Jump to a list of key articles  

 In a recent email concerning Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CA2) and her nomination to fill the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, the emailer asked, “Are we looking for symbolism or substance?, because I will only support her if it is the latter.”

 Let’s consider a summary (endnote #1) of some issues, in the space of one page, that are appropriate to answer that question and ask where the Judge stands on them. Their appropriateness rests on the fact that they concern the essence of the fair administration of “Equal Justice Under Law” and judicial integrity affecting all cases.

 Hence, there is no reason for a nominee not to address them by claiming that to do so would prejudice the outcome of future cases before her. As you read the summarized issues below, ask yourself whether any adverse effect that they may have on your professional success does not ‘count’ because the judge belongs to your ethnic group or is from your state.

  1. Pro-forma justice through summary judgment orders and unpublishable opinions. (#2) Your client pays his respective CA the appeal filing fee of $455 as one of the “fees to be charged for services provided by the courts of appeals” (#3). The main service is to have it provide a dispositive answer to the “Issues presented for review”. (FRAP 28(a)(5)) (#4) A contract for services arises therefrom.

 However, CA2 implements its policy of caseload clearing through expediency TA \l "FRAP CA2 Local Rule 32.1" \s "FRAP CA2 Local Rule 32.1" \c 14  “to utilize judicial time effectively” (FRAP CA2 Local Rule 32.1) (#5) The result is that “Approximately 75% of all cases are decided by summary order (, which) have no precedential authority.” (#6)

 As such, those orders do not bind any judge in the circuit. Necessarily so since in the overwhelming majority of cases their only operative word is “AFFIRMED” or “DISMISSED” because they do not address, let alone answer, the questions presented.

A reversal would require CA2 to state the reversible error and its legal grounds, how to avoid it on remand, what issues to retry, what evidence to include or exclude, etc.…time-consuming details that defeat expediency.

 Now tell your client that neither the order is a mockery of justice and a breach of contract nor you are a bad lawyer, because the judge shares your ethnicity.

  2. Non-publication of orders and opinions protects their cursoriness. In the 12 regional circuit courts the overwhelming majority of all “Opinion(s) or Order(s) Filed In Cases Terminated on the Merits After Oral Hearing or Submission on Briefs” is unpublished: 81.8%, but in CA2 it is 86.7%. (#7)

 They are practically unavailable and unknowable and meant to become secret since they are neither to be sought nor worth seeking given their non-precedential character.

Even when they are “reasoned” and signed, CA2 judges themselves deemed them of such poor quality that they leave 86.5% of them unpublished. This allows for arbitrary, unprincipled, and capricious decision-making. They are not vehicles ‘to do justice that must be seen done in public’; they are expedients of justice ashamed.

 Those orders and opinions result from denial of equal protection. The 11% of litigants that got their day in court with a reasoned, signed, and published opinion paid the same $455 filing fee as the 89% who only got to read on its closed door a rubberstamped summary judgment form or the notice of unpublishable “reasons”.

 Did the ethnic judge help you build your reputation by her giving you 8 in 9 chances of your being dispatched with a cursory fiat, which assures its unreviewability?

 3. T-1080 Motion Information Statement to avoid reading by circling DENIED or GRANTED. (#8) CA2 Local Rule 27 requires this form to accompany each motion as its top page. The movant must “Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sough”…because the judges cannot bother to flip to the last page to read it there.

 That assumes that a judge will read it. The form itself reads “FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court, By: ____________” This means that disposition of the motion is not even by the Clerk of Court, but rather by a subordinate clerk, who need not be a staff lawyer.

 So why would the judges ever bother to read your researched “memorandum…with legal arguments” required under Local Rule 27 –or your brief, for that matter– when a clerk can circle “DENIED” or “GRANTED” and get rid of it?; or rubberstamp a summary order and be done with it?

This frees time for the judge to write an opinion that can be commented on in the newspapers and law journals or make it to a casebook. Why waste time and due process on a little ethnic lawyer?

In fact, CA2 judges have adopted “§ 0.18. Entry of Orders by the Clerk” providing that “The clerk shall prepare, sign and enter the following without submission to the court or a judge unless otherwise directed”.

By the same token, judges can craft, whether in an unpublished writing or through practice, ‘Directions for Issuance by the Expediency Clerk’ of any motion-disposing or summary order concerning appeals that, for example, fall below a certain amount in controversy; involve a small law firm client against a big defendant able to appeal to the Supreme Court and embarrass CA2 on a cursory opinion; or lead to…

  4. Incrimination in tolerating or running a bank-ruptcy fraud scheme. In FY08 there were filed 1,043,993 new bankruptcy cases. This represented a 30% increase over the 801,269 in FY07. Yet the number of such type of case filed in the 12 regional circuit courts of appeals decreased 9% from 845 to 773. (#9)

 This means that bankruptcy judges disposing of $10s of bls. annually were all but sure that whatever they decided would stand since only 0.07% of all bankruptcy cases went to the appeals courts or only 1 in every 1,351 cases. Yet, 61,104 appeals were filed in those courts.

