August 5, 2005, to Dr. Cordero returning his supplementing comments because “the Judges of the Court of Appeals considered all submissions which were filed timely within the public comment period. However, that period expired on March 30, 2005”............................................................................... C:1024

[Comment: That statement shows that CA2 and the Judicial Council consider of greater importance to maintain a deadline than to safeguard the integrity of the courts. To discharge their duty to pursue the latter objective, they could have treated comments submitted for a stated purpose as rather “information available to the chief judge of the circuit”, 28 U.S.C. §351(b), to be evaluated on its own merits in order to protect public trust in both the courts and their judges, or as that subsection puts it, to proceed “in the interests of the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts”. If appropriate, instead of refusing such information, they could have used it as the basis to “identify a complaint for the purposes of this chapter and thereby dispense with filing of a written complaint”, id.]

124. Dr. Cordero’s 2^nd supplement of September 5, 2005, to his March 17 comments against the reappointment of Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo, bearing on the evidence that as part of a bankruptcy fraud scheme the Judge approved the debt repayment plan of ‘Bankrupt’ Bank Officer DeLano, who has 39 years of experience in banking and bankruptcies, despite documentary evidence that Trustee George Reiber had not conducted any investigation of Mr. DeLano and his wife and therefor, could not have cleared them of suspicion of bankruptcy fraud, which nevertheless the Trustee stated pro forma that he had:

a) Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of September 6, 2005, to CA2 Judge Reena Raggi and other 2^nd Cir. judges stating that circumstantial and documentary evidence points to the participation of Judge Ninfo in a bankruptcy fraud scheme and warrants that he not be reappointed; and requesting the judges to cause him to be investigated therefor by reporting under 18 U.S.C. 3057(a) [C:405] to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the evidence provided............................................................ C:1025

b) List of judges to whom Dr. Cordero sent his 2^nd supplement of September 5, 2005 C:1026

c) 2^nd Supplement of September 5, 2005, to comments against the reappointment of Judge Ninfo............................................................................................................... C:1027

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:1028

ii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................... C:1047

25. Useful addresses for the investigation of In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY, and Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., no. 02-2230, WBNY (see also ToEC:107)................................................................................................................... C:1051

26. Chapter 13 Trustee George Reiber’s undated “Findings of Fact and Summary of 341 Hearing” together with:................................................................. C:1052

(a) Undated and unsigned sheet titled “I/We filed Chapter 13 for one or more of the following reasons:”................................................................... C:1054

27. Judge Ninfo’s order of August 8, 2005, instructing M&T Bank to deduct $293.08 biweekly from his employee, Debtor David DeLano, and pay it to Trustee Reiber......................................................................................... C:1055

28. Judge Ninfo’s order of August 9, 2005, confirming the DeLanos’ Chapter 13 debt repayment plan upon considering their testimony and Trustee Reiber’s Report at the confirmation hearing on July 25, 2005 [D:508d entry 134], and allowing without any trace of a written request even higher attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,005.............................................. C:1056

29. Application of July 7, 2005, by Christopher K. Werner, Esq., attorney for the DeLanos, for $16,654 in legal fees for services rendered in DeLano C:1059

(a) Att. Werner’s itemized invoice of June 23, 2005, for legal services rendered in DeLano......................................................................... C:1060

[Comment: The invoice shows that the fees were incurred almost exclusively to avoid production of documents requested by Dr. Cordero, beginning with the entry on April 8, 2004 “Call with client; Correspondence re Cordero objection” and ending with that on June 23, 2005 “(Estimated) Cordero appeal”. The documents named in Dr. Cordero’s requests (D:63, 87§VI, 112, 124, 147, 159, 161, 199§VI, etc., 287, etc.) could prove that the DeLanos had committed bankruptcy fraud, particularly concealment of assets. Hence the DeLanos’ determination to make every effort and pay any price to avoid producing those documents…but even the few that they had to produce proved their fraud (C:1435, 1469-1479, 1491-1501; Table of the DeLanos’ mortgages at C:105; Add:887§I).

Interestingly enough, the DeLanos declared in Schedule B (C:1439) that they only had $535 in cash and on account. Yet, their attorney knew that he could keep working for them and piling up fees because they would be good for $16,654, and Judge Ninfo went even further in his order of August 9, 2005 to allow $18,005 (Add:941), to which Trustee Reiber added $9,948 six months later (C:1065). Did these people wonder where the DeLanos would come up with $28,000 or did they know all along that the DeLanos were not bankrupt at all but on the contrary, were concealing quite a stash of money?]

125. Trustee Reiber's list of December 7, 2005, of allowed claims, which includes an allowance of $9,948 for Att. Werner’s fees and forgive 87.39% of DeLanos' debt [as opposed to the 78% stated in the DeLanos’ debt repayment plan of January 26, 2004 (D:59)]..... C:1064

[Comment: What reasonable person, let alone what ‘bankrupt’ debtor, would be willing and able to pay $28,000 in legal fees just not to produce financial documents, such as the statements of bank accounts held by Banker DeLano with his employer, M&T Bank? By contrast, he and Mrs. DeLano would pay any legal fee if they knew that producing those and similar financial documents carried the risk of revealing that they had engaged in concealment of assets, which could lead to their facing bankruptcy fraud charges carrying a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and devastating fines under, among others, 18 U.S.C. §§152-157, 1519, and 3057. (see “Text of Authorities Cited”)]

126. Circuit Executive Milton’s letter of September 16, 2005, to Dr. Cordero concerning his September 6 communication and stating that the period for commenting on the reappointment of Judge Ninfo to a new term of office expired on March 30, 2005, and that “we will no longer accept your comments regarding this matter; we will no longer keep them on file; we will simply discard them” [see comments after C:1024].......................................... C:1066

I. Request for referral to the Judicial Conference of a Court Reporter for investigation of her refusal to certify that her transcript would be complete, accurate, and free of tampering influence

127. Statement of Mary Dianetti, Bankruptcy Court Reporter, WBNY, of March 1, 2005, of the number of stenographic paper folds and packs that she used to record the evidentiary hearing of the DeLanos’ motion to disallow Dr. Cordero’s claim against Mr. DeLano held that day before Judge Ninfo........................................................................................... C:1081

128. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of August 1, 2005, to CA9 Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, Member of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., and to other Conference members informing them of his petition of July 28, 2005, to the Conference, filed with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and requesting that they cause the Conference to place the petition on the agenda of its September meeting and make a report under 28 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405] to the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of the evidence that it contains of a bankruptcy fraud scheme..................................................................... C:1082

