Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. Addresses "Judges Judging Judges"

OPEN LETTER
(sample of the letter sent to each member of the Judicial Conference of the
U.S.)

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
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_
rules.pdf
(accompanied by all relevant documents or links to them) show that these are
but some of the most blatant provisions to ensure the Rules'
ineffectiveness.

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.
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org