Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Is the Connecticut Judicial Branch on Alert?



The Connecticut Court and Policing System has long been ruled by racism. It has gotten so out of hand that ordinary families and children, minority or white, are ground up in the official meat grinder and broken up. Those that expose go through the retaliation process- arrest, discredit, financially ruin, break up family, imprison, and leave with PTSD and in terror for life.


[This post] is getting passed around and I posted a comment in by email on the bottom half.

I put Connecticut legislators on notice [here]

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Judicial Reform Advocate,

Kindly find below an article that I am submitting both for publication and as a lead for you to investigate the issue of the extent to which the top judges of the Federal Judiciary, who are members of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., cover up for the wrongdoing of their peers and each other.

I am willing to answer your questions and make available to you the vast amount of information that I have gathered during my prosecution of 13 related federal bankruptcy cases.

In deciding how to handle the issue of coordinated wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary, you may wish to keep in mind that once Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post dispelled the notion that merely some garden variety burglars had broken into the national headquarters of the Democratic Party at the Watergate Complex, the door was opened for them to engage in a Follow the Money! investigation that ultimately uncovered deep seated corruption among President Nixon and his top White House aides and reelection committee staff. Those two journalists have since been recognized for their courage and skills in exposing wrongdoing at the highest levels of the Executive Branch and thereby contributing to honesty in government.

Likewise, those who can expose how the top officers of the Judicial Branch, charged with administering justice through due process of law, have instead managed to impose perverted justice in the interest of their class will be recognized first by an avid media audience and then by a grateful nation as having contributed to bringing our legal system closer to the lofty goal of “Equal Justice Under Law”.

I look forward to hearing from you.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/DrCordero-addresses_aug8.doc
Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

*******************************


CA2 Chief Judge’s disregard for judicial misconduct law and
upcoming Judicial Conference meeting

Will they ever deal with the Judicial Misconduct Complaint and the Case, DeLano, that reveal
Institutionalized Coordinated Wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary?


Judges’ lack of accountability for their exercise of their power over people's property, liberty, and even lives leads in practice to the exercise of absolute power, which corrupts absolutely. This is starkly illustrated by a case, DeLano, which deals with a 39-year veteran of the banking industry who at the time of going “bankrupt” was and remained working precisely in the bankruptcy department of a major bank. This bankruptcy system insider’s fraudulent bankruptcy, involving concealment of assets and false statement of financial affairs, reveals that judges, trustees, and other insiders and court officers are running a bankruptcy fraud scheme.

Their scheme has been supported by the federal bankruptcy judge, WBNY, who decided DeLano, the district judge, WDNY, who covered it up on appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which protected the bankruptcy judge, whom it had reappointed to a second term of 14 years under 28 U.S.C. §152. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The statement of facts and legal analysis presented to it can be found in the file at:

http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/SCt_chambers/8application_4aug8/1DrRCordero-SCtJustices_4aug8.pdf (opens with Adobe Acrobat Reader v. 7 or higher; current version 9 is downloadable for free from www.Adobe.com)

To show the corruptive effect of unaccountable judicial power, a judicial misconduct complaint against the bankruptcy judge has also been filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §351) and the Rules for Conduct and Disability Proceedings.

As required by these legal instruments, the complaint was filed with the chief circuit judge of the federal circuit court that reappointed that judge, namely, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, CA2. His failure to discharge the duties imposed on him by the Act and the Rules in handling this complaint, no. 02-08-90073, discussed in the open letter below, is a manifestation itself of judicial unaccountability that disregards the law in self-interest.

That letter together with the complaint and a proposed order for investigating DeLano, can be retrieved through http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/10status_inquiry_15aug8/7toCJ_Jacobs_15aug8.pdf .

It was also sent to all the members of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is the highest policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary and presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. The Conference will hold its next semi-annual meeting in September at the Supreme Court, (202)479-3211, followed by separate meetings of district and circuit judges at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, in Washington, D.C., which houses its secretariat, maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, (202) 502-2400.

The Service List accompanying the letter contains the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Conference members, including CA2 Chief Judge Jacobs and all the other chief circuit judges. It will make it easier for readers, particularly journalists and judicial reform advocates, to inquire of them whether they will cause the complaint to be investigated or will tolerate the cover-up of the bankruptcy fraud scheme revealed by the DeLano case.

Indeed, the judges’ official statistics for 1997-2006 show that they engaged in the systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints without any investigation: In those 10 years, 7,462 complaints were filed, but the judges appointed only 7 special investigative committees and disciplined only 9 of their peers. They dismissed out of hand 99.88% of all complaints! Thereby they self-exonerated for doing what is forbidden and disregarding what is commanded.

