Review Petition to the Committee on Judicial Conduct
as A Template
and The Upcoming Judicial Conference Meeting
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
The following petition for review to the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. contains the equivalent of a template that other judicial misconduct complainants can adapt to their own petition to the Committee for review of the dismissal by the Judicial Council of their respective circuits of their petition for review of their complaint dismissal by the respective chief circuit judges.
The emphasis must be placed on arguing that the Committee has, and should exercise, jurisdiction over the petition based on the facts of the complaint and applicable provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act ( http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc351-364.pdf ) and the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings ( http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Rules_complaints.pdf ).
See also the cover letter sent to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., to request that he cause the Judicial Conference, as its presiding officer, to exercise jurisdiction over the petition and investigate it when the Conference meets next Tuesday, March 17, at the Supreme Court.
Separate meetings of the circuit judges, district judges, and the many specialized committees of the Judicial Conference will be held at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., between Monday, 16, and Wednesday 18, of next week; tel. (202) 502-2600, http://www.uscourts.gov/ .
All those meetings are secretive so as to further protect judicial unaccountability. What would happen to democracy if all cabinet and Congressional meetings were held behind closed doors followed by no press conference, but merely a meaningless press release?
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
to the Judicial Conference of the United States
and its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
of the denial of January 9, 2009
by the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit
of the petition for review of November 12, 2008
of the dismissal of October 7, 2008
by CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
of the judicial misconduct complaint of June 9, 2008
against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY
docket number 02-08-90073-jm 
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., Complainant and Petitioner, affirms under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. On January 9, 2009, the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit (the Council) denied (N:48) Dr. Cordero’s above-captioned petition (N:36) to review under §352(c) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §351-364 (28 U.S.C. §# = §#) the dismissal (N:32) by CA2 Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs (the Chief Judge) of his judicial misconduct complaint (N:1) against Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, WBNY, for bias, prejudice, and abuse of judicial power in support of a bankruptcy fraud scheme and its cover up in connection with In re David and Mary Ann DeLano, docket no. 04-20280, WBNY (DeLano). To do so, the Council used its dismissal form and stated no reasons whatsoever, for it had none: According to its own statistics (N:39), reported pursuant to §332(g) to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which published them  pursuant to §604(h)(2), in the last 11 years, from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 2007, the Council publicly and privately censured 0 judges, “Ordered Other Appropriate Action” in 0 complaints, denied 100% of petitions for review for a total of 345, and referred 0 complaints to the Judicial Conference of the U.S. (the Conference) or its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability (the Committee).
2. This is a petition under §357 and Rule 21 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings (Rule #) to the Conference and its Committee  for review of the Council denial and the appointment of a special committee given that both Judge Ninfo’s misconduct as described in the complaint (N:1) and the Council’s systematic denial of 100% of review petitions (N:39) constitute “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” under §351(a) and the denial aggrieved Complainant Dr. Cordero.
Table of Contents
I. The Council developed and applied an unlawful and self-interested 100% petition denial policy N:53
II. The facts in the complaint state misconduct cognizable under the Rules N:54
A. Rule 3(H)(1)(A) using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives N:54
B. Rule 3(H)(1)(C) having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case N:56
C. Rule 3(H)(1)(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner N:57
D. Rule 3(H)(1)(B) accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office N:58
III. Jurisdictional basis for the Committee to review this petition N:59
A. The petition rests upon a ground reviewable by the Committee because it challenges the Council’s merit relatedness ground for denying the petition N:59
B. The Committee is authorized by the Rules to review upon its initiative any judicial council order N:61
C. The Committee is charged by its jurisdictional statement to review upon petition any final council action and to monitor the implementation of the Act N:62
D. Dr. Cordero was aggrieved by the nature and content of the denial of his review by the Council, which thereby provided the Committee with another jurisdictional basis for reviewing it N:64
IV. Grounds for disqualification of Committee Chair Judge John M. Walker, Jr., CA2 N:66
V. Relief requested N:68
1. The DeLanos’ income of $291,470, mortgage receipts of $382,187, and credit card borrowing of $98,092, all unaccounted for N:70
2. Suggested subpoena for issuance by the Conference and its Committee and special committee, with useful contact information and list of key documents for tracking concealed assets N:71
3. Table of Exhibits after N:84
4. DVD containing this petition, all of the above, and the record of DeLano
 These documents are listed on the Table of Exhibits (after N:84) and appear after it. Their page numbers bear the format N:#, beginning with the complaint N:1. The page numbers in the Exhibits pertaining to the record in DeLano bear the format Letter:consecutive #, i.e. D:1→ US:2503.
 Http://www.uscourts.gov/judbususc/judbus.html; collected at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/complaint_tables.pdf.
 Rule 21(c) provides that “Any member of the Committee from the same circuit as the subject judge is disqualified from considering or voting on a petition for review.” This provision so disqualifies Committee Chair CA2 Judge John M. Walker, Jr., since the subject judge is CA2 Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II. Additional grounds for his disqualification are discussed in §IV infra.