 Moreover, since bankruptcy judges are appointed by circuit judges (#10), the former are further assured that the latter will not overturn their rulings on appeal, for that would call into question their capacity to appoint competent bankruptcy judges as well as their collegial complicity. Judges that dispose of $10s of bls. however they want with no adverse consequences have the most powerful incentive to engage in wrongdoing: riskless enormous profit. 

5. Systematic self-exemption from judicial discipline. Circuit judges benefit from such risklessness, for they assure it. In the system of self-discipline set up in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (#11), they dispose of complaints against federal judges filed by any person.

 In the 1oct96-30sep8 reported period, they abused that power by dismissing with no investigation 99.86% of the 9,140 complaints filed. (#12) Of the thousands of judges that served during those 12 years –2,153 in 2008 alone (#13) - only 11 received any discipline.

 They held themselves unaccountable, thus protecting their effective unimpeachability: only 7 judges have been removed in the 220 years since the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Federal Judiciary. (#14). Yet, they exercised power over people’s property, liberty, and life. Hence, they wield absolute power. When such power strengthens the growth and is in turn fed by the root of all evil, money, the result is that both corrupt absolutely. (#14a)

 Judge Sotomayor is a member of the Judicial Council of the 2^nd Circuit, which during those 12 years denied 100% of petitions to review complaint dismissals. (#15) She would not protect you from a corrupt judge, regardless of your ethnicity.

 6. Judge Sotomayor’s participation in a bank-ruptcy fraud scheme cover-up. With that attitude, Judge Sotomayor and other colleagues of her decided the DeLano case, which is pending before the Supreme Court. (#16)

 They ruled in favor of their appointed bankruptcy judge’s non-disclosure of the whereabouts of at least $673,657 of the most unlikely of ‘bankrupts’: a 39-year veteran banker who at the time of filing for bankruptcy was an M&T Bank bankruptcy officer!

To protect such concealment of assets by a bankruptcy system insider preparing his debt-free golden retirement, they denied every single document in all creditor-requests intended to expose where the banker had stashed his salary and other receipts during his working life.

 Such denials were blatant violations of discovery rights. But when the top judges do wrong, those below them do whatever they want, for they are all aware of the implicit threat, “If you take me down, I bring you with me!”. Due process is nobody’s doing, not even Judge Sotomayor’s.

You can use the process of confirming a Justice nominee to expose through a Watergate-like Follow the Money! investigation the institutionalized wrongdoing of Judge Sotomayor (#17) and her colleagues and thus contribute to “Equal Justice Under Law” regardless of ethnicity.

 This is your a opportunity to become our generation’s Bob Woodward/Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. Use it to establish your professional reputation and render meritorious service to millions of litigants and the public at large who receive or are denied justice at the mercy of judges that administer it without having to worry about being held accountable and subject to discipline.

 To that end, I offer to make a presentation of the evidence and the investigation before you and your colleagues. You may respond to this email or contact me at Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com. In either case, please use the subject line of this email. 

Endnotes #1-17

1.  See Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Richard Cordero v. David DeLano et ux., docket 08-8382; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/US_writ/DrCordero-SCt_petition_3oct8.pdf >US:2467§XIII.A-B.

 2.  Comments on the proposed permanent adoption of interim Local Rule § 0.23 on Summary Order without any opinion or appended explanatory statement; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/CA2_summary_orders_19dec6.pdf.

 3.  Judicial Conference Schedules of Fees Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule (Issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1913. Effective 01/01/2007); Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules, 2008 Ed., Thomson West, p. 1014.

 4.  Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rules of the Second Circuit; http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/rules.htm.

 5.  Id.

 6.  http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk.htm >2nd Circuit Handbook, pg.17.

 7.  Unpublished opinions; Table S-3; U.S. Courts of Appeals—Types of Opinions or Orders Filed in Cases Terminated on the Merits After Oral Hearings or Submission on Briefs During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2008; Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts, 2008 Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), James C. Duff; http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2008/JudicialBusinespdfversion.pdf >p.44.

 8.  http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/forms.htm >T-1080 (Motion Information Statement), PDF fillable, MS Word.

 9.  http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2009-01/article02.cfm?WT.cg_n=TTB_Jan09_article02_teaserTitle; also at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/caseload_SCt_report_08.pdf.

 10.  28 U.S.C. §152. Appointment of bankruptcy judges; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc151-159_bkr_judges.pdf.

 11.  28 U.S.C. §§351-364. Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc351_Conduct_complaints.pdf.

