Hearing on Draft Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct Complaints
Re: Hearing on Draft Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct Complaints
The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States has released for public comment its Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §351-364. They aim at implementing the recommendations contained in the Breyer Report issued by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee, chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer and appointed by the Late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
A one half-day hearing in the whole nation on those Rules is planned to commence at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2007, in the U.S. Courthouse at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Your attendance is encouraged in view of the importance of determining whether the only rules for disciplining complained-about judges, written and to be implemented by their own peers, will work any better than the current ones.
Hence, you are invited to distribute this e-mail to your contacts and mailing list and to display it prominently on your website.
The Committee has required from those that have requested to testify at the hearing that they give in advance a written indication of their intended testimony. Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., of Judicial Discipline Reform (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org), requested and was granted the opportunity to testify. To comply with the Committee's requirement, Dr. Cordero provided an indication of his intended testimony on those Draft Rules.
Bellow is the table of contents of Dr. Cordero's written indication as well as the link to the PDF file containing his preliminary comments on the Draft Rules. Your comments and suggestions on them are welcome; sent them to DrRCordero@....
I. Comments on the Draft Rules (see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_on_rules.pdf, which contains a copy of the Draft Rules and the announcement of the hearing)
II. Whether the Rules' underlying basis, the Report of the Breyer Committee, provided any analysis not already available in, and not in contradiction with, the statistics since 1996 of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on complaints filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980
A. The system of handling judicial conduct and disability complaints is fundamentally flawed due to judges' bias and dominating interest in self-preservation because it is based on the chief circuit judges reviewing complaints against their peers and friends
B. The conflict of interests inherent in a chief circuit judge reviewing a complaint against the circuit court's or even his own appointee, that is, a bankruptcy judge appointed under 28 U.S.C. §152(a)(1) or (3), respectively
III. Whether the Rules or the Breyer Report deal with the fundamental institutional problems that have affected the application of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act since its enactment in 1980
A. The fundamental problem of lack of checks and balances to control the conduct of federal judges and the dynamics of interdependent survivability of members of close and powerful groups, two factors that have prevented the removal of any federal judges from the bench except seven judges in the 218 years since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, by the count of the Federal Judicial Center (www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf>Judges of the United States>Impeachments of Judges)
IV. Whether the Rules have the potential to render effective the Federal Judiciary's current mechanism of self-discipline by requiring that the Judiciary and its members be accountable for their administration of justice and perform their duty to safeguard the integrity of judicial process
A. Evidence that the Supreme Court has tolerated for years the systematic dismissal of misconduct complaints, thereby signaling that neither the Act nor the Rules were to be taken seriously
B. The Judicial Conference has known that the Act and the current rules for its implementation are ineffective given that in the 27 years of the Act it has issued only 15 opinions under it, and that for years in a row the judicial councils have not allowed a single complaint to make it even to its Committee for the Review of Judicial Council Conduct and Disability Decisions (now known as the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability)
C. How self-discipline through peer review is ineffective to prevent that judges appointed for life and as a matter of fact unimpeachable elevate themselves above the law, where they enjoy the privilege of having justice applied to them in private given that complaints against them are treated confidentially and by peer judges, who lack impartiality due to their reputational interest, or even self-preservation interest, in their complained-about peers being found above reproach
D. The need for an independent board of citizens neither appointed by nor related to the judiciary, otherwise for a panel of three retired judges from circuits other than that of the complained-about judge, to enforce in public proceedings rules of judicial discipline and accountability aimed at providing persons injured by complained-about judges an effective remedy, that is, compensation, and at holding judges to the standard of "Equal Justice Under Law"
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
If you want to petition that the judges hold a hearing
on the Draft Rules where you live, send your request
to Circuit Judge Ralph Winters, Chair of the Committee
on Judicial Conduct and Disability at
--- In email@example.com, "Ms. T" <allaboutme38@...> wrote:
> Re: Hearing on Draft Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct Complaints
> The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial
> Conference of the United States has released for public comment its
> Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings under
> 28 U.S.C. §351-364. They aim at implementing the recommendations
> contained in the Breyer Report issued by the Judicial Conduct and
> Disability Act Study Committee, chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer and
> appointed by the Late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
> A one half-day hearing in the whole nation on those Rules is planned to
> commence at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2007, in the U.S.
> Courthouse at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Your attendance
> is encouraged in view of the importance of determining whether the only
> rules for disciplining complained-about judges, written and to be
> implemented by their own peers, will work any better than the current
> Hence, you are invited to distribute this e-mail to your contacts and
> mailing list and to display it prominently on your website.
- News Release from Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Summarize For Newspaper
Your Judicial Misconduct Complaint in 350 or Fewer Words
Last September 27, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the
Judicial Conference of the United States, held its one single hearing in
the whole nation to receive public comment on its draft rules governing
judicial misconduct complaint proceedings.
I presented graphs based on official statistics of the federal judiciary
showing that between October 1996 and September 2006, the number of
complaints against federal judges/magistrates filed with U.S. chief
circuit judges was 7,462, but the judges disciplined only 9 of their
peers! (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve-file/27sep7.pdf )
This proves systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints by
judges that have compromised their integrity to protect their peers while
disregarding their duty "to administer justice without respect to
persons". (28 U.S.C. §453) They have turned the complaint process into a
sham and will disregard the draft rules as they have the current ones,
thus placing themselves above the law.
At the hearing, I met New York Post Reporter Janon Fisher, who expressed
interest in exploring judicial misconduct complaints. This opens an
opportunity for you to tell your complaint to a newspaper in a SUMMARY of
350 WORDS OR LESS. Make every word count. Do not ramble. Do not argue the
First write what comes to mind to get a draft; then identify the most
important FACTS OF MISCONDUCT and order them in short paragraphs; check
them against your documents for accuracy. Write to convince, not your
friends or group members, but jurors, as it were, who do not know or trust
you. Appeal to their common sense to show that what happened in your case
is not how a judge should behave or is evidence of wrongdoing engaged in
or tolerated by the judge.
Rewrite to eliminate unimportant details. Revise to get rid of grammatical
errors. Run a spell-check and a word count until you have 350 or fewer
words. If your complaint matters to you, SWEAT OVER IT to get a polished
Use this template
I am Name, of City, State,
[party type: parent, divorcing spouse, debtor/creditor in bankruptcy, etc.],
in Case Name/Docket #, in Court Name,
which concerns [case type: bankruptcy, child support or custody, probate,
This case came before Judge Name, who showed [misconduct type: abuse of
judicial power, biased or prejudiced conduct, conflict of interests,
bribery or corruption, disregard for the rule of law or the facts, abusive
language, mental or physical disability].
State the most revealing FACTS of misconduct: No opinions or mere
accusations, no exaggerations, no arguments on the merits. Just ACCURATE
FACTS OF MISCONDUCT, with dates, names, and numbers. Be as fair to
everybody as you are asking them to be to you. Be a responsible advocate
of judicial reform, for your own good and that of all those who seek
"Equal Justice Under Law".
If you filed a judicial misconduct complaint, state docket # and disposition.
State why Reporter Fisher and the New York Post should join Dr. Cordero in
investigating judicial misconduct in our courts.
Send your polished complaint SUMMARY to jfisher@... and
DrRCordero-summary @... .
Forward this e-mail to everybody that may have a judicial misconduct