NOTE: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of thisemail.
You areencouraged to share and post it to social media as widely as
possible in yourown interest and that of the rest of We the People.
To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder go to
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ;<left panel ↓Register or + New
or Users >Add New. An appeal to U.S. Judge RobertPratt and
Associated Press reporter Ryan Foley
to dare expose judges’ criminality,
not only President Trump’s;and
promote the holding of
unprecedentedcitizens hearings
on judges’ unaccountability and
consequent riskless crimes, abuse of power, and
disregard for ethical
standardshttp://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-JudgeRPratt.pdf
By Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx , DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx U.S.Senior District Judge Robert W. Pratt
U.S. District for the Southern District of Iowa
https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/content/senior-district-judge-robert-w-pratt Mr. ;
Michael Messina
Judicial Assistant
tel. (515)284-6254 Mr. Ryan Foley, reporter; and Mr. Ron Nixon,
international investigationseditorAssociated Press tel. +1(202) 281-8604;
+1(202) 641-9000https://www.ap.org/contact-us/contact-newsroom Dear Judge ;
Pratt,Mr. Foley, Mr. Messina, Mr. Nixon, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
1. You, Judge Pratt, made your views on thepardons granted by President Trump
in December 2020 known to Associated Press (AP)reporter Ryan J. Foley, who
wrote the article referring to you and titled “Federal judge in Iowa ridicules
Trump's pardons”, published on December 30. 2. AP reporterFoley explained that
“Pratt made the remarks when asked for comment on pardons grantedto two former
top aides for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, who wereconvicted in a
corruption scheme related to the Iowa caucuses”. 3. AP Foley quotedyou as
saying, “It’s notsurprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other
criminals”. 4. Thisis an appeal for you to be consistent and honest by
applying to yourself andyour fellow judges that very same principle to expose
judges’ pardons of eachother. Doing that requires more integrity and therefore
is riskier than beingflippant in ‘ridiculing Trump’s pardons’. However, you can
do that on the solidbasis of the facts discussed hereunder, which are known to
you given that youhave dealt as an insider of the judicial class for the more
than your 20 yearson the bench. 5. Byexposing judges’ reciprocal pardons, you
can set off in the administration ofjustice, not only by the Federal Judiciary,
but also by its state counterparts,transformative change: what goes into the
process of change comes outtransformed into a different system of justice, one
where judges are heldaccountable for their conduct and liable to compensate
their victims. 6. Ifyou can muster the necessary consistency, honesty, and
integrity, you can exitthe judiciary into retirement, not as yet another judge
among thousands. Rather, you canbring down, not merely a top official and all
his aides, as occurred in theWatergate scandal, which forced President Nixon to
resign and sent all hisWhite House men to prison in 1974, but a whole branch of
government that judges,rendered unaccountable through reciprocal pardons,
risklessly run, as shownbelow, as a criminal enterprise. 7. Thatis how instead
of ridicule as a hypocrite, you can earn praise as the maincharacter of the
bestseller and protagonist of the blockbuster movie/documentary ‘All thejudges’
exposer’.
A. Federal judgespardon each other by dismissing 100% of complaints against
them 8. The Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the
U.S.Courts (AO; 28 USCode §§601-613; here with bookmarks added tofacilitate
navigation) is submitted toCongress and made available to the public
(§604(a)(3, 4)), e.g.,on AO’s website. TheDirector is appointed by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court and can be removed by him and the other membersof
the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which includes, among others, all thechief
judges of the 13 federal circuits and two national courts (§331). They are
imputed with knowledge and approval of the Annual Report. 9. The 2019 Report
is the latest version available,covering the fiscal year October 1,
2018-September 30, 2019. If the norm holds,the 2020 Report will be published in
March 2021. 10. The Report contains the official statisticsof the U.S. courts,
titled JudicialBusiness [year]; e.g., Judicial Business 2019. 11. Some of AO’s
official statistics (§604(h)(2)) dealwith the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980, (the Act; §§351-364). 12. The Act entrusts federal judges with
the exclusiveauthority to self-discipline. This means that any complaint
against a federaljudge must be filed with the respective chief judge, whose
decision isreviewable only by the circuit’s judicial council, composed of the
chief and circuitand district judges. They are not independent and unbiased. By
definition, thechief judges and the judges on the judicial councils are the
peers, colleagues,and friends of the complained-against judges. 13. In fact,
their own official statistics contained in theAnnual Report show that federal
judges abuse their self-disciplining authorityyear after year by dismissing100%
of complaints against their fellow judges and denying 100% of petitionsto
review those dismissals. 14. These are the pardons that federal judges grant
eachother. They are not only the product of unprincipled friendship or of the
gangmentality(>OL2:569¶¶13-16) that causes judges toconceive of themselves as