 12.  Table S-22 (previously S-23 & S-24) Report of Complaints Filed and Action Taken Under Authority of 28 U.S.C. §§351-364, produced by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); http://www.uscourts.gov/judbususc/judbus.html;  see also 28 U.S.C. §332(g); collected at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/jud_complaints/complaint_graphs_tables.pdf.

 13.  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/num_jud_officers/jud_officers_08.pdf.

 14.  http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf >Judges of the U.S. Courts>Impeachments. Judicial Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Judiciary_Act_1789.pdf

 14a.  Combined aphorisms of Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 3, 1887 and 1 Timothy 6:10.

 15.  Ent. 13 supra. See also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/25Committee/2DrCordero-petition_25feb9.pdf >N:51¶¶1-4.

 16.  Ent. 1 supra, Petition for certiorari, 08-8382, SCt, at US:2456§X. The decision in In re DeLano , 06-4780, CA2, by the CA2 panel of which Judge Sotomayor was a member is an exhibit therein at CA:2180. See also the appeal brief in CA2; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/DrCordero_v_DeLano_06_4780_CA2.pdf >CA:1746§IX.

 17.  “Sotomayor Rose High, with Few Assets”, Joe Stephens, The Washington Post, May 7, 2009; http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/07/sotomayor_rose_high_with_few_a.html?sid=ST2009050702123; and “N.Y. Federal Judge Likely on Shortlist”, Keith B. Richburg, The Washington Post, May 7, 2009; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603762.html.

 ©2009 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for distributing or reprinting this article in its entirety without modification and with appropriate credit to the author and the website at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. If the endnotes are not included, a statement must be made that “The endnotes (1-17) can be found at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/SCt_nominee/JSotomayor_v_Equal_Justice_26may9.pdf”.

1. The Dynamics of Organized Corruption in the Courts: How judicial wrongdoing tolerated in one instance gives rise to the mentality of judicial impunity that triggers generalized wrongdoing and weaves relationships among the judges of multilateral interdependency of survival where any subsequent unlawful act is allowed and must be covered up

2. The Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Judges Have Semi-annually Received Official Information About the Self-immunizing Systematic Dismissal of Judicial Conduct Complaints, But Have Tolerated It With Disregard for the Consequent Abuse of Power and Corruption

3. The official statistics of judicial complaints filed and action taken that the judicial councils have produced and the Administrative Office published for 1997-2006 show that federal judges have engaged in the systematic dismissal of the 7,462 complaints filed, out of which they have disciplined only 9 peers! (page 8§III) Thereby judges have become unaccountable in their exercise of judicial power subject to no control, which is the hallmark of absolute power that corrupts absolutely.

 4.  Such unaccountability encompasses both judicial and non-judicial acts and thus, the whole of a judge's conduct. It also includes the meetings of the Federal Judiciary's highest court administration policy-making body, namely, the Judicial Council of the United States, composed of the 13 chief circuit judges, the chief judge of the Court for International Trade, 12 representative district judges, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is its presiding member.

5. Unimpeachable judges are judges above the law, Yet  the Constitution provides judges with no immunity, nonetheless through the self-exemption from discipline judges have managed the feat that in the 218 years since the creation of the federal judiciary the number of judges impeached and removed from the bench is 7!

6.  The Judicial Conduct and Disability Study Committee and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States had access to, and actual or constructive knowledge of, the official statistics showing the systematic dismissal by judges of complaints against them, yet they issued the Breyer Report and the Draft Rules Governing the Processing of Complaints, respectively, that pretended that the system of judicial self-discipline has worked effectively and can even be improved through the Draft Rules as if judges had ever been and were now willing to risk self-incrimination through the exercise of self-discipline...a sham!

a. The Revised Rules Governing the Processing of Judicial Misconduct Complaints Adopted by the Judicial Conference of the U.S. on March 11, 2008, Will Not Stop Judges From Systematically Dismissing Them. Rule 2(b) provides that the rules are mandatory unless there is a finding of "exceptional circumstances," which is an easy finding to make since no two cases are ever identical. Through that pretext, “a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference”, that is, any judge or judicial body that handles complaints can suspend the application of any rule. In practice, the rules will be optional. The “mandatory” nature of the rules is illusory!

Detailed analysis of the revised rules is available at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/ DrCordero_revised_rules.pdf.

See what to do about the rules at  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/ how_petition_redress.pdf.

b. Why there is a need and how to join forces to inform the public as well as members of Congress that the Revised Rules in effect authorize the systematic dismissal by federal judges of judicial misconduct and disability complaints against their peers. A new and effective system of judicial accountability and discipline must be adopted to replace the current system of judicial self discipline set up by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §351-364). This Act of Congress has been in practice abrogated by the Judiciary through such the judges' systematic dismissal of complaints against them:  The official statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the graphs based thereon (supra) show that in the 10-year period 1997- 2006, there were filed 7,462 judicial complaints, but the judges disciplined only 9 of their peers!, thus dismissing  99.88% of all complaints!