Thus, in the 219 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, of all the thousands of federal judges only 7 have been impeached and removed from the bench. On average that is 1 every 31 years, a period much longer than the average years of service of judges. This has fostered the mentality among them that they can do and not do anything because they do not have to fear any adverse consequences from either abusing their judicial power, having a disability, or engaging in illegal activity.

Since they will cover for each other, they have assured themselves of impunity for their conduct. This explains why federal judges have felt free to institutionalize coordinated wrongdoing, for they have as a matter of fact placed themselves where no individual or class of people is entitled to be in our democratic society: Above the law.

Links to the Act, the Rules, and the official statistics on impeachments and judicial misconduct complaints as well as graphs illustrating the latter are found at the homepage of http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org



**************************************

August 15, 2008


Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
500 Pearl Street tel. (212)857-8500
New York, NY 10007

Re: Judicial misconduct complaint of 6/6/8, no. 02-08-90073, against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, Rochester, NY


Dear Chief Jacobs,

Over two months ago, I filed with the CA2 Clerk the above captioned complaint to be processed by you under the new Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings (R #). To date I have not been notified of your taking any action concerning this complaint.

However, R 8(b) provides that “The clerk must promptly send copies of a complaint…to the chief judge…and to each subject [complained-about] judge” and R 11(a) adds that “the chief judge must review it”. In addition, R 11(f) requires that “If some or all of the complaint is not dismissed or concluded, the chief judge must promptly appoint a special committee to investigate the complaint or any relevant portion of it and to make recommendations to the judicial council”. (emphasis added) The tenor of the Rules is that action will be taken expeditiously.

Indeed, this follows from the provisions of the law itself, which at 28 U.S.C. §351(a) states as grounds for complaining against a judge his or her having “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts”. Subsection (b) even provides that the chief judge “in the interest of the effective and expeditious administration of [that] business…may…identify a complaint…and dispense with filing of a written complaint”.

Thereafter §352 expressly provides for “(a) expeditious review; limited inquiry. –The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint”. What is more, §353(a) requires that “If the chief judge does not enter an order under section 352(b), the chief judge shall promptly- (1) appoint…a special committee to investigate…(2) certify the complaint and any other documents pertaining thereto to each member of such committee; and (3) provide written notice to the complainant…of the action taken under this subsection” (emphasis added).

The need for prompt action on my complaint is exacerbated by the pending proceedings before Judge Ninfo in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., 02-2230, to which I am a party and from which he has refused to recuse himself. It would be a denial of due process to force me to litigate before him since in that case and in the related DeLano, 04-20280, he has engaged in a series of acts so consistently in disregard of the law and the facts and biased toward the local parties and bankruptcy system insiders, and against me, the sole non-local outsider, as to form a pattern of coordinated wrongdoing in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme.

Hence, Judge Ninfo must now continue his abusive conduct to cover up his past abuse. As a result, he does not show even “the appearance of impartiality” needed for an objective observer to reasonably expect just and fair proceedings from him. Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994).

Therefore, I respectfully request that you:

1) promptly appoint a special committee and let me know;

2) certify to its members the proposed production order herewith; and

3) given the scope of the fraud scheme, cause it to be placed for discussion on the agenda of the next meeting in September of the Judicial Conference.


Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened to those sheriff guy videos? That guy has some good dirt.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Yue, Mr. Harrington, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Padilla, and Judicial Reform Advocates;

I am glad to know that you want to do something meaningful with regard to judicial reform and that you want competent leadership. Hence, I would like to make a suggestion to lead to meaningful action: Draw the attention of the media to the upcoming meeting of the Justices and the top federal judges in the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the highest policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary, next September.


A. Disseminating the Newsrelease to journalists and bloggers

The first step is to alert journalists and bloggers, including those of the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News, that the members of the Judicial Conference are going to meet in September and will again:

1) refuse to set an example of transparency, accountability, and self-discipline because they will hold their meeting behind closed doors; and

2) disregard the test complaint and case discussed in the Newsrelease, which on the evidence gathered in 13 related bankruptcy cases show institutionalized coordinated wrongdoing in the form of a judicially supported bankruptcy fraud scheme.

