Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. Synopsis of an Investigative Journalism ...

determine? (D:458§V, Add:621§1) Since the justices and circuit judges cannot have ignored
ongoing misconduct of judges abusing their uncontrolled power, why have they tolerated it?
A reasonable person is assumed to intend the normal consequences of his or her acts, just
as they are assumed to engage in rational behavior in furtherance of what they conceive to be
their interests. Consequently, it must be assumed that when the justices and circuit judges
engaged or acquiesced in the systematic dismissal of misconduct complaints against judges they
intended to allow their peers and themselves to wield uncontrol power and engage in its normal
consequence of abuse of power and corruption. Since this in turn would normally give rise to
complaints leading to prosecution, the dismissal of such complaints became necessary to
immunize themselves from such prosecution. The facts do not allow the justices of the Supreme
Court to deny that this was their intention.
Indeed, they know how litigious our society is, for the number of filings in the Supreme
Court went from 7,924 in the 2001 Term to 8,255 in the 2002 Term 4 …for only the nine justices
to take care of! Hence, they could not assume for a nanosecond that it was a natural occurrence
that for years in a row not a single complaint, all denied by a circuit chief judge or dismissed by
any of the 13 circuit councils, made it up as a petition for review to the Judicial Conference. The
later is the highest administrative body of the federal judiciary, the Third Branch of Government,
that must ensure the proper functioning and integrity of the courts and its judges. (C:1711)
It would be patently untenable to pretend that not even one of all the complainants to the
circuit chief judges was so dissatisfied with a chief judge’s final order concerning his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. §351 as to petition the respective circuit council for review thereof under
§352(c). It would be just as untenable to allege that not a single petitioner to any of the 13
councils was “aggrieved” under §357(a) by a council’s action so as to be entitled to petition the
Conference for review thereof. It would be equally untenable to suggest that of all the complaints
filed during the course of years there has not been even one meritorious enough for any of the
councils to refer under §354(b) to the Conference.
Consequently, it necessarily follows that the occurrence of “no pending petitions for review of
judicial council action on misconduct orders” 5 is the result of the non-coincidental, intentional, and
coordinated determination of the judges of the 13 councils, with the conniving approval of those
who are also members of the Conference, and its presiding member, the chief justice, both to
prevent complaints, not to mention their own action on them, from being reviewed and to put an
end to them at the earliest stage possible. The Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring respect
for the rule of law through its application not only by, but also to, judges. Hence, it too is to
blame for having allowed the entrenchment of the attitude of flagrant disregard by judges, chief
judges, and their councils and Conference, of the legal duty imposed on them under §351 et seq.
to handle effectively complaints against them and to discipline themselves as well as for having
tolerated its deleterious effect on the integrity of judicial process: abuse of power and corruption.
(Cf. A:1662§D; ToEC:>C:973 and Comment thereunder)
4 Supreme Court of the United States 2003 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary; www.supremecourtus.gov.
5 Report of September 23, 2003, of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference, and Reports of March
and September 2003 and March 2004, of the Judicial Conference’s Committee to Review Circuit
Council Conduct and Disability Orders. (C:569-572)
2 of 2 Dr. Cordero’s article on the justices and circuit judges’ knowing toleration of abuse of power & corruption