Source: https://www.nosue.org/home/federal-judicial-complaints/
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 23:25:51
Document Index: 33992075

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 351', '§ 351', '§ 352', '§ 353', '§ 354', '§ 355', '§ 356', '§ 357', '§ 358', '§ 359', '§ 360', '§ 361', '§ 362', '§ 363', '§ 364', '§ 455', '§ 331', '§ 351']

Justice Network - Federal Judicial Complaints
............................Federal Judicial Complaints.......................
Filing a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Judicial Disability Against A Federal Judge.
Dr. Cordero's work is profiled at the end of this page
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, "unable to discharge all the duties" of the judicial office.
The Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, as amended on September 17, 2015, provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of misconduct and disability proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
Frequently Asked Questions about filing a judicial conduct or disability complaint against a federal judge.
Graphical Overview of the process for filing a judicial conduct or disability complaint against a federal judge.
Judicial Conduct & Disability - US Eleventh Circuit COA
Final Orders on Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability - US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Addendum Three (Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States with Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules) 9-15
RulesAddendum03MAY16.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [293.1 KB]
COMPLAINT FORM: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY AGAINST A FEDERAL JUDGE
FormJudicialComplaintSEP15.pdf
28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 - COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - LII Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law
§ 351 - Complaints; judge defined
§ 352 - Review of complaint by chief judge
§ 353 - Special committees
§ 354 - Action by judicial council
§ 355 - Action by Judicial Conference
§ 356 - Subpoena power
§ 357 - Review of orders and actions
§ 358 - Rules
§ 359 - Restrictions
§ 360 - Disclosure of information
§ 361 - Reimbursement of expenses
§ 362 - Other provisions and rules not affected
§ 363 - Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
§ 364 - Effect of felony conviction
28 U.S.C. 351-364
28usc351-364.pdf
Link to Governance & the Judicial Conference
Fix the Court Calls on Judicial Conference to Be More Transparent About Its Operations
The Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice John Roberts (right) and comprising some of the nation’s top federal judges, is meeting in D.C. for its semiannual summit, yet scant information about the roles and responsibilities of this body, the composition of its committees or the work it was planning to accomplish has been released publicly.
"The judges who sit on the Judicial Conference are tasked with making important decisions on federal judiciary policy, from rules of evidence and civil procedure to directives on travel and codes of conduct," Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth said. "Yet there is no online database of all of the committees, their roles and who sits on them, and it is nearly impossible to locate their work on various matters until months after the fact, if at all." Read more
Judicial Conference of the United States - US Courts
The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. The current name took effect when Congress enacted Section 331 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Before that, the body was known as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges from its creation in 1922. Read more
October 2016 Members Read more
October 2016 Members
jcus_membership_oct_2016_0.pdf
Articles related to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy making body for the U.S. Courts.
Conference Moves to Enhance Judges' Accountability,
The Conference voted to require all federal courts to useconflict-checking computer software to identify cases in which judges may have a financial conflict of interest and should disqualify themselves. It also approved a new policy requiring greater disclosure by both those who provide privately funded educational programs for judges and the judges who attend such programs.
Current Rules of Practice & Procedure (some, but not all below)
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, U.S. Courts website
Judicial Disqualification An Analysis of Federal Law (Second Edition)
Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 (2002) Federal Judicial Center 2002
Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform
Gabriel D. Serbulea Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 4 (2011) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol38/iss4/4
Judicial Disqualification An Analysis of Federal Law (Second Edition) Federal Judicial Center 2010
Judicial Disqualification An Analysis of[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1'013.6 KB]
Recusal, Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U[...]
Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform Gabriel D. Serbulea Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 4 (2011)
Due Process and Judicial Disqualificatio[...]
The Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees includes the ethical canons that apply to judicial employees and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities. The judiciary has several codes of conduct, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, that serve as primary sources of ethical guidance for judges and judicial employees.
Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees (PDF)
Guide to Judicial Policy
Pt. A: Code of Conduct
Ch 3: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees.p[...]
The Judicial Conference of the United States, formerly known as Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, was created by the United States Congress in 1922 with the principal objective of framing policy guidelines for administration of judicial courts in the United States. The Conference derives its authority from 28 U.S.C. § 331, which states it is headed by the Chief Justice of the United States and consists of the Chief Justice, the chief judge of each court of appeals federal regional circuit, a district court judge from various federal judicial districts, and the chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade.[1] Read more
If a judge who is the subject of a complaint holds his or her office during good behavior, action taken by the judicial council may include certifying disability of the judge. The judicial council may also, in its discretion, refer any complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 351, along with the record of any associated proceedings and its recommendations for appropriate action, to the Judicial Conference. The Judicial Conference may exercise its authority under the judicial discipline provisions as a conference, or through a standing committee appointed by the Chief Justice. Read more
The Judiciary Act of 1789: "An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." 1 Stat. 73.