‘we against, and regardless of, the rest of theworld’. These pardons are the
means by which judges bribe and extort eachother: ‘Today I pardon you and
tomorrow you do likewise by dismissing anycomplaint against me or my
friends...orelse!’ B. Federal judgespardon each other preemptively, sparing
each other any conviction 15. When judgespardon their fellow judges by
dismissing 100% of the complaints against them, theireffect is as that when “a
criminallike Trump pardons other criminals”. However,the nature of their
pardons is significantly more harmful to the administrationof justice, for it
entails evading its administration: 16. When Trump pardons anybody, there has
already been aconviction. The pardonee underwent an adversarial confrontation
with The People, represented by theprosecutor, in open court before, in most
cases, a jury acceptable to theprosecutor too. This in turn occurs only after
discovery of evidence, whose productionthe prosecutor has power of subpoena,
search and seizure, and contempt tocompel. And this takes place after the
defendant receives a complaint to whichhe must answer by filing a response as a
public document, which he must serve on the prosecutor. 17. Thatis essentially
the same procedure followed in a civil case, which is started bythe plaintiff
filing a complaint andserving it on the defendant, who must also answer her
through a writtenresponse; both are public documents. The plaintiff has the
right toobtain discovery by compelling the production of evidence. At trial,
she cancall the defendant and cross-examine witnesses 18. By contrast,judges
pardon each other before there was ever a conviction because they simplydismiss
the complaint and do not allow the complainant any discovery. Worseyet, the
complaint is not made public by the chief judge who receives it, whoneed not
transmit it to the complained-against judge at all. This is what theAct
provides: §352. Reviewof complaint by chief judge (a)EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW;
LIMITED INQUIRY.—The chief judge shall expeditiously reviewany complaint
received under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b).In determining
what action to take, the chief judge may conduct a limitedinquiry for the
purpose of determining— (1) whether appropriate corrective action has been or
canbe taken without the necessity for a formal investigation; and (2) whether
the facts stated in the complaint are eitherplainly untrue or are incapable of
being established through investigation. For this purpose, the chiefjudge may
request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a writtenresponse to
the complaint. Such response shall not be made available to thecomplainant
unless authorized by the judge filing the response. [Imagine Trump’s pardonees
filing a responsethat they do not authorize the court to make available to the
prosecutor. Wouldyou trust it to be truthful and complete?]The chief judge or
his or her designee may also communicate orally or inwriting with the
complainant, the judge whose conduct is complained of, and anyother person who
may have knowledge of the matter, and may review anytranscripts or other
relevant documents. The chief judge shall not undertake tomake findings of fact
about any matter that is reasonably in dispute. (b)ACTION BY CHIEF JUDGE
FOLLOWING REVIEW.—After expeditiously reviewing a complaintunder subsection
(a), the chief judge, by written order stating his or herreasons, may—
(1)dismiss the complaint— 19. If the chiefjudge does not dismiss the complaint,
§352(a)(1) provides that the “chief judge shallpromptly (1) appoint himself or
herself andequal numbers of circuit and district judges of the circuit to a
specialcommittee to investigate the facts and allegations contained in the
complaint [but not those made by thecomplained-against judge so as not to cast
doubt on the word of a fellow judge]”. 20. The committee must file a report
with the circuit’s judicialcouncil; but has no authority to send the
complainant a copy. The council candismiss that report without serving a copy
of it on the complainant. It may doanything and nothing else without giving
notice to the complainant. 21. Actually, the complainant can only have a review
of the chiefjudge’s order disposing of the complaint. To that end, the
complainant mustfile a petition with the judicial council. Section 352(c)
provides that “The denial of a petition for review of thechief judge's order
shall be final and conclusive and shall not be judiciallyreviewable on appeal
or otherwise”. 22. So why would chief judges bother to transmit complaints
tocomplained-against judges, appoint special committees, or pay any attention
totheir reports, given that they know that complained-against judges need
noteven respond to complaints? If they do, they may tell ‘a bunch of lies
andnonsense’ because their responses will not be transmitted to complainants,
whowill consequently not have the opportunity that any plaintiff has, namely,
to scrutinizeand challenge a defendant’s response, whether in the plaintiff
brief known asthe reply or in the courtroom. 23. In fact, years go by without a
single special committee beingappointed to investigate any complaint. It is the
norm for judicial councilmembers not to read petitions to review chief judges’
complaint dismissals. Thecouncils deny 100% of review petitions by the clerk of
court rubberstamping a 5¢form that dumps the complaint out of court without
giving any reason. Its onlyoperative word is “denied”. Criminals’gang mentality
is never to incriminate one of their own, for a violation of theirconspiracy of
silence is deemed treason and punished with treatment as a pariahor worse. 24.
