D.C. Dismissed One Hundred Percent – 478 Judicial Complaints – over an 11 Year Period

The Statistics Can Only Reach One Conclusion. It’s A Corrupt Judiciary.

LIT: FEB 21, 2021

According to figures published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, about 99.8 percent of the reported 7,462 judicial misconduct complaints filed during the 10-year period of 1997-2006 were dismissed with little or no explanation, regardless of merit.

Confidentiality rules have prevented the public and members of Congress from inspecting these complaints.

The author is grateful to Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. who originally compiled this data and demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of complaints against federal judges are dismissed.  Discipline is usually a private or public admonition and only rarely leads to an unseating.

Note that, in 2008, the U.S. Courts changed the way in which the disposition of complaints is reported.  They have increased the number of categories, removed subtotals, and generally obfuscated the fates of individual complaints in a manner that makes accurate statistical analysis more difficult.  These changes follow adoption of the 2006 Breyer Committee Report [PDF].

In 2018, Dr. Cordero observed that, for the 11-year period that ended November 30, 2017, the District of Columbia Circuit had received 478 complaints of judicial misconduct, 100% of which were dismissed and denied petitions for review.

Because it was unlikely that not a single complaint was worthy of review, Dr. Cordero filed a complaint over this statistical improbability.

The Court’s response was to refer his complaint to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed it and issued an extensive analysis that ended with a dismissal, thus reinforcing the cycle by which judges shield one another from charges of misconduct.

Additional information about this complaint is available here.

On August 1, 2019, a panel of judges from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed all 83 ethics complaints that had been filed against Justice Brett Kavanaugh prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court, concluding that he became immune from further investigation the moment he was confirmed on Oct. 6, 2018.

In addition to benefiting by having charges of misconduct dismissed by their peers, judges who are under investigation for very serious acts of misconduct can escape accountability by simply retiring, which terminates the investigation and allows them to continue receivng their salary (as “annuity”) for the rest of their lives. This is an exceptional perquisite judges have conferred upon themselves.

Dr. Cordero’s Dismissed Judicial Complaint Questioning the  Authenticity and Statistical Probability re 100% Dismissal of Complaints in D.C. over an 11 Year Period

LIT has questioned statistical data re judicial complaints and also, for example, that Deutsche Bank has never lost a foreclosure case at the Fifth Circuit since 2008 or that the US Supreme Court has never granted a homeowner a judicial foreclosure petition in that period either.

Dear Clerk of Court Langer1,

1. I and the people assembled with me, exercising our 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:111§3)2, which no statute or self-interested required ‘confidentiality’ can abrogate, file publicly this complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(jur:2418a) about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Merrick Gar- land, and their peers and colleagues on the District of Columbia Circuit (the complained-about judges or the judges; DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct 06-30sep17 11-year period. This is a fact established by the statistics(infra 795§C) that they were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:2623a) to submit and did submit to Congress and the public.

2. The Act is to be construed broadly: It does not require complainants to show standing to file a complaint about a judge, whether by having suffered injury in fact as a result of the judge’s mis- conduct or disability complained about; meeting any residence requirement relative to the judge’s workplace or residence; or otherwise. Rather, it provides under §351(a) that “Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct”.

3. The 15 complaints filed in your Court about J. Kavanaugh following his confirmation hearings in Sep. 2018 were transferred under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings(jur:125264; †>OL2:778) by C.J. Garland, who disqualified himself, to DCC J. Karen Henderson, who in turn transferred them to C.J. John Roberts, Jr., who assigned them on Oct. 10 to 10 Cir. C.J. Timothy Tymkovich. We respectfully petition you and all other officers to likewise transfer and process this complaint with the other 15 so that their processing may be informed by each other; all be used to detect judges’ patterns and trends of misconduct and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi; and their processing may lead to the independent investigation of the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications.

A. The facts of the complained-about judges’ prejudicial conduct

4. Through their 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them and 100% denial of the petitions for review, the judges have “engaged in §351(a) prejudicial conduct”. Indeed, they have:

a. arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect that Act of Congress, which it is “the business of the courts” and its judges(¶c infra) to enforce together with its other acts;

b. abused the self-disciplining power entrusted to them under the Act by exonerating them- selves from all complaints so as to evade any disciplinary action, thereby resolving in their favor the conflict of interests arising from being the target and the judges of the complaints;

c. breached their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453 whereby “[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers, colleagues, and friends as opposed to other parties to complaints], and do equal right to the poor [in connections to us] and to the rich [in IOUs on us that we gave the peers, colleagues, and friends who dismissed complaints about us], and that [we] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [us] as judges under the Constitution and laws of the United States”. Instead, they administered ‘unequal protection from the law’ with respect to relationship to them by being 100% partial toward their peers, colleagues, and friends when they became the target of complaints, 100% of which they dismissed;

d. disregarded their duty under the Code of Conduct, Canon 1, which requires them to “uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary”.  They have shown that how they “discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] as judges under the…laws [such as the Act]” depends upon whether the person whose conduct they are judging is their peer, col- league, or friend, on whom they dependent for cover-up of their misconduct and disability;

e. prejudiced through such reciprocal partiality “the integrity of the judiciary”, of whose essential character for the “effective…administration of the business of the courts” they have imputed knowledge because the Commentary to Canon 1 provides that “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.