Link to The Judiciary Act of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789: "An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." 1 Stat. 73. September 24, 1789.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, the First Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary that the Constitution had sketched only in general terms. Acting on its constitutional authority to establish inferior courts, the Congress instituted a three-part judiciary. The Supreme Court consisted of a Chief Justice and five associate justices. In each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then part of other states), a federal judge presided over a United States district court, which heard admiralty and maritime cases and some other minor cases. The middle tier of the judiciary consisted of United States circuit courts, which served as the principal trial courts in the federal system and exercised limited appellate jurisdiction. Two Supreme Court justices and the local district judge presided in the circuit courts. Under the practice known as "circuit riding," each justice was assigned to one of three geographical circuits and traveled to the designated meeting places within the districts of that circuit. Read more
The Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages. Read more
The Judiciary Act of 1789, officially titled "An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," was signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed. Principally authored by Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general. Although amended throughout the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today. Read more
The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73) was a United States federal statute adopted on September 24, 1789, in the first session of the First United States Congress.
It established the federal judiciary of the United States.[3][4][5][6] Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.[7]
A clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus under its original jurisdiction was declared unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison (1803) (5 U.S. 137), one of the seminal cases in American law. The Supreme Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. In Marbury, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and that it is the role of the judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. Thus, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first act of Congress to be partially invalidated by the Supreme Court.[10][11] Read more
Has a Federal Judgeship Become a Safe Haven for Coordinated Wrongdoing?
tel. (718) 827-9521
Synopsis of an Investigative Journalism Proposal
Where the leads in evidence already gathered in a cluster of federal cases would be pursued in a Watergate-like Follow the money! investigation to answer the question:
Has a Federal Judgeship Become a Safe Haven for Coordinated Wrongdoing? with links to references at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/DrCordero-journalists.pdf
This is a poignant question, for it casts doubt on the integrity of the government branch that should incarnate respect for the law and high ethical values. What makes it a realistic question worth investigating is the fact that since the Judicial Conduct Act judges are charged with the duty to discipline themselves. Anybody with a complaint against a federal judge must file it with the chief circuit judge, whose decision may be reviewed by the circuit council. But according to the official statistics, judges systematically dismissed 99.86% of the 7,977 complaints terminated in the 1oct96-30sep07 11-year period with no investigation or private or public discipline. In the last 29 years only three judges –currently 2,180 are subject to the Act- have been impeached and removed. This shows self-exemption from discipline and coordination to disregard a duty placed by law upon judges. Actually, in the 220 years since the creation of the federal judiciary in 1789, only seven judges have been impeached and removed…on average one every 31 years!
Money provides a motive for discipline self-exemption. Indeed, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the associate justices are allotted as circuit justices to the several circuits. With their chief district and circuit judges they review twice a year reports showing that those judges systematically dismiss complaints against their peers. All of them know too that bankruptcy judges dispose of tens of billions of dollars annually and do so however they like: In
FY08, 1,043,993 new bankruptcy cases were filed while only 773 were appealed to the circuit courts. In turn, circuit judges dispose of 75% of appeals by summary orders, where there is mostly only one operative word, "Affirmed". Those orders have no precedential value, thus leaving judges free to decide future cases however they want. Such freedom for inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making is further ensured by circuit judges not publishing 83.5% of opinions and orders terminating cases on the merits. So no matter how bankruptcy judges dispose of money, their rulings are all but assured to stand; otherwise, to be reversed without explanation.
Unaccountable power and lots of money!, the two most insidious corruptors in the hands of discipline self-exempted judges. Risklessness enables and encourages judges to engage in unlawful conduct for profit; coordination allows them to maximize the benefit. A most profitable form of coordinated judicial wrongdoing is a bankruptcy fraud scheme. The case described on page 2, DeLano, now before the Supreme Court (08-8382), provides evidence of such a scheme. Journalists can use it to conduct a pinpointed Watergate-like Follow the money! investigation reminiscent of that led once by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and likely to reach similar results: The exposure of coordinated or tolerated wrongdoing by judges all the way to the judiciary’s top.
If on average it took 31 years to hold accountable people like B. Madoff, who could dispose of tens of billions of dollars, including your money, and who in addition could exercise power over your property, liberty, and even life however they wanted with no more consequences than the reversal of their decisions, do you think that they would be tempted to treat you and everybody else with arrogant disregard? If all your complaints and everybody else’s ended up in the wastebasket, would you expect everybody to want to know of your efforts to force those people out of their safe haven so as to require them to treat everybody according to law or be liable to all of you? If so, you have a U.S. audience of 303 million persons waiting to know about your efforts to hold those Madoff-like judges accountable for their conduct. Hence, I invite you to read on and then contact me to discuss how I can facilitate the proposed Follow the money! investigation. Read more
DrCordero-journalists.pdf