Complainants are limited to filing a complaint that launchesfrom the outside
the secret procedure of a star chamber, which they cannotenter. They are not
allowed to compel the production of evidence, let alonecall the judge to the
stand and cross-examine her witnesses, to rebut whatprotects all fellow judges,
the presumption of impunity, and dispute what it confers: unaccountability. 25.
It follows that complainants are deprived of what all otherplaintiffs and
prosecutors are entitled to: the administration of justicethrough an
adversarial proceeding that takes place in public because "Justice should not
only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedlybe seen to be done" (Ex
parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923). Cf."Justicemust satisfy the
appearance of justice", Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie et al., 475U.S. 813; 106 S.
Ct. 1580; 89 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1986)). 26. Complainants are denied due process of
law so that judges canarrogate to themselves unequal (28 USC §358(a))
protection from the law. Therebyjudges elevate themselves to Judges Above the
Law. 27. Unlike Trump’s pardonees, complained-about judges remain withtheir
reputation unblemished. There is no register of judges who have ever
beencomplained-against, the equivalent of the sex offender register. Their
namesare as unknown as were those of the pedophilic priests that the Catholic
Churchtransferred from diocese to diocese without ever warning churchgoers and
therest of the public that there were brought into their midst predators that
wouldagain abuse their power and trust and harm them too. 28. Judges have had
no qualms about finding pedophilic priests andtheir complicit Church liable to
compensate their victims. What an outrageousdouble standard applied in flagrant
self-interest by hypocrites! By so doing, judgeshave breached their oath of
office (28 USC §453) to “do equal right to the poor [inties to them] and to the
rich [in power to reciprocally dismiss complaints]. 29. With their silence
before and after dismissals of complaints and denials ofreview petitions, and
about the underlying conduct complained-about, judges provideaccessorial aid to
their fellow ‘priests’ even if they, just as Then-JudgeAmy Coney Barrett,
havenever dismissed or denied any, for they too have a legal (18 U.S.C. §3057)
and ethical (Code of Conduct forJudges, Canon 3B(6)) duty to speak up to
denounce their brethren andsisters so as to safeguard the integrity of the
Judiciary and of judicialprocess. 30. If “a criminallike Trump [and the] other
criminals” had the sole authority to processcomplaints against any of them,
would they dispose of those complaints in anyway different from that in which
judges dismiss 100% of complaints againstthemselves and deny 100% of review
petitions? C. Sources of evidence and examples of judges’ criminality 31.
Through their preemptive reciprocalpardoning, federal judges ensure that they
wear “The Teflon Robe”. Thatis the title of an informativeand outrage-provoking
3-part report that beginning onJune 30, 2020, was published by Thomson Reuters,
a major news agency, with morethan 2,500 reporters and over 600 photo
journalists. On the strength of itsmanpower and concomitant financial
resources, it conducted a nationwide investigationof judges. It found
“hardwiredjudicial corruption”. 32. “Hardwired” are also judges’ pardons of
each other uponcomplaint filing, for they have become part of their
institutionalizedmodus operandi. They are integral to theirinterpersonal
relations and provide the insurance upon which they rely to risklesslycommit
crimes. 33. In the same vein, BostonGlobe, the main newspaper in Massachusetts
and areputable one, published on September 30, 2018, its report “Inside our
secret courts”, inwhose “private criminal hearings[conducted even byclerks with
no law degree],who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right
and wrong”. 34. Evidence of federal judges’ criminality is also
discussedbriefly in the blurbs hereunder; in more detail in ageneral article
thereon; and in even greater detail inthe specific articles that form part of
my three-volume study of judges and theirjudiciaries. Based on professional law
research and writing, and strategicthinking, the study is titled and
downloadable thus: ExposingJudges' Unaccountability
andConsequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* † ♣ * Volume 1:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf>all
prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393 †Volume 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf ;
fromOL2:394-1143 ♣ Volume 3:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf>from
