AI Analysis of Dr. Richard Cordero’s Official-Statistics-Based Study on Judicial Self-Protection, Institutionalized Exoneration, and the Failure of Judicial Discipline in the Federal Judiciary:
"The official statistics of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against judges in their Circuit and exonerated 100% of them thus covering as a matter of policy for abusive judges regardless of the gravity of their abuse."
PUBLISHED WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM THE AUTHOR
Author:
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
Website: Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Contact: DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. is the author of the study Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, and of the document analyzed below concerning official statistics on judicial complaints in the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit.
His academic credentials, as stated in the document, include a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan Business School, and a D.E.A. from La Sorbonne, Paris.
Source: https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf
Judges Who Exonerate Judges: The Institutional Policy of 100% Exoneration of Judicial Complaints According to the Study by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
AI CHATGPT ANALYSIS :
The document by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. — Ph.D., University of Cambridge; M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School; D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris — starts from an objective premise: this is not merely a personal opinion against judges, nor an isolated allegation by a dissatisfied victim.
The author states that the basis of the denunciation is official statistics concerning complaints against federal judges, published from the data sent by the judicial circuits themselves to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Below is the literal translation into English of the text prepared for the blog.
---
Source: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., The official statistics of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against judges in their Circuit and exonerated 100% of them thus covering as a matter of policy for abusive judges regardless of the gravity of their abuse, September 5, 2018.
---
1. Title of the Document
The official statistics of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against judges in their Circuit and exonerated 100% of them thus covering as a matter of policy for abusive judges regardless of the gravity of their abuse.
---
2. Initial Explanation
Dr. Richard Cordero’s document starts from an objective premise: this is not merely a personal opinion against judges, nor an isolated allegation by a dissatisfied victim. The author states that the basis of the denunciation is official statistics concerning complaints against federal judges, published from the data sent by the judicial circuits themselves to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The central thesis is grave: if, in 11 years, almost five hundred complaints against judges were received and none resulted in corrective action or effective accountability, this would not indicate merely a statistical coincidence. For Dr. Cordero, this pattern would reveal an institutional policy of judicial self-protection, in which judges protect other judges, preserve their own class, and create an environment of abuse with no real risk of punishment.
---
3. Literal Translation of the Main Points
A. You Benefit from Knowing How Judges Handle Complaints
Dr. Cordero explains that complaints against federal judges are filed with the chief judge of the circuit or national court where the complained-about judge sits. Every year, the circuits and courts submit their statistics to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which publishes those data in a report to Congress and to the public.
The literal translation of the central idea is:
> Those statistics are official documents. They are not partisan. They carry infinitely more weight than your allegation, or anybody else’s allegation, that a judge disregarded the law and abused his or her power at your expense.
The point is strategic: individual victims can be disqualified as “dissatisfied,” “difficult litigants,” or “emotionally affected people.” But official statistics, when they show a pattern of total exoneration, make the accusation harder to dismiss as mere opinion.
---
B. Cover-up of Judicial Abuse as Institutionalized Policy
According to the document, during the analyzed period, the complaints contained extremely serious allegations, including:
acceptance of a bribe; conflict of interest, including refusal to recuse; racial, religious, or ethnic bias; improper discussion with party or counsel; partisan political activity; retaliation against complainant, witness, or others involved in the process; failure to give reasons for decision; and undue decisional delay.
Even so, Dr. Cordero states that none of the complaints resulted in “remedial or corrective action,” that is, no effective remedial or corrective measure.
The literal translation of the thesis is:
> What 100% exonerations reveal is that covering up judges’ complained-about abuse, without investigation regardless of its gravity, is the policy of the judges of the DC Circuit.
This is the strongest statement in the document. The author is not saying only that “there were failures.” He states that total exoneration reveals an institutional practice.
---
C. Causes of Action Against the Judicial Cover-up
The document also transforms the statistical analysis into a legal thesis.
Dr. Cordero argues that, when judges accept complaints knowing that, by an undisclosed policy, they will be rejected, they frustrate the complainant’s legitimate expectation of obtaining a fair and impartial examination. For him, this practice may constitute real injury, fraud, deceptive inducement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The literal translation of the central idea is:
> The judges know that, as a matter of undisclosed policy, complaints will be dismissed. Yet, they continue their deceptive practice of accepting them for processing, pretending to comply with their duty to accept them.