The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law”;

f. failed to maintain the “good Behaviour” required of them under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution “to hold their Offices”; defined by what their oath singles out, i.e., their pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [under the] laws”, such as the Act; and reiterated by Canon 1 in its Commentary “they must comply with the law”;

g. committed “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” prohibited by Canon 2, for under Canon 2A “reasonable minds with knowledge of the relevant circumstances after reasonable inquiry would conclude” that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ impossible for all the judges to independently deem that 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed over 11 years were properly dismissible but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement;

h. denied complainants the benefit intended for them under the Act of redress for the prejudice that they had suffered or witnessed relating to the judges’ misconduct or disability;

i. deprived complainants and the rest of the public of the working mechanism for complaining that the Act had provided for their protection from misconducting and disable judges;

j. showed reckless disregard for 100% of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the mis- conduct and disability complained about in the 478 complaints filed about, and dismissed by, them, whose recklessness was aggravated by their systematic failure to investigate the complaints through the appointment of special committees, provided for under §353;

k. showed reckless indifference to the rights and well-being of complainants and the rest of the public by leaving them exposed to 100% of the prejudice caused by the misconduct and disability complained about, and any additional prejudice at the hands of the exonerated judges, who were left free of any deterrent to further committing misconduct and indulging in disability; and at the hands of other judges who, realizing that misconduct and disability had no adverse consequences for judges, committed misconduct and indulged in disability;

l. disregarded Canon 3 providing that “The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities”, for the number of extra-judicial activities highlighted on their individual page on the DCC website allows ‘the math of perfunctoriness’(OL2:760) to demonstrate how lack of time accounts for 93%(OL2:457§D) of appeals being disposed of through the clerk-filled out, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like dumping forms of summary orders(jur:43§b);

m. intentionally “prejudic[ed] the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and the persons to whom they swore to administer justice, We the People: It is a torts tenet that “people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their acts”.

By dismissing 100% of the complaints and denying 100% of review petitions, the judges rendered their misconduct and disability riskless, which enabled their further prejudicial misconduct and disability.

Worse yet, they emboldened themselves and others to commit misconduct and indulge in disability of ever more diverse nature, to a greater extent, more frequently, and of higher gravity.

While dismissing and denying for over a decade, they saw their foreseeable prejudice become a fact, whose continued occurrence they intended;

n. deceived potential and actual complainants by pretending that their complaints would be fairly and impartially processed although the judges intended to dismiss 100% of them, thus running the Act’s complaint mechanism as a sham that works fraud on We the People.

Certainly, LIT is not defending Klayman’s actions – see video below for self explanatory reasoning – that said, the DC Bar whiteout of Sataki’s name and replacing with initials in final 2020 report was clearly a malicious move. PACER is public. The Bar’s wordsmithing is egregious pic.twitter.com/6Veqci9emp

— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) February 20, 2021

B. Action requested
5. Therefore, we respectfully petition the judicial officers processing this complaint to:

a. deem and treat this complaint as the public document that it already is; and make it available to the public easily and widely as it progresses through the stages of its processing;

b. communicate to us and the public the judges’ answers; and afford the opportunity to reply, for it would constitute partiality toward the judges to take their answers at face value;

c. in the interest of justice for the complainants and public confidence in judges, make the 478 complaints and their dismissal orders, review petitions, and denials public, and transfer them under Rules 25 and 26 to be processed impartially by DCC-unrelated §353 special committees, whose members need not be judges or lawyers (next) and which can replace the failed mechanism of judges –priests, police officers- judging their peers, colleagues, and friends;

d. hold fact-finding public hearings on this and all other complaints to ascertain the causes for complaint, which hearings Judge Anthony Scirica, Chair of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, stated at the Oct. 30 hearing on Code and Rules proposed changes are conceivable as part of the Committee’s work;

e. and let independent fact-finders, i.e., news anchors and editors, investigative reporters, and journalism professors(OL2:777¶21c) conduct them to find whether dismissing complaints regardless of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability turned into judges’ pattern of action that became the Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi(OL2:756¶¶9-11);

f. have independent IT, mail, and phone forensic experts investigate the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications(OL2:781), such as mine by email, mail, phone, my website, PayPal, GoFundMe, LinkedIn, and FB accounts(*>ggl:1); and make their findings public:

C. Links to official court statistics on complaints about judges and their analysis

6. Article on official statistics on complaints about J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers and their analysis using “the math of abuse”: http://Judicial-Discipline- Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf

7. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11- year period: http://Judicial-Discipline- Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf

8. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline- Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf

9. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 15 reporting courts: http:// Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf

10. Article on statistics and math: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through ‘dumping forms’: unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like orders; http:// Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:760, 457§D

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

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