7.  Evidence of AG Michael Mukasey's incapacity to investigate former colleagues in the judiciary engaged in wrongdoing, lest he incriminate himself.

Go back to the top

Part II. A judicial misconduct complaint that illustrate judges' disregard for the law resulting from their unaccountability

1. The corruptive effect of unaccountable judicial power is illustrated by the judicial misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY [1], for his bias and abuse of judicial power in his support of toleration of a bankruptcy fraud scheme. It was filed, as required by lthe Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §351), with the chief circuit judge of the federal circuit court that reappointed that judge to a second term of 14 years (cf. 28 U.S.C. §152).

That constitutes an insurmountable conflict of interests, for if the chief circuit judge were to investigate the bankruptcy judge, the chief and his circuit judge peers could end up being incriminated in having supported or tolerated the bankruptcy fraud scheme. That conflict derives from, and in turn reinforces, the dynamics of corruption in a close-knit group of people. As a result of such disregard for legality and conflict of interest, the complaint has been lingering with CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs since June 8, 2008, despite the requirement under the Act and the Rules for Conduct and Disability Proceedings, that such complaints be dealt with "promptly" and "expeditiously" [1]

[1] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ JNinfo/10status_inquiry_15aug8/ 5toCJ_Jacobs_15aug8.pdf

See also Open Letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the highest court administration policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary, which on March 11, 2008, adopted the revised rules for processing misconduct and disability complaints filed by any person against a federal judge:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_ complaints/DrCordero_CJRoberts_ 27mar8.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_ complaints/DrCordero_CJRoberts_9feb8.pdf .

Part III. In re DeLano or the case of a judicially supported bankruptcy fraud scheme

1. The Salient Facts of The DeLano Case showing a bankruptcy fraud scheme as well as the support or toleration of bankruptcy, district, and circuit judges that show how a bankruptcy fraud scheme works

2. Judges that  impair even the appearance of justice administered in public by disposing of motions with the circling of the words "Denied"      or "Granted" and of cases with a summary order form of  "Affirmance"  or "Reversal" under Local Rule 0.23 and without any oral argument under Local Rule 34 of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

3.  Issues Presented For Review to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Dr. Richard Cordero v. David and Mary Ann DeLano, docket no. 06-4780-bk, CA2; appellant's brief

4.  How a court of appeals runs into a disqualifying conflict of interests when asked to review the decision of a bankruptcy judge, its appointee under 28 U.S.C. §152, who has supported or participated in a bankruptcy fraud scheme.

Go back to the top

Part IV. A Plan of Action to Counter Judicial Wrongdoing

1. Analysis of Judicial Misconduct by Identifying Motive and Strategy to Expose it Through the Joint Effort of Judicial Misconduct Complainants and Citizens Concerned About Judicial Integrity

2. Two Approaches to Reforming the Judiciary: from inside the courts and from the outside

3. Programmatic Proposal to Unite Entities and Individuals to Use Their Resourc Effectively  in Our Common Mission  to Ensure Integrity in Our Courts by Engaging in Specific Activities and Achieving Concrete Objectives 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 10;  all in PDF

4. Synopsis of the proposal for a Watergate-like Follow the Money! investigation from the mandatory annual financial disclosure reports of judges, filed in Washington, DC, through the public property registries of county clerks' offices, to wherever concealed assets are found and can help answer the question whether for lack of accountability and discipline a federal judgeship become a safe haven for the coordinated wrongdoing

5. How You Can Help to Take the First Concrete Step Toward the Implementation of the Programmatic Proposal Through the Formation of the Virtual Firm on the Internet of Investigative Journalists and Lawyers to Expose Judges Engaged in Coordinated Wrongdoing and Thereby Cause Official Investigations that End Up in the Enactment of Judicial Discipline and Accountability Legislation

a. Table of Division of Labor for the Formation of the Virtual Firm of Investigative Journalists and Lawyers described in the Programmatic Proposal

b. Summarize your judicial misconduct complaint in 350 or fewer words to convince newspapers and bloggers of the need to investigate how judges engage in misconduct and self-exempt from any discipline

6. Proposal for a Citizens Board of Judicial Accountability and Discipline, composed of individuals unrelated and unresponsive to judges and not appointed by them, to process in public judicial conduct and disability complaints by requiring judges to account for their conduct and meting out discipline

7. Why editors and investigative journalists should investigate the use by federal judges of the new rules that became effective on April 10 for processing misconduct and disability complaints against their peers which will allow them to continue both to exempt themselves from any discipline and to support or tolerate with impunity their coordinated judicial wrongdoing (also at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/to_editors _investigators_17apr8.pdf ).

Go back to the top