129. Dr. Cordero’s petition of July 28, 2005, to the Judicial Conference of the United States, filed with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, for an investigation under 28 U.S.C. §753(c) of a court reporter’s refusal to certify the reliability of her transcript and for designation under 28 U.S.C. §753(b) of another individual to produce it (cf. ToEA:135§3)............................................................................................................................................. C:1083

d) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:1103

8. Bankruptcy Court’s notice of April 11, 2005, to Dr. Cordero to request that pursuant to FRBkrP 8006 he perfect the record of his appeal in DeLano to the District Court by submitting by April 21 his designation of items, i.e. documents, in that record and his statement of issues on appeal.......... C:1106 ........................................................................................................................... C:1024

15. Bankruptcy Court’s letter of January 14, 2003, to Dr. Cordero setting January 27 as the due date for filing his designation of items in his appeal from Judge Ninfo’s dismissal of his cross-claims against Trustee Gordon in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al........................................................................................... C:1107

16. District Judge Larimer’s scheduling order of January 16, 2003, in Cordero v. Trustee Gordon, no. 03cv6021L, WDNY, setting a deadline 20 days hence for Dr. Cordero to file his appellate brief................................................................ C:1108

[Comment: The period for Dr. Cordero to file his designation of items in Pfuntner, presided over by Judge Ninfo, had barely begun to run. So under FRBkrP 8007 the record was incomplete and should not have been transmitted from Bankruptcy Court to Judge Larimer in District Court. Thus, in violation of applicable Rule, both the Bankruptcy Court transmitted the record and District Judge Larimer issued that 2003 scheduling order.

In so doing, they tried to force Dr. Cordero to file his appellate brief before the filing of the transcript of the hearing on December 18, 2002, where Judge Ninfo had summarily dismissed (A:151) Dr. Cordero’s cross-claims against Trustee Gordon (A:83, 88). That transcript, to be made by Reporter Dianetti also, had not even been started. By so coordinating their actions, they tried to exclude it from the record and make it unavailable for Dr. Cordero to take it into consideration when writing his appellate brief and eventually appealing to CA2. As a matter of fact, that transcript (A:263), for which Dr. Cordero first contacted Rep. Dianetti on January 8, 2003, was not mailed to him until March 26, 2003! (A:262) Cf:

a) Judge Larimer’s order of January 22, 2003, requiring Dr. Cordero to respond to Trustee Gordon’s dismissal motion by February 14, 2003................................ C:1274

b) Judge Larimer’s order of January 24, 2003 vacating his order scheduling Dr. Cordero’s appellate brief so as to rule on the dismissal motion........................................ C:1276

This is precedent for their equally coordinated action in 2005: The Bankruptcy Court received on April 21, 2005, Dr. Cordero’s Designation of Items in DeLano (Add:686, 690), which is connected to Pfuntner v. Tr. Gordon et al., where Dr. Cordero brought in Mr. DeLano as a third party defendant, who due to that claim against him named Dr. Cordero among his creditors (C:598). Such Designation could not constitute a complete record since the time had just begun for the DeLanos to submit their additional items (FRBkrP 8006), which they did not file until May (Add:711). Yet, the Bankruptcy Court transmitted it on the same day of its receipt to District Judge Larimer (Add:687), who sits upstairs in the same small federal building, which so facilitates the development of a web of personal relationships and coordination. The next day, April 22, he issued a similar scheduling order requiring Dr. Cordero to submit his appellate brief in Cordero v. DeLano, no. 05cv6190, WDNY, within 20 days (Add:692).

By so doing, they intended to force Dr. Cordero to write and file his appellate brief before he could obtain from Reporter Dianetti the transcript of the evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2005. That is an incriminating transcript, for it shows how on that occasion and all but sure that it would not be made available to Dr. Cordero timely, if at all, Judge Ninfo conducted himself as Mr. DeLano’s chief advocate to reach the predetermined result of disallowing Dr. Cordero’s claim on Mr. DeLano, thereby eliminating him from DeLano before he could obtain documents to prove the DeLanos’ concealment of assets and a bankruptcy fraud scheme supported by Judge Ninfo and others. (Pst:1266§E) That transcript (Rep. Dianetti’s PDF file and the file scanned from her hardcopy) was not filed by the Reporter until November 4, 2005 (Add:1071) seven months after it was first requested! (Add:681; ToEC:55>1271>Comment 2^nd¶) This establishes a pattern of intentional, coordinated unlawful action among judges, their staffs, and bankrupts.

21. List of Hearings and Decisions presided over or written by Judge Ninfo, in Pfuntner and DeLano, as of July 27, 2005 [updated to May 10, 2006 (D:496; Add:531; Pst:1181)].......................................................................................... C:1110

a) List of members of the Judicial Conference to whom Dr. Cordero sent his August 1 letter (C:1082) with a copy of the July 28 petition (C:1083) for the investigation and replacement of Reporter Dianetti.......................................................................... C:1115

130. Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 6, 2005, to CA5 Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, informing her of his phone conversation with Robert P. Deyling, Esq., Assistant General Counsel at the Administrative Office, who refused to forward to the Conference the July 28 petition (C:1083) concerning Court Reporter Dianetti; and requesting that she, as chair of the Executive Committee, retrieve the five copies of the petition from Att. Deyling and submit the petition to the Conference................................................................................ C:1117

a) Copy of Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 1, 2005, to Executive Committee Chair King at her CA5 address informing her of his petition for the Conference to investigate and replace a court reporter........................................................................................ C:1118

131. Letter of August 8, 2005, for Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by Clerk of Court Mark J. Langer to Dr. Cordero stating that “The agenda of the Judicial Conference of the United States is developed through the actions of the Executive Committee of the Conference upon recommendations submitted by other Judicial Conference Committees, not through the action of individual Chief Judges. Therefore, Chief Judge Ginsburg cannot assist you further in this matter” [cf. ToEC:>C:856 and comments thereunder, and ToEC:>C:1124]...................................... C:1119

132. Unsigned letter from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of August 8, 2005, with only “Office of the General Counsel” typed at the bottom of it, to Dr. Cordero stating that “The Administrative Office cannot intervene in, or comment upon, a court’s disposition of any proceeding and cannot address the court on behalf of a private party…we would ask you to please cease sending further correspondence to this agency about this matter…we are returning your documents.”........................................................................................................................... C:1120

[Comment: As a matter of fact, Dr. Cordero did not request any assistance from the Administrative Office or the General Counsel’s Office except that implied in his mailing the petition to the Judicial Conference to the address of the Administrative Office in its capacity as “clerk of the Conference” with the expectation that the Office would simply note the date of its receipt, thereby effecting its filing, and forward it to the members of the Conference.

The Office of the General Counsel should have known better than to send an unsigned letter. If the sender(s) of that August 8 letter did not want to take responsibility for its contents by signing it so that they anonymously hid behind the impersonal name of an entity, why should the receiver, Dr. Cordero, take heed of it?]

133. Form letter of William K. Suter, Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, by M. Blalock, of August 11, 2005, returning to Dr. Cordero his letter of August 1 to Chief Justice Rehnquist (cf. C:1082) and the July 28 petition to the Judicial Conference (C:1083), and stating that “Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts…The Court does not give advice or assistance or answer legal questions on the basis of correspondence”........... C:1121

134. Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 30, 2005, to Chief Justice Rehnquist, as the Judicial Conference’s presiding member, protesting that anybody who had bothered to read his August 1 letter (C:1082) or the July 28 petition to the Conference (C:1083) would have realized that neither had anything to do with the Constitution or a case appealed to the Supreme Court, but rather they dealt with the Conference’s duty to deal under 28 U.S.C. §753 with complaints against court reporters and every judge’ duty to report under §3057(a) [C:405] evidence of bankruptcy fraud; and requesting “that you handle the Supplement [C:1127] and the Petition so that the Conference acts upon them to ensure judicial integrity”............................................................................................................................... C:1122

i) Table of Contents.............................................................................................. C:1129

ii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................... C:1147

b) Alphabetical table of members of the Judicial Conference to whom Dr. Cordero sent the Supplement of August 30, 2005....................................................................... C:1151

138. Letter of October 6, 2005, for Executive Committee Chair C. J. King by Clerk Charles R. Fulbruge, III, and signed by Deputy Clerk Nancy H. Gray to Dr. Cordero stating that “the Judicial Conference of the United States does not have jurisdiction to review a complaint against a court reporter” because that is the responsibility of the court-designated supervisor of reporters; and referring Dr. Cordero to Reporter Contracting Officer Melissa Frieday................................................................................................................ C:1152

[Comment: What an extraordinary excuse for inaction! Indeed, Congress imposed upon the Judicial Conference the responsibility for court reporters by providing at 28 U.S.C. §753 that “The qualifications of such reporters shall be determined by standards formulated by the Judicial Con-ference. Each reporter shall take an oath faithfully to perform the duties of his office.”

The excuse above implies that the Conference dele-gated the exercise of such responsibility to courts and court-designated supervisors of reporters…and that by so doing, it removed all of them beyond the scope of its jurisdiction! But that flies in the face of the well established principle, rooted in common sense, that he who is charged with a duty and delegates its discharge to another, retains the authority to ask the delegatee for an accounting of her discharge of it and also remains responsible for the fulfillment of the duty to the one who imposed it in the first place. Delegation of a duty is not a means to escape responsibility for it. Otherwise, a situation arises where nobody is responsible for anything to anybody…which is what happened, as shown next.]

139. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 18, 2005, to Court Reporter Contracting Officer Melissa Frieday, stating in the first sentence that he had been referred to her by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference; and requesting that she replace Reporter Dianetti in preparing the transcript, investigate her refusal to certify its reliability, and refer the matter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.......... C:1153

Exhibits

a) Dr. Cordero’s request of April 18, 2005, to Bankruptcy Court Reporter Mary Dianetti to estimate the cost of the transcript and state the count of stenographic folds and packs that make up the recording of the evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2005, of the DeLanos’ motion to disallow Dr. Cordero’s claim............................................. C:1155

b) Rep. Dianetti’s reply of May 3, 2005, to Dr. Cordero failing to state the folds and packs count because “The information you requested regarding how many packs of paper and the number of folds was given to you after the hearing was completed.”........... C:1156

c) Dr. Cordero’s letter of May 10, 2005, to Rep. Dianetti requesting again that she “state how many packs of stenographic paper and how many folds in each pack constitute the whole of your recording”............................................................................................ C:1157

d) Rep. Dianetti’s letter of May 19, 2005, to Dr. Cordero failing again to state the count of folds because “you were provided with the number of packs of stenographic paper and number of folds used for the hearing following the conclusion of that hearing on March 1, 2005, therefore, I trust you already have that information”.................................................... C:1158

e) Dr. Cordero’s letter of May 26, 2005, to Rep. Dianetti requesting that she state the number of folds and packs “that comprise the whole recording of the evidentiary hearing and that will be translated into the transcript”......................................................... C:1160

f) Rep. Dianetti’s letter of June 13, 2005, to Dr. Cordero restating the numbers already given at the hearing and emphasizing that “am just giving you those exact numbers at this time”, thereby making a suspicious difference between those numbers and number of folds and packs that will be used to prepare the transcript; yet she must have known and used the latter to estimate the transcript cost.............................................. C:1161

g) Dr. Cordero’s request of June 25, 2005, to Rep. Dianetti to agree to certify that the transcript will be accurate, complete, and free from tampering influence..... C:1163

h) Rep. Dianetti’s letter of July 1, 2005, to Dr. Cordero stating the transcript cost and format, and that “The balance of your letter of June 25, 2005 is rejected”......... C:1165

140. Letter of Bankruptcy Clerk Paul R. Warren of October 20, 2005, to Judge Larimer informing him of Dr. Cordero’s letter to Contracting Officer Melissa Frieday and qualifying it as “an effort to both avoid your Order and to intimidate the Bankruptcy Court’s clerical staff”..................................................................................................................................... C:1166

[Comment: Officer Frieday never communicated in any way with Dr. Cordero, but simply sent his letter to Clerk Warren, who failed to disclose to Judge Larimer that the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, CA5 Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, had referred Dr. Cordero to Officer Frieday as the „court officer designated to supervise court reporters at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for WDNY“. (C:1152) Did Clerk Warren try to mislead Judge Larimer?]

141. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 24, 2005, to Rep. Dianetti, requesting un-der protest that she produce the transcript of the evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2005; sending her a check for the payment requested; and proposing arrangements for her to disclose everything she knows about the bankruptcy fraud scheme to government officers in Washington, D.C.............................................................................................................. C:1167

142. Dr. Cordero’s cover letter of October 25, 2005, to the Bankruptcy Court accompanying his notice of the same date to the District Court of having complied with the order of Judge Larimer that directed him to request the transcript and stating that such notice was his response to Clerk of Court Warren’s letter to Judge Larimer of October 20, 2005 C:1169

143. Dr. Cordero’s notice of October 25, 2005, to the District Court of having complied with Judge Larimer’s October 14 order directing him to request the transcript from Reporter Dianetti and that his compliance was under compulsion of the order and with reservation of his rights to challenge it and demonstrate how it made a mockery of due process C:1170

a) Table of Content...................................................................................................... C:1170

144. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 26, 2005, to the new Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, appealing through him to the Conference under 28 U.S.C. §§753 and 331 from the handling of the complaint against Reporter Dianetti by Reporter Contracting Officer Melissa Frieday, WDNY, who merely forwarded Dr. Cordero’s October 18 letter to her to Bankruptcy Clerk Warren, who in turn forwarded it to District Judge Larimer, who once again lazily, without discussing any of the objections of Dr. Cordero [cf. A:211, 350, Add:831, 839, 1019], had ordered (Add:991) the latter to obtain the transcript from Reporter Dianetti while denying his request to refer the Reporter to the Conference for investigation of her refusal to certify the transcript’s accuracy, completeness, and untampered-with condition, whereby Judge Larimer supported a cover up and a bankruptcy fraud scheme............................................................................................... C:1177

Exhibits

J. Request to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., for the abrogation of district local rules inconsistent with FRCivP and protective of a bankruptcy fraud scheme

146. Sample of Dr. Cordero’s letters of January 8, 2006, to Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs and Judicial Council members requesting that they:

i) bring the attached Statement and CD before the Council so that under 28 U.S.C. §§332(d)(4) and 2071 it may abrogate WDNY Local Rules 5.1(h) and 83.5;

ii) investigate the District and Bankruptcy Courts, WDNY, for supporting a bankruptcy fraud scheme and the schemers; and

iii) report the case to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under 28 U.S.C. §3057(a) [C:405]............................................................................................ C:1285

a) List of members of the Judicial Council, 2nd Cir., to whom Dr. Cordero sent the letter of January 8, 2006, and the Statement........................................................ C:1286

Attachments

b) Rule 5.1(h) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the U.S. District Court, WDNY, on filing cases under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.......................................................................... C:1287

c) Rule 83.5, id., on the prohibition on bringing “any camera, transmitter, receiver, portable telephone or recording device into the Court or its environs” [Local Rules also available at http://www.nywd.uscourts.gov/]................................................ C:1290

d) Dr. Cordero’s Statement of January 7, 2006, to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., on how Rule 5.1(h) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the U.S. District Court, WDNY, requires such detailed facts to plead a RICO claim that it contravenes FRCivP 8 and 83 and should be abrogated; and how Rules 5.1(h) and 83.5 constitute a preemptive attack on RICO claims that could expose the District and Bankruptcy Courts’ support for a bankruptcy fraud scheme and the schemers.............................. C:1291

i) Table of Contents........................................................................................... C:1291

Table 1: The DeLanos’ mortgages and their unaccounted-for proceeds of $382,187................................................................................................................. C:1312

Table 2: Officers that have disregarded their statutory duty to investigate the DeLano Debtors.................................................................................... C:1313

Table 3: Contempt for the law and litigants’ rights shown in the dismal quality of the work produced by Judges Larimer and Ninfo and accepted by them from lawyers and clerks...................................................................... C:1313

ii) Table of Exhibits......................................................................................... C:1315

a) Local Rule 32(a)1 on briefs in digital format of CA2’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure.......................................................................................... Pst:1171

b) Local Rule 25 on submitting an unbound copy of the brief if no PDF copy is submitted, id...................................................................... Pst:1173

c) Docket for Cordero v. DeLano, no. 05cv6190L, WDNY, as of May 10, 2006............................................................................................................. Pst:1181

d) United States District Court for the Western District of New York Administrative Procedures Guide................................................ Pst:1189

e) Notice of February 6, 2004, about the obligation in WDNY to file using the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system or a disk...................... Pst:1209

f) Notice of July 5, 2005, about WDNY judicial officers who want filings on paper despite the Case Management (CM)/ECF system.......... Pst:1211

g) Letter of District Court Deputy Clerk John H. Folwell returning Dr. Cordero’s PDF files on a disk accompa-nying his paper copies of the exhibits in those files....................................................................... Pst:1213

h) Judge Larimer’s order of January 4, 2006, refusing to post on PACER Dr. Cordero’s exhibits, namely, the Designated items in the record on appeal, the Addendum thereto, and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing in Bankruptcy Court in DeLano on March 1, 2005, thereby making them unavailable publicly on the World Wide Web, i.e., the Internet (cf. ToEA:153§7; C:1283¶16)).................................................................. Pst:1214

147. Form letter of CA2 Clerk MacKechnie by Deputy Clerk Allen of January 11, 2006, to Dr. Cordero returning his January 8 letter to Judge Jacobs and his Statement to the Judicial Council because “our records indicate that you have no matter pending before this Court”............................................................................................................................................. C:1317

[Comment: It is the Judicial Council that has the authority to abrogate a local rule under 28 U.S.C. §§332(d)(4) and 2071. The Court, let alone a case in it, has nothing to do with the review and abrogation of those rules.

There has been no reply from either the Judicial Council or any of its other members to whom Dr. Cordero sent the January 8 letter and the January 7 statement (C:1285, 1291). What motive do the Judicial Council and the judges who are members of it and who took an oath to apply the law have not to discharge their statutory duty? Is their inaction part of the pattern of judges protecting each other? The answer to these and other questions can be searched for as part of the efforts to answer the broader query that they and the rest of the evidence raise, namely, whether a federal judgeship has become a safe haven for wrongdoing and, if so how high and to what extent has wrongdoing reached. But how could they have been allowed to engage in wrongdoing? The next section provides the beginning of an answer.]

K. Referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the FBI’s Bureaus in New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester, NY, for an investigation of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme

1. Offices in New York City

148. Dr. Cordero’s letter of May 2, 2004, to Mr. Pasquale J. Damuro, Assistant Director in Charge of the NY FBI Office, submitting evidence of a series of acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts so numerous and consistent as to form a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing by judicial officers and bankruptcy trustees pointing to judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud; and requesting an investigation and a meeting........................................................................................... C:1331

a) Table of Exhibits..................................................................................................... C:1332

9. A trustee with 3,909 open cases cannot possibly have the time or the inclination to check the factual accuracy or internal consistency of the content of each bankruptcy petition to ascertain its good faith [cf. C:1406¶¶16-18; see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases].... C:1335

10. A case that illustrates how a bankruptcy petition riddled with red flags as to its good faith is accepted without review by the trustee and readied for approval by the Bankruptcy Court, WBNY................................................................. C:1337

11. Another trustee with 3, 092 cases was upon a performance-and-fitness-to-serve complaint referred by the court to the Assistant U.S. Trustee for a “thorough inquiry”, which was limited to talking to the Trustee and a party and to uncritically writing down their comments in an opinion, which the U.S. Trustee for Region 2 would not investigate [see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases]............................................................................ C:1340

149. Dr. Cordero’s letters of May 6, 2004, to David N. Kelley, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY, and Ms. Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of NY, submitting evidence of a series of acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts so numerous and consistent as to form a pattern of non-coincidental, intentional, and coordinated wrongdoing by judicial officers and bankruptcy trustees pointing to judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud; and requesting an investigation and a meeting C:1345

a) Table of Exhibits........................................................................................... C:1332 above

150. Letter of U.S. Attorney Mauskopf by Assistant U.S. Attorney F. Franklin Amanat of May 12, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that “because United States Attorney’s Offices have no involvement in complaints alleging judicial misconduct and no authority to take any action with regard to such complaints, we are unable to discuss your allegations with you or to take any other action in regards to them”........................................................... C:1347

[Comment: Since judges do not investigate their own and the U.S. attorneys do not investigate them, who investigates judicial misconduct to prevent judges from becoming a class of people, or rather, of wrondgoers above the law?]

151. Dr. Cordero’s letter of May 24, 2004, to FBI Assistant Director Damuro providing materials that reveal a coordinated effort by the U.S. and private bankruptcy trustees to avoid sending Dr. Cordero documents that could allow him to investigate the DeLano Debtors’ bankruptcy petition in In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, WBNY, and expose a bankruptcy fraud scheme; and requesting again that the FBI open an investigation C:1348

a) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:1349

152. Dr. Cordero’s letter of June 11, 2004, to each of the members of the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives (37) and the Senate (19), including their respective Chairmen, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, providing evidence of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme and requesting that they open an investigation...................................................................................................................... C:1352

[Comment: Not a single one replied to Dr. Cordero. So who oversees the conduct of judges and exercises discipline for their misconduct? In the absence of any control over them, the judicial power that individuals –certainly not nominated for judgeships because of their incorruptibility- acquire upon being sworn in as judges becomes absolute power. Such power is the necessary and sufficient condition to produce absolute corruption. (ToEC:>C:973 and >C:1381 and Comment thereunder)]

a) Table of the 56 members of the Judiciary Committees of the U.S. HR and the Senate individually addressed by Dr. Cordero in his June 11 letter............................ C:1354

b) Table of Exhibits...................................................................................................... C:1357

8. Trustees with thousands of open cases and one case that opens a window into the operation of the bankruptcy fraud scheme [see updated version as of June 26, 2004 (C:1401); see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases]..................................................................................................... C:1361

13. Table of all 15 Memoranda and Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders (text at C:1611) since the adoption of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, sent to Dr. Cordero from the General Counsel’s Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and showing how few complaints under 28 U.S.C. §351 et seq. are allowed to reach the Judicial Conference as petitions for review of judicial council action.................................................................................... C:1373

14. Statements of the Judicial Conference’s Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders and a Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, both stating that there are no pending petitions for review of judicial council action

a) Report of March 2004 to the Judicial Conference by its Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders: no pending petitions for review.............................................................................. C:1374

b) Title page of the Report of September 23, 2003, of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States.......................................... C:1375

c) Statement in the Judicial Conference Report of September 23, 2003, by its Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders: no pending petitions for review............................................................. C:1376

d) Report of September 2003 to the Judicial Conference by its Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders: no pending petitions for review.............................................................................. C:1377

e) Report of March 2003 to the Judicial Conference by its Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders: no pending petitions for review.............................................................................. C:1378

15. Contact information useful to investigate the evidence of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme [see also ToEC:§VII below]...................... C:1380

153. List of the 13 impeached federal judges in all the 217 years of judicial history of the United States, beginning in 1789; by the Federal Judicial Center............................. C:1381

154. Federal Judicial Center: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf

155. Remarks of the Chief Justice at the Federal Judges Association Board of Directors Meeting, May 5, 2003; at

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_05-05-03.html....... C:1384

[Comment: Chief Justice John Roberts is the seventeenth chief justice of the Supreme Court since John Jay became the first chief justice in 1789 upon his nomination by President George Washington. In the same 217 years comprising the whole judicial history of the United States under the Constitution, only thirteen federal judges have been impeached in Congress. This means that a federal judge has a higher statistical chance of becoming the next chief justice than of being impeached.

In addition, there is the pattern of the chief judges of the courts of appeals and the judges of the circuit councils systematically dismissing (C:973) judicial misconduct complaints. In practice this means that judges protecting their own have rendered useless that mechanism of judicial self-discipline; official statistics of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts proves it (C:973-980x. and ToEC:>C:973>Comment thereunder).

As a result, federal judges are not subject to any effective system of supervision and discipline. Without any such control, their exercise of judicial power becomes absolute. Thereby the condition for the application of the aphorism ensues: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (cf. A:1664¶70) This gives rise to the condition of possibility for a federal judgeship to become a safe haven for wrongdoing and for federal judges to become a class of wrongdoers immune to the principle inscribed on the frieze below the pediment of the Supreme Court building, „Equal Justice Under Law“. Federal judges are, as a matter of historic fact and established practice, people above the law. (cf.A:1662§D)

156. Dr. Cordero’s letters of June 29, 2004, to U.S. Attorney Kelley, SDNY, and to FBI Assistant Director Damuro providing another update with recent evidence of a bankruptcy fraud scheme and requesting a meeting to discuss it; and simultaneously making a request to other officers in their respective offices that they bring the evidence sent to each of them to the attention of those top officers and cause them to respond to Dr. Cordero:

I. Letters:

a) David Kelley, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY................... C:1391

1) Janet Sandt, Legal Assistant.................................................................. C:1392

2) David Jones, Chief of the Bankruptcy Unit in Civil Matters............ C:1393

3) Karen Patton Seymour, Chief of the Criminal Division................... C:1394

