How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

«An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

NOTE: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. 

This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

  1. After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
  2. His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!
  3. J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
  4. He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

NOTE: The file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546  and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf 

contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

  1. the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
  2. its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
  3. the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
  4. the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
    a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
    b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability
reporting
*

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

  1. Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

  1. J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
  2. With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
  3. Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(>ol2:455).
  4. The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
  5. The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
  6. What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
  7. In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
  8. For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
  9. No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

  1. So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
  2. Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
  3. Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
  4. By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

  1. It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
  2. Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
  3. Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
  4. President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
  5. To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548 

Line Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10th Cir., filed with AO1 ‘06[5] ‘07[6] ‘08A[7] ‘08B[8] ‘09A[9] ‘09B ’10[10] ’11[11] ’12[12] ’13[13] ’14[14] ’15[15] ’16[16] totals
      1. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year * 2 14 7 0 52 18 26♦‡ 8 9 11 17 12 176
      2. Complaints Concluded 0
      3. Complaints Filed[17] 49 37 17 58 [18] 73 62 64 33 59 33 37 51 573
      4. Complaint Type/Source
      5. Written/Filed by Complainants 49 37 17 58 71 61 64 33 59 33 37 51 570
      6. On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
      7. Complainants♦♦
      8. Prison inmates 50 47 26 37 13 27 15 22 13 250
      9. Litigants 8 23 33 19 25 25 16 11 20 180
   10. Attorneys 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 4 2 17
   11. Public Officials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
   12. Other 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 16
   13. Judges Complained About **
   14. Circuit Judges 24 18 3 29 21 10 12 3 28 1 4 14 167
   15. District Judges 40 27 43 34 35 22 16 23 29 22 291
   16. Bankruptcy Judges 2 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 3 14
   17. Magistrate Judges 8 12 7 2 6 17 15 6 14 9 4 12 112
   18. Nature of Allegations
   19. Erroneous Decision 2 46 50 57 30 53 16 28 46 328
   20. Delayed Decision 1 7 4 1 5 10 1 4 7 4 6 0 50
   21. Failure to Give Reasons for Decision 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
   22. Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel 4 9 6 6 6 8 7 2 0 48
   23. Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney 0 7 6 7 3 6 14 4 1 48
   24. Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias 14 19 13 28 2 3 9 0 1 3 4 3 99
   25. Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney 3 13 20 21 7 14 18 5 10 111
   26. Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse) 2 4 1 0 7 4 5 1 4 10 2 3 43
   27. Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
   28. Improper Outside Income 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
   29. Partisan Political Activity or Statement 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
   30. Acceptance of a Bribe 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
   31. Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 6
   32. Solicitation of Funds for Organization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   33. Violation of Other Standards 0 1 1 2 1 0 10 0 1 16
   34. Other Misconduct 57 48 23 28 14 23 0 25 40 258
   35. Disability 5 5 0 7 0 0 0 2 10 29
   36. ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
   37. Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
   38. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
   39. Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
   40. Withdrawal of Petition for Review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   41. Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
   42. Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
   43. Complaint Dismissed in Whole or in Part 32 78 51 75 33 57 26 42 37 431
   44. Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability 1 0 4 4 3 5 0 2 4 2 25
   45. Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related 30 0 74 43 68 30 49 21 35 33 383
   46. Frivolous 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 18
   47. Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 30 0 46 43 61 18 32 19 32 36 317
   48. Allegations Incapable of Being Established 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
   49. Filed in Wrong Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   50. Otherwise Not Appropriate 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
   51. Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 14
   52. Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   53. Voluntary Corrective Action Taken 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
   54. Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 8
   55. Appropriate Action Already Taken 0 0
   56. Complaint Withdrawn 0 0
   57. Subtotal 0 0
   58. Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
   59. Actions by Special Committees
   60. Matter Returned from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   61. New Matter Referred to Chief Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   62. Judicial Council Proceedings
   63. Matter Returned from Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   64. Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   65. Received Petition for Review[19] 0 58 13 43 0 23 13 26 176
   66. Withdrawn 0 0
   67. Action on Petition for Review 0 0
   68. Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied 21 54 19 45 17 37 18 16 15 242
   69. Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
   70. Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   71. Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   72. Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
   73. Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report 0
   74. Complaint Dismissed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
   75. Not Misconduct or Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
   76. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
   77. Merits Related 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   78. Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   79. Otherwise Not Appropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   80. Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   81. Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   82. Remedial Action Taken 0 0
   83. Privately Censured 0
   84. Publicly Censured 0
   85. Censure or Reprimand 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
   86. Suspension of Assignments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   87. Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   88. Removal of Bankruptcy Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   89. Request of Voluntary Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   90. Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   91. Additional Investigation Warranted 0 0
   92. Returned to Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   93. Retained by Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   94. Actions by Chief Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   95. Transferred to Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
   96. Received from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   97. Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
   98. During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year 37 48 24 0 0- 96 50 83 33 57 47 40 36 551[21]
   99. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year] 26 0 29 30 7 8 11 18 14 27 170
              1. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals

[These notes are in the original.]

Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

♦♦ Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

Revised

Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

* Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

 

 

ENDNOTES

The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

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

The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

[1]  This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

The above table for the 10th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

[2]  Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

[3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

However, the website of the 10th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

[4]  On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

[5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

[6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

[7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

[8]  The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

[9]  http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

[10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

[11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

[12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

[13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

[14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

[15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

[16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

[17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

[18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

[19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

[20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

[21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.

Published by

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., is a doctor of law and researcher-writer attorney. He is a member of the New York State Bar and lives in New York City.

He earned his doctorate of law from the University of Cambridge in England, where his thesis dealt with the integration of the banking industry in the European Union. He earned a French law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, where he concentrated on currency stability and the abuse of dominant positions by entities in commerce, similar to American antitrust law. He also earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan, where he concentrated on the use of computers and their networks to maximize workflow efficiency and productivity.

Dr. Cordero worked as a researcher-writer at the preeminent publisher of analytical legal commentaries, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, a member of West/Thomson Reuters. There he wrote commentaries on the regulation of financial activities under federal law.

Currently at Judicial Discipline Reform, he is promoting the creation of a multidisciplinary academic and business team to advocate judges’ accountability and discipline reform. The need for such reform is based on his analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, who are the models for their state counterparts. That analysis is set forth in his study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting;
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you and your colleagues of the evidence of judicial wrongdoing so that you may learn how to join the effort to expose it and bring about judicial reform. Contact him at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net.

Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Leave a Reply