Here lies the core of the accusation: the problem would not be only the rejection of complaints. The problem would be the existence of a formal procedure that appears to guarantee disciplinary control, but that, in practice, would function as a mechanism for burying denunciations.
---
D. Public Hearings, Annulment of Cases, and Damages
Dr. Cordero argues that victims of judicial abuse, parties to lawsuits, lawyers, journalists, academics, politicians, and citizens dissatisfied with the judicial system should organize themselves into a national movement.
He proposes the use of official statistics as a basis for:
motions for recusal or disqualification; annulment of judgments; new trial; restitution of costs and expenses; damages; public hearings; media exposure; and institutional investigation.
The literal translation of the strategic thesis is:
> Use official statistics, rather than your opinion and allegations, as the foundation for motions to recuse, annul, new trial, etc.
This point is extremely relevant to victims of judicial corruption, because it moves the narrative from the subjective field to the documentary, statistical, and institutional field.
---
4. Deep Analysis
Dr. Cordero’s document is important because it presents a structural thesis about the Judiciary: that judicial abuse should not be analyzed only case by case, but as an institutional phenomenon.
The strength of the argument lies in three elements.
First, the author uses official data. This prevents the discussion from being reduced to an emotional dispute between a victim and a judge. The question becomes objective: how is it possible that hundreds of complaints, containing serious allegations, produced no effective accountability?
Second, the author identifies a systemic conflict of interest. Judges are called upon to judge complaints against their own peers. These peers may be colleagues, friends, institutional allies, members of the same legal culture, or people with the power to return protection in the future. The consequence is a system of reciprocity: today one judge exonerates another; tomorrow he may be exonerated by that judge or by his network.
Third, the document shows that the lack of accountability does not harm only the original complainant. When a serious complaint is dismissed without real investigation, the complained-about judge remains in office and may continue deciding over the liberty, property, family, housing, reputation, and fundamental rights of other people.
Therefore, the issue is not merely disciplinary. It is constitutional. It is a matter of due process of law, equality before the law, access to justice, judicial impartiality, and public trust in institutions.
---
5. The Most Important Point: 100% Exoneration Is Not Institutional Normality
In any human system, it is statistically unlikely that all complaints are unfounded, especially when the universe involves hundreds of complaints over more than a decade.
Dr. Cordero’s thesis is that 100% exoneration does not demonstrate judicial purity. On the contrary, it may demonstrate institutional shielding.
This reasoning is essential: an absolute rate of acquittal may seem, at first sight, proof that the judges are honest. But, when applied to hundreds of complaints over years, without corrective measures, that rate may reveal the opposite: a closed system, incapable of recognizing its own abuse.
---
6. Relation to Victims of Judicial Abuse and Institutional Corruption
The document connects directly with the experience of victims who denounce judicial abuses and are then treated as if they were the problem.
This pattern is known:
the victim denounces;
the denunciation is dismissed;
the dismissal is used as “proof” that the denunciation was false;
the victim insists;
the insistence begins to be treated as abusive litigation, instability, persecution, or dissatisfaction;
the system protects itself;
the original abuse disappears under layers of formal decisions.
Dr. Cordero proposes reversing this logic: the focus should not be only on the victim who complains, but on the system that dismisses everything.
The correct question becomes:
Who controls the controllers?
And, if the controllers control themselves, with a 100% exoneration rate, then the disciplinary system is not independent. It is self-referential.
---
7. Relation to Artificial Intelligence, Standardized Decisions, and “Dumping Forms”
One of the most relevant sections of the document is the criticism of excessive caseloads and the lack of real reading of the records. Dr. Cordero argues that many judges do not read most briefs or petitions, and that a large number of cases would be disposed of through forms, standardized drafts, or orders without substantial reasoning.
This criticism, made in 2018, has become even more relevant in the current context of the use of artificial intelligence, automation, algorithmic summaries, and digital screening of cases.
When an extensive, documented, and carefully structured petition is reduced to a superficial summary, there is a risk that the following will disappear:
timeline;
documentary evidence;
contradictions;
indications of fraud;
patterns of repetition;
vulnerability of victims;
human-rights violations;
and complex constitutional arguments.