4) Donna Drori, Assistant U.S. Attorney.................................................. C:1395

b) Pasquale J. Damuro, Assistant Director in Charge, FBI NY..................... C:1396

1) Robert Silveri, FBI Acting Supervisory Special Agent, Squad C-4.. C:1397

II. Table of Exhibits.................................................................................................... C:1398

1. Trustees with thousands of open cases and one case that opens a window into the operation of the bankruptcy fraud scheme (updated as of June 26, 2004) [see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases].... C:1401

A. A scheme that works by taking money from many credit card issuers but not so much from anyone as to make it cost-effective for any issuer to spend time, effort, and money pursuing a pennies-on-the dollar recovery in risky bankruptcy proceedings........................................................................ C:1401

B. A Chapter 13 trustee with 3,909 open cases cannot possibly have the time or the inclination to check the factual accuracy or internal consistency of the content of each bankruptcy petition to ascertain its good faith [cf. C:1406¶¶16-18; see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases]............................................................................................. C:1403

C. Another trustee with 3,383 cases was upon a performance- and-fitness-to-serve complaint referred by the court to the Assistant U.S. Trustee for a “thorough inquiry”, which was limited to talking to him and a party and to uncritically writing down their comments in an opinion, which the Trustee for Region 2 would not investigate [see ToEC:>C:641 and comment thereunder for access to those cases].............................................. C:1406

D. A case that illustrates how a bankruptcy petition riddled with red flags as to its good faith is accepted without review by the trustee and readied for confirmation by the bankruptcy court................................................. C:1411

5. Dr. Richard Cordero’s Table Comparing Claims on David and Mary Ann DeLano in:........................................................................................................ C:1415

1) The DeLanos’ voluntary bankruptcy petition:

i) WBNY Bankruptcy Court Notice of February 3, 2004, of meeting of creditors.......................................................................................... C:1431

ii) Bankruptcy petition, no. 04-20280, WBNY, of January 27, 2004, with Schedules A-J................................................................................. C:1435

(a) Statement of Financial Affairs........................................... C:1455

(b) Verification of Creditor Matrix......................................... C:1463

iii) Debt repayment plan of January 26, 2004................................. C:1467

2) Equifax credit reports

3) Claims register

4) Credit card statements of account

6. Equifax report of April 26, 2004, confirmation # 4117002205, on Mr. David DeLano, who produced it incompletely on June 14, 2004, to Trustee Reiber: it begins on page 3 of 14 and continues with pages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13............ C:1469

7. Equifax report of May 8, 2004, confirmation # 4129001647, on Mary Ann DeLano, who produced it incompletely on June 14, 2004, to Trustee Reiber: it begins on page 3 of 12 and continues consecutively until page 7 of 12 C:1475

8. WBNY Bankruptcy Court’s register as of June 23, 2004, of creditors’ claims on the DeLanos.................................................................................................... C:1481

9. WBNY Bankruptcy Court’s creditors matrix for the DeLanos’ case as of June 23, 2004.................................................................................................................. C:1488

10. Eight incomplete statements of account as of between July and October 2003, concerning credit card accounts of the DeLanos, produced belatedly by their attorney, Christopher Werner, Esq., on June 14, 2004, to Trustee Reiber (cf. D:63, 94¶80b, 120)...................................................................................................... C:1491

11. IRS 1040 forms for the DeLanos’ tax returns for 2001, 2002, and 2003... C:1499

23. Useful addresses for investigating the judicial wrongdoing and bankruptcy fraud scheme (see also ToEC:§VII)................................................................ C:1509

157. Legal Assistant Sandt’s letter of July 13, 2004, indicating that the U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY, does not have jurisdiction over a matter concerning the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court in the Western District of New York.................................................... C:1511

[Comment: However, the U.S. Attorney failed to take into account the two links in SDNY to that matter, namely, the CA2 and the U.S. Trustee for Region 2, which should have been enough to give it jurisdiction to investigate it.]

158. Letter of Att. Seymour at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in NYC of August 5, 2004, transmitting to Bradley E. Tyler, Esq., Attorney in Charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rochester, NY, the documentary evidence submitted by Dr. Cordero to U.S. Att. Kelley...... C:1512

159. Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 14, 2004, to U.S. Att. Tyler requesting his opening of an investigation; informing him of the hearings on August 23 and 25, 2004, in In re DeLano, no. 04-20280, in the Bankruptcy Court in Rochester, NY, and asking that he attend them so that he can witness Judge Ninfo’s bias and his conduct of the proceedings in the absence of Dr. Cordero, who would appear by phone............................................................ C:1513

a) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................................... C:1514

160. Dr. Cordero’s fax of August 16, 2004, without cover letter to Robert M. Silveri, FBI Acting Supervisory Special Agent, Squad C-4, at the FBI Bureau in NYC, of his motion of August 14, 2004, for docketing and issue of proposed order, transfer, referral, examination, and other relief................................................................................................................ C:752 above

161. Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 17, 2004, faxed to FBI Special Agent Silveri informing him of the two upcoming hearings in DeLano on August 23 and 25, 2004, in the Bankruptcy Court in Rochester and urging him to cause agents to attend them from the FBI offices in Buffalo and Rochester to whom Agent Silveri referred the material that Dr. Cordero had submitted to the FBI in NYC, so that they can witness Judge Ninfo’s bias............. C:1515

162. Dr. Cordero’s faxed letter of August 23, 2004, to FBI Special Agent Silveri explaining how the attorney for the Debtors in the DeLano case is trying to disallow his claim to eliminate him from the case, the only party insisting on the production of financial documents that can show concealment of assets; and requesting that he pass on to his FBI colleagues in Rochester and Buffalo Dr. Cordero’s reply to the motion to disallow.................... C:1516

a) Dr. Cordero’s reply of August 17, 2004, to the DeLanos’ objection to his claim and their motion to disallow it...................................................................................... C:1517

i) Table of Contents............................................................................................ C:1517

163. Dr. Cordero’s hand delivery on August 23, 2004, to the Office of FBI Special Agent Silveri of a copy of his August 20 motion for sanctions on and compensation from Christopher Werner, Esq., attorney for the DeLanos, and his law firm for violation of FRBkrP Rule 9011(b) ............................................................................................................................... C:1529

a) Table of Contents..................................................................................................... C:1530

[Comment: This motion was intended to focus the FBI’s investigation on the motive for the wrongful conduct described therein and its tolerance by Judge Ninfo.]

