Federal Judiciary Panicing Over JAIL4Judges
Federal Judiciary Panicking
From: Montgomery Sibley [mailto:mbsibley@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:39 AM
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.
Sent: 03/05/2008 1:20 PM
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
* abuse of judicial power
* 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.
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.
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,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.