You can without modification send the Newsrelease and the open letter to Chief Justice Roberts to as many journalists and bloggers as possible. To do so, you will find many addresses at the websites of news-papers and –sites as well as at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/DrCordero-addresses_aug8.doc


B. Staging the insistence of the judges to hold a secret Conference that excludes “We the People”

1. You can call each member of the Judicial Conference and ask to state their respective position on granting you permission to attend the Conference as a website reporter. Their phone numbers are found in the Service List included in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/10status_inquiry_15aug8/1toCJ_Roberts_15aug8.pdf

2. Their clerks will tell you on behalf of the respective judge that the Conference is held behind closed doors; thereby you have them on record as having confirmed that and perhaps stating their excuse to do so. Someone may tell you the precise date of the meeting.

3. If you find the date of the Conference, share that information with bloggers, journalists, and other judicial reform advocates. Whenever you contact them, send them the Newsrelease and the link above, which contains the Service List with the phone numbers of the Conference members so that they may request to interview the judges on the phone.

4.a. Then on the day of the meeting, you can film the judges as they file into the Supreme Court in the morning. To that end and as part of your advanced planning, go to their websites –look them up at http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/ - and download their photographs, which can be found in the option “Judges” or in the court’s annual report.

4.b. Some Annual Reports of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts –found at http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/ >Administrative Office- have photos of the judges. Likewise, there you can download a photo of the building where the circuit judges and the district judges will hold separate meetings in the afternoon, namely, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, in Washington, D.C., which houses its secretariat, maintained by that Office, (202) 502-2400. (See photo at http://www.uscourts.gov/library/annualreports/2006/2006_annualreport.pdf, page 54.)

4.c. When you contact others, share the product of your work freely. That will induce them to trust that you know what you are talking about and to share in turn with you, all of which will redound to the benefit of our immediate objective, namely…

5.a. Our objective is to get a crowd of journalists in front of the building all asking the judges to let them into the Conference only for them to repeat time and again that theirs is a “confidential” meeting. By the end of it all, they will sound as if they were members of a secret society, not the highest policy-making body of public servants charged with administering justice in public in an open, democratic society. Can you imagine Congress holding all its sessions behind closed doors or the President never allowing journalists and cameramen when he holds cabinet meetings or meets with other high officers?

5.b. The expectation of that scene and the experience of it may induce journalists and bloggers to investigate why judges need secrecy.

6.a. What a masterful touch of journalistic ingenuity if you could live stream that scene on the Internet and attract even more journalists or even protesters to “The Arrival of the Robes of Secrecy”. Do you remember the helicopter flying over J.O. Simpson and providing TV stations with a life feed of his escape in his white van?, except that now it would be the top judges of our federal judiciary trying to run away from the eyes and the ears of those whom they injure by plunging into their property, liberty, and even lives the knife of perverted justice.

6.b. Normally there is a press conference after the Judicial Conference meeting.

7. This is an opportunity for you and your colleagues to stage the news since the judges will not let you record their meeting. Show imagination and take the initiative in leading others. If you have to start orchestrating the scene today, then get on with it. You can be the people that organized a most embarrassing scene revealing how the federal judges need secrecy to maintain the Federal Judiciary as a safe haven for coordinated wrongdoing.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
**************************************



CA2 Chief Judge’s disregard for judicial misconduct law & upcoming U.S. Judicial Conference meeting

August 24, 2008

Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Newsrelease


The Judicial Misconduct Complaint and The Case, DeLano,
that Reveal
Institutionalized Coordinated Wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary


Judges’ lack of accountability for their exercise of their power over people's property, liberty, and even lives leads in practice to the exercise of absolute power, which corrupts absolutely. This is starkly illustrated by a case, DeLano, which deals with a 39-year veteran of the banking industry who at the time of going “bankrupt” was and remained working precisely in the bankruptcy department of a major bank. This bankruptcy system insider’s fraudulent bankruptcy, involving concealment of assets and false statement of financial affairs, reveals that judges, trustees, and other insiders and court officers are running a bankruptcy fraud scheme.

Their scheme has been supported by the federal bankruptcy judge, WBNY, who decided DeLano, the district judge, WDNY, who covered it up on appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which protected the bankruptcy judge, whom it had reappointed to a second term of 14 years under 28 U.S.C. §152. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The statement of facts and legal analysis presented to it can be found in the file at:

http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/SCt_chambers/8application_4aug8/1DrRCordero-SCtJustices_4aug8.pdf (opens with Adobe Acrobat Reader v. 7 or higher; current version 9 is downloadable for free from www.Adobe.com)

To show the corruptive effect of unaccountable judicial power, a judicial misconduct complaint against the bankruptcy judge has also been filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §351) and the Rules for Conduct and Disability Proceedings.

