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. PrattU.S. District for the Southern
District of
Iowahttps://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/content/senior-district-judge-robert-w-pratt
Mr. Michael MessinaJudicial 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