2. Offices in Rochester and Buffalo

164. Letter of Richard Resnik, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, of August 24, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rochester will not investigate Dr. Cordero’s “allegations of bankruptcy fraud and judicial misconduct” and returning to him all the files............................................................................................................................................. C:1545

165. Dr. Cordero’s letter of August 31, 2004, to Bradley E. Tyler, Esq., Attorney in Charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rochester, NY, sending back to him in Rochester the files that his Assistant U.S. Attorney Resnik had returned to Dr. Cordero; and stating that if his personal relation to Assistant U.S. Trustee Kathleen Dunivin Schmitt and his trust in her word render Dr. Cordero’s evidence just “speculations”, as he put it during their phone conversation earlier that day, and cause his reluctance to examine it, not to mention investigate her, his objectivity might be compromised, so that he should recuse himself and support a referral to the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division.............................................................................................................................. C:1546

a) Table of files already sent to U.S. Att. Tyler and updates accompanying Dr. Cordero’s August 31 letter to him............................................................................................ C:1547

4.a) Notice of hearing of Christopher Werner, Esq., attorney for the DeLano Debtors, objecting to Dr. Cordero’s claim on the DeLanos and moving to disallow it, dated July 19, 2004, but filed on July 22, 2004..................... C:1548

166. Dr. Cordero’s letter of September 13 and 15, 2004, to Peter Ahearn, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI bureau in Buffalo, NY, to inquire about the bound files concerning evidence of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme that Dr. Cordero had sent to FBI Assistant Director Damuro in Charge of the NY City bureau and which were forwarded on jurisdictional grounds to Mr. Ahearn’s bureau in early July with a cover letter from Supervisory Special Agent Robert Silveri................................................ C:1550

167. Dr. Cordero’s cover letter of September 18, 2004, to Michael A. Battle, Esq., U.S. Attorney for WDNY, Buffalo, NY, accompanying:...................................................................... C:1551

a) Dr. Cordero’s appeal of September 18, 2004, to Att. Battle from the decision taken by Att. Tyler in Rochester not to open an investigation into the complaint about a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme; and statement of the questionable circumstances under which that decision was made......................................... C:1552

168. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 7, 2004, to Jeannie Bowman, Executive Assistant to U.S. Att. Battle, accompanying the resubmission of the appeal to Att. Battle from the decision of Att. Tyler; stating that the latter was to have forwarded Dr. Cordero’s files to Att. Battle; and setting forth reasons why Mr. Tyler should not investigate the case............... C:1559

169. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 19, 2004, to Mary Pat Floming, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Buffalo, requesting that she see to it that the accompanying appeal to Att. Battle is brought to his attention and requesting her assistance........................................................................................................................... C:1560

170. Dr. Cordero’s letter of October 25, 2004, to Att. Floming with an update about why Trustee Reiber is refusing to hold an examination of the DeLanos and stating that just as Mr. Tyler cannot investigate Dr. Cordero’s appeal from his own decision, neither of Trustees Schmitt, Martini, or Reiber can investigate the bankruptcy fraud scheme, and requesting that she use the influence of her Office to cause the Executive Office of the U.S. Trustee to appoint an independent trustee to examine the DeLanos............ C:1561

171. U.S. Att. Battle’s letter of November 4, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that he reviewed the documentation and found no basis for Dr. Cordero’s claim of bankruptcy fraud and closing the matter............................................................................................................. C:1562

172. Dr. Cordero’s letter of November 15, 2004, to U.S. Att. Battle showing that as of November 1 Att. Battle did not have the documentation and could not have retrieved it from the Rochester office and reviewed over 315 pages by November 4, and requesting that he obtain the files and assign the case to skilled bankruptcy fraud investigators as he had said on November 1 that he would do......................................................................... C:1563

173. Att. Battle’s letter of November 29, 2004, to Dr. Cordero stating that his trusted professionals indicated that Dr. Cordero was a party to a bankruptcy case that was later appropriately resolved by a bankruptcy judge.......................................................... C:1565

174. Dr. Cordero’s letter of December 6, 2004, to U.S. Att. Battle showing that he does not even know the facts of the Appeal to him of September 18 and that there are two actions, both are ongoing, and that if his trusted professionals know how ongoing actions will be resolved, the process is a sham, and requesting that he refer the accompanying Request to the Attorney General for investigation......................................................................... C:1566

a) Dr. Cordero’s request of December 6, 2004, to U.S. Att. Battle to report to the Acting U.S. Attorney General for investigation the evidence of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme....................................................................................... C:1568

i) Table of Contents............................................................................................ C:1568

ii) Table of Exhibits............................................................................................. C:1587

175. Dr. Cordero’s letter of December 27, 2004, to U.S. Att. Battle to inquire what action he took with regard his December 6 Request [never replied to].................................. C:1601

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 complaints about judicial wrongdoing in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme further protected by preventing complaints from reaching the Judicial Conference

176. The 15 Decisions of the Judicial Conference Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct Orders since the adoption of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (cf. C:682).................................................................................................................................. C:1611

177. Dr. Cordero’s letters with supporting exhibits submitted to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee and to each of its members and the Study Committee’s acknowledgment of receipt thereof:

a) Dr. Cordero’s submission of November 26, 2004, requesting that they:........... C:1751

“1. bring to the attention of the Judicial Conference or its members the advisability both of taking jurisdiction of the petition herewith [C:823], on grounds such as those set forth therein, and of investigating the complaints for the purpose, among others, of shedding light on the misapplication of the Act by chief judges and judicial councils;

2. include this case in your Study and investigate it as part thereof, and if the Committee holds hearings, invite me to be heard and answer your questions; and

3. if you believe that Judge Ninfo or any of the others has committed an offense, make a report of this case to the Acting U.S. Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 3057(a).“

b) Study Committee’s acknowledgment:

1. of December 2, 2004.............................................................................................. C:1752

2. of December 3, 2004.............................................................................................. C:1753

c) December 20, 2004, requesting that they:.................................................................C:1754

“1. add this letter and supporting documents [C:845] to my case and include them in your Study; and

2. convey to the Administrative Office and the Conference that in the interest of studying the handling in the Act’s last review stage of the first petition filed with it in many years, my petition [C:823] should be forwarded to the Conference to be investigated and decided by it.“

d) Study Committee’s acknowledgment:

1. of December 27, 2004............................................................................................C:1755