As required by these legal instruments, the complaint was filed with the chief circuit judge of the federal circuit court that reappointed that judge, namely, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, CA2. His failure to discharge the duties imposed on him by the Act and the Rules in handling this complaint, no. 02-08-90073, discussed in the open letter below, is a manifestation itself of judicial unaccountability that disregards the law in self-interest.

That letter together with the complaint and a proposed order for investigating DeLano, can be retrieved through http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/10status_inquiry_15aug8/7toCJ_Jacobs_15aug8.pdf .

It was also sent to all the members of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is the highest policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary and presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. The Conference will hold its next semi-annual meeting in September at the Supreme Court, (202)479-3211, followed by separate meetings of district and circuit judges at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, in Washington, D.C., (202) 502-2400.

The Service List accompanying the letter contains the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Conference members, including CA2 Chief Judge Jacobs and all the other chief circuit judges. It will make it easier for readers, particularly journalists and judicial reform advocates, to inquire of them whether they will cause the complaint to be investigated or will tolerate the cover-up of the bankruptcy fraud scheme revealed by the DeLano case.

Indeed, the judges’ official statistics for 1997-2006 show that they engaged in the systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints without any investigation: In those 10 years, 7,462 complaints were filed, but the judges appointed only 7 special investigative committees and disciplined only 9 of their peers. They dismissed out of hand 99.88% of all complaints! Thereby they self-exonerated for doing what is forbidden and disregarding what is commanded.

Thus, in the 219 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, of all the thousands of federal judges only 7 have been impeached and removed from the bench. On average that is 1 every 31 years, a period much longer than the average years of service of judges. This has fostered the mentality among them that they can do and not do anything because they do not have to fear any adverse consequences from either abusing their judicial power, having a disability, or engaging in illegal activity.

Since they will cover for each other, they have assured themselves of impunity for their conduct. This explains why federal judges have felt free to institutionalize coordinated wrongdoing, for they have as a matter of fact placed themselves where no individual or class of people is entitled to be in our democratic society: Above the law.

Links to the Act, the Rules, and the official statistics on impeachments and judicial misconduct complaints as well as graphs illustrating the latter are found at the homepage of http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org



**************************************

August 15, 2008


Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
500 Pearl Street tel. (212)857-8500
New York, NY 10007

Re: Judicial misconduct complaint of 6/6/8, no. 02-08-90073, against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, Rochester, NY


Dear Chief Jacobs,

Over two months ago, I filed with the CA2 Clerk the above captioned complaint to be processed by you under the new Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings (R #). To date I have not been notified of your taking any action concerning this complaint.

However, R 8(b) provides that “The clerk must promptly send copies of a complaint…to the chief judge…and to each subject [complained-about] judge” and R 11(a) adds that “the chief judge must review it”. In addition, R 11(f) requires that “If some or all of the complaint is not dismissed or concluded, the chief judge must promptly appoint a special committee to investigate the complaint or any relevant portion of it and to make recommendations to the judicial council”. (emphasis added) The tenor of the Rules is that action will be taken expeditiously.

Indeed, this follows from the provisions of the law itself, which at 28 U.S.C. §351(a) states as grounds for complaining against a judge his or her having “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts”. Subsection (b) even provides that the chief judge “in the interest of the effective and expeditious administration of [that] business…may…identify a complaint…and dispense with filing of a written complaint”.

Thereafter §352 expressly provides for “(a) expeditious review; limited inquiry. –The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint”. What is more, §353(a) requires that “If the chief judge does not enter an order under section 352(b), the chief judge shall promptly- (1) appoint…a special committee to investigate…(2) certify the complaint and any other documents pertaining thereto to each member of such committee; and (3) provide written notice to the complainant…of the action taken under this subsection” (emphasis added).

The need for prompt action on my complaint is exacerbated by the pending proceedings before Judge Ninfo in Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., 02-2230, to which I am a party and from which he has refused to recuse himself. It would be a denial of due process to force me to litigate before him since in that case and in the related DeLano, 04-20280, he has engaged in a series of acts so consistently in disregard of the law and the facts and biased toward the local parties and bankruptcy system insiders, and against me, the sole non-local outsider, as to form a pattern of coordinated wrongdoing in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme.

Hence, Judge Ninfo must now continue his abusive conduct to cover up his past abuse. As a result, he does not show even “the appearance of impartiality” needed for an objective observer to reasonably expect just and fair proceedings from him. Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994).

Therefore, I respectfully request that you:

1) promptly appoint a special committee and let me know;

2) certify to its members the proposed production order herewith; and

3) given the scope of the fraud scheme, cause it to be placed for discussion on the agenda of the next meeting in September of the Judicial Conference.


Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats