Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Federal Judiciary Panicing Over JAIL4Judges

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Federal Judiciary Panicking Over JAIL4Judges ... From: Montgomery Sibley [mailto:mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com ] Sent:
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Federal Judiciary Panicking

      Over JAIL4Judges

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Montgomery Sibley [
      Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:39 AM
      To: JAIL4Judges
      Subject: FW: Open letter to Chief Justice Roberts re judges' adoption on March 11 of rules for self-exemption from discipline


      FYI Jail4Judges is putting the federal judiciary in a panic.  I will have more thoughts on this for you later.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: dr.richard.cordero.esq@...
      Sent: 03/05/2008 1:20 PM
      To: mbsibley@...
      Subject: Open letter to Chief Justice Roberts re judges' adoption on March
      11 of rules for self-exemption from discipline

                  Federal Judges are Ready to Adopt on March 11
                  Rules Enabling Them to Continue Dismissing Systematically
                  Misconduct Complaints Against Them
                  Thus Self-Exempting from Any Discipline

      Dear Mr. Sibley,

      The open letter below to Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts concerns the
      Revised Rules for processing misconduct and disability complaints against
      federal judges filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act by
      anybody. The Revised Rules are pending for adoption next March 11 by the
      Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is the highest policy-making body of
      the Federal Judiciary and presided by the Chief Justice.

      This open letter is being submitted as an incentive for your media
      organization to investigate this important matter and as an Op-Ed,
      modifiable, if requested, as a letter to the editor of your online and print

      Indeed, the official statistics on the disposition of such complaints
      against judges show that during the 10-year period 1997-2006, there were
      filed 7,462 judicial complaints, but the judges had only 7 investigated by
      special committees and disciplined only 9 of their peers!

      By the judges' own categories, the dismissed complaints dealt with
      misconduct and disability such as:

      * conflict of interests
      * bribery
      * corruption
      * abuse of judicial power
      * bias
      * prejudice
      * incompetence
      * mental or physical disability preventing the discharge of official duties.

      Despite the seriousness of these complaints, the judges systematically and
      without any investigation dismissed 99.88% of them. Thereby they
      self-exempted from any discipline for their misconduct and disability and in
      practice deprived the people of a right conferred upon them by an Act of

      Such abuse prompted Congress to criticize the judges and propose the
      establishment of an inspector general for the judiciary. To ward off
      Congressional supervision, the Late Chief Justice Rehnquist set up a
      committee chaired by Justice Breyer to study the handling of such

      The Breyer Committee held no hearings, published no comments submitted to
      it, and did not release even the redacted complaints on which it based its
      knowingly false conclusion that the judges "have properly implemented the
      Act in respect to the vast majority of the complaints filed".

      Next March 11, Chief Justice Roberts and the top judges on the Judicial
      Conference will meet to adopt the Revised Rules for implementing the Breyer
      Committee recommendations. Far from stopping the systematic dismissal of
      complaints, these Rules authorize it as the official policy of the
      Judiciary, as shown below in the open letter.

      Judges who exercise enormous power over people's property, liberty, and even
      life and self-exempt from any discipline wield absolute power, which
      corrupts absolutely. Wouldn't your audience want to know more about having
      their rights decided by judges who have so little respect for the rule of
      law that they will in all likelihood adopt the Rules in defense of their
      arrogated "Unequal Position Above Law"?

      To show you that if you decide to investigate this matter I can provide you
      with information and data that can help you hit the ground running, I have
      prepared the list of Judicial Conference members, addresses, and phone
      numbers, which can prove very useful to conduct phone interviews to begin
      with. You can retrieve it through:

      The Revised Rules, the statistics, the Breyer Report, etc., and their
      analysis can be downloaded through:

      I look forward to hearing from you.


      Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
      tel. (718)827-9521
      59 Crescent Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11208

      (sample of the letter sent to each member of the Judicial Conference of the

      February 9, 2008

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
      Presiding Officer
      Judicial Conference of the U.S.
      c/o Supreme Court of the United States
      Washington, D.C. 20543

      Dear Mr. Chief Justice Roberts,

      I am writing to you as member of the Judicial Conference, which next March
      11 will consider the adoption of the Revised Rules for processing judicial
      misconduct and disability complaints. These Rules, just as the current ones
      that they are supposed to replace, are irremediably flawed as part of the
      inherently biased system of judges judging judges

      Indeed, the official statistics on the disposition of such complaints show
      that during the 10-year period 1997-2006, there were filed 7,462 judicial
      complaints, but the judges had only 7 investigated by special committees and
      disciplined only 9 of their peers! This means that the judges systematically
      dismissed 99.88% of all complaints.

      The Late Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Breyer Committee knew about these
      statistics, yet pretended that the Act had been satisfactorily implemented.
      Likewise, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability pretends that if
      only the rules are reworded, judges will handle complaints against
      themselves as anything other than a dismissible nuisance. However, its Rules
      only authorize the continuation of such systematic dismissal by:

      Rule 2(b) allowing the non-application of any rule by the judges handling
      complaints, thus rendering the Rules optional rather than mandatory and
      ensuring their inconsistent and capricious application;

      Rule 3 and its Commentary depriving the official Commentaries of any
      authoritative status as well as the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and even
      mandatory rules on gifts, outside income, and financial disclosure reporting
      of any guidance value;

      Rule 13 Commentary pretending that special committees may be barred from
      disclosing information about judges' criminal conduct to prosecutors and
      grand juries, thus providing for cover ups.

      My comments at
      (accompanied by all relevant documents or links to them) show that these are
      but some of the most blatant provisions to ensure the Rules'

      They also show how they are procedurally flawed, for the facts establish the
      intentional circumvention of the requirement of "giving appropriate public
      notice and opportunity for comment".

      Therefore, I respectfully request that you and through you the Conference:

      1) take cognizance of my comments, hereby submitted to both;

      2) not adopt the Revised Rules;

      3) in the interest of justice and the public's trust in the integrity of
      judicial process, call on Congress to replace the current system of judicial
      self-discipline inherently flawed through self-interest with an independent
      citizens' board for judicial accountability and discipline, neither
      appointed by, nor answerable to, any judges; otherwise,

      4) submit the Revised Rules to public scrutiny through appropriate notice
      and make public all comments thereupon submitted as well as all those
      already submitted by judges and others in what was supposed to be a process
      of public comment rather than a veiled opportunity for judges to indicate to
      its drafting peers and the Conference how to turn the practice of
      systematically dismissing judicial complaints into the official policy for
      defeating the Act through self-exemption from all discipline.

      Looking forward to hearing from you, I remain,

      Sincerely yours,

      Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.