2. of January 7, 2005.................................................................................................. C:1756

e) March 9, 2005, requesting that they:........................................................................ C:1757

“1. make known to Chief Justice Rehnquist the importance for the work of the Study Committee, which he himself appointed, that he cause the Judicial Conference to determine the jurisdictional issue either as presented in the addendum (C:899) to my petition or by having the petition (C:823) forwarded to the Conference from the Administrative Office;

2. convey to Administrative Office General Counsel William R. Burchill and Director Leonidas Mecham the need to forward the petition to the Conference so that it be the one to determine the jurisdictional issue”; ‘and

3. take cognizance from my motion for the recusal [C:905] of Complained-about Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, of the egregious nature and harmful effect on me of his misconduct as evidence of the need in legal and practical terms to have the Conference review this petition.’

f) Study Committee’s acknowledgment:

1. of March 15, 2005.................................................................................................. C:1758

2. of March 22, 2005.................................................................................................. C:1759

g) March 28, 2005, requesting that they:...................................................................... C:1760

“1. bring to the attention both of Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Chairman of the Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, and of the Review Committee itself the need to let the Judicial Conference decide the issue of the scope of its own jurisdiction to review a circuit council’s judicial misconduct orders”; ’and

2. considering whether too narrow an interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Judicial Misconduct Act accounts for the fact that for years not a single petition has been submitted to it [cf.C:1771]…so that instead of it protecting individuals who suffer abuse and bias through judicial misconduct or the public at large who must bear the loss of access to justice and the material cost caused by judges engaged in wrongdoing, the Act has been interpreted as a means for judges to take care of their own.’

i) Table of Exhibits....................................................................................... C:1761

h) Study Committee’s acknowledgment:

1. of April 1, 2005...................................................................................................... C:1762

2. of April 1, 2005...................................................................................................... C:1763

i) August 5, 2005, requesting that they:...................................................................... C:1764

1. consider the decision of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts not to forward to the Judicial Conference my petition for it to perform its duty under 28 U.S.C. §753(c) by opening an investigation of WBNY Bankruptcy Court Reporter Mary Dianetti’s refusal to certify the reliability of her transcript;

2. to the extent that Administrative Office Assistant General Counsel Robert Deyling is following instructions from the Conference, consider whether the uselessness of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 since its enactment 25 years ago results from the determination of the Conference and the judges never to police themselves formally; and

3. let me know to whom in the Conference I can address my petition so as to seize that body thereof.

j) Study Committee’s acknowledgment:

1. of August 12, 2005................................................................................................ C:1765

k) September 1, 2005, requesting that they:................................................................ C:1766

1. consider my Supplement [C:1127] to the Petition [C:1183] showing how WBNY Reporter Mary Dianetti’s refusal to certify her transcript is part of a bankruptcy fraud scheme whereby Bkr. Judge John C. Ninfo, II, and Chapter 13 Trustee George Reiber have confirmed the debt repayment plan of Bankrupts David and Mary Ann DeLano upon the pretense that an investigation cleared them of fraud, yet the evidence shows that there was never any investigation and their bankruptcy was fraudulent; and

2. set an example for your peers of concern for judicial integrity and compliance with judges’ duty under 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) by referring both the Petition and its Supplement to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

I. Cases providing evidence for the investigation & the representative case

II. Summary of Contents

III. Contents of ToEC:# pages

V. Headings of the descriptive titles of the exhibits and comments ToEC:7

VI. Table of Authorities Cited (AuC:#) whose text is in Attachments to the Statement of Facts and in separate PDF files........ ToEC:71

VII. Tables pointing to the roles played by persons and entities involved in the 11 underlying cases.................................... ToEC:76

IV. The C:# pages are related to the A, D, Add, and Pst files because the same pattern of judicial wrongdoing runs through the cases that each covers, which justifies JDR’s call for a class action and a virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists to help pro bono to prepare it

V. Descriptive titles of the exhibits and comments

A. Judicial misconduct complaint against
Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY

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

D. Appeal to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo, WBNY

E. Request to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for an investigation of misconduct by clerks

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 and C.J. Walker

H. Comments in response to the invitation by CA2 for public comments on the reappointment of Judge Ninfo to a new term as bankruptcy judge

I. Request for referral to the Judicial Conference of a Court Reporter for investigation of her refusal to certify that her transcript would be complete, accurate, and free of tampering influence

J. Request to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., for the abrogation of district local rules inconsistent with FRCivP and protective of a bankruptcy fraud scheme

K. Referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the FBI’s Bureaus in New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester, NY, for an investigation of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme

1. Offices in New York City

2. Offices in Rochester and Buffalo

I. Cases providing evidence for the investigation & the representative case

II. Summary of Contents

III. Contents of ToEC:# pages

V. Headings of the descriptive titles of the exhibits and comments ToEC:7

VI. Table of Authorities Cited (AuC:#) whose text is in Attachments to the Statement of Facts and in separate PDF files........ ToEC:71

VII. Tables pointing to the roles played by persons and entities involved in the 11 underlying cases.................................... ToEC:76

IV. The C:# pages are related to the A, D, Add, and Pst files because the same pattern of judicial wrongdoing runs through the cases that each covers, which justifies JDR’s call for a class action and a virtual firm of lawyers and investigative journalists to help pro bono to prepare it

V. Descriptive titles of the exhibits and comments

A. Judicial misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY

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

D. Appeal to the Judicial Council, 2nd Cir., from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo, WBNY

E. Request to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for an investigation of misconduct by clerks

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 and C.J. Walker

H. Comments in response to the invitation by CA2 for public comments on the reappointment of Judge Ninfo to a new term as bankruptcy judge

I. Request for referral to the Judicial Conference of a Court Reporter for investigation of her refusal to certify that her transcript would be complete, accurate, and free of tampering influence

J. Request to the Judicial Council, 2nd Cir., for the abrogation of district local rules inconsistent with FRCivP and protective of a bankruptcy fraud scheme

K. Referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the FBI’s Bureaus in New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester, NY, for an investigation of a judicial misconduct and bankruptcy fraud scheme

1. Offices in New York City

2. Offices in Rochester and Buffalo

A. Judicial misconduct complaint against
Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY

D. Appeal to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., from the dismissal of the misconduct complaint against Judge Ninfo, WBNY

J. Request to the Judicial Council, 2^nd Cir., for the abrogation of district local rules inconsistent with FRCivP and protective of a bankruptcy fraud scheme