Therefore, Dr. Cordero’s criticism anticipates a contemporary problem: the replacement of real jurisdiction by bureaucratic, statistical, or automated processing.
---
8. Important Technical Observation About the Numbers
The document mentions 478 complaints in the title and also states, in the body, that 487 complaints were filed. Then it returns to speaking of 478 exonerations. This difference must be observed with editorial caution.
For purposes of responsible publication, it is better to write:
“The document points to approximately 478 complaints — with the text also containing a reference to 487 complaints — and argues that none resulted in effective corrective action.”
In this way, the post preserves the strength of the thesis without ignoring the internal numerical inconsistency of the document.
---
9. Conclusion
Dr. Richard Cordero’s study is an institutional denunciation based on official statistics. Its thesis is that the problem of judicial corruption cannot be treated merely as a succession of individual errors. When judges receive hundreds of complaints against their peers and all of them end without effective accountability, the problem becomes structural.
The expression “judicial abuse” no longer means only an unjust decision. It begins to mean a system in which the power to judge comes together with the power to prevent investigation against the judges themselves.
The central message is simple and grave:
no Rule of Law survives when judges are above the law.
And no victim of judicial abuse should be forced to face alone a system that investigates itself, absolves itself, and then uses that absolution as proof of its own legitimacy.
---
Suggested English Title for International Publication
Judges Exonerating Judges: Dr. Richard Cordero’s Statistical Indictment of Judicial Self-Protection and Institutionalized Unaccountability
---
Hashtags
#JudicialAccountability
#JudicialCorruption
#DueProcess
#RuleOfLaw
#HumanRights
#AccessToJustice
#JudicialDiscipline
#CourtReform
#JudgesAboveTheLaw
#InstitutionalAccountability
#MINDD
#DefendaSeusDireitos
#CorrupçãoJudicial
#AbusoDeAutoridade
#DevidoProcessoLegal
#EstadoDeDireito
#DireitosHumanos
#AcessoÀJustiça
#ResponsabilizaçãoJudicial
GEMINI AI ANALYSIS
Here is the literal, page-by-page translation of your entire structured material into English, maintaining the technical formatting, analytical structure, and exact phrasing ready for publication.
📢 THE ILLUSION OF JUSTICE: The
Invisible Absolutism of the Judiciary and the Urgency of External Control
From 100% Impunity in the US to the Barrier of the CNJ in Brazil: When Judges Place Themselves Above the Law and Dereliction of Duty Becomes State Policy.
📝 LITERAL TRANSLATION (PAGE BY PAGE)
[Page 1]
September 5, 2018 The official statistics of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against judges in their Circuit and exonerated 100% of them thus covering as a matter of policy for abusive judges regardless of the gravity of their abuse¹.
A. You benefit from knowing how judges handle complaints Complaints against federal judges are filed with the chief judge of the circuit or national court where the complained-about judge sits. Every year, each of the circuits and courts submits its statistics on such complaints to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) for publication in Table S-22 of the Annual Report to Congress and the public (28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)) of the AO director, who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (§601).
Those statistics are official documents. They are not partisan. They carry infinitely more weight than either your or anybody else's allegation that a judge disregarded the law and abused his or her power at your or their expense.
That is why those statistics provide a reliable reflection on the integrity and impartiality of the judges that must process complaints against their peers, who are their colleagues and may be their friends or the friends of their friends.²
So, you need not have filed any complaint against any judge or be a former, current, or potential party to a lawsuit to benefit from finding out whether judges have the integrity necessary to wield fairly and impartially their enormous power over your and everybody else's property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame your lives.
The review of the complaint statistics submitted by the federal District of Columbia Circuit (DCC) is most pertinent because one of its judges, namely, J. Brett Kavanaugh, has been nominated by President Trump to the Supreme Court and the Senate is holding confirmations hearings. What is more, its Chief Judge, J. Merrick Garland, was nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court in 2016, but due to political considerations, the Senate did not hold confirmation hearings on him. Judge Garland has been serving on that court since 1997, though not always as its chief; J. Kavanaugh since 2006³.
B. Cover-up of judges' abuse as institutionalized policy The official statistics on complaints against judges show that during that 11-year period, 487 complaints were filed. However, CJ Garland, J. Kavanaugh, and their peers participated in, or tolerated, the exoneration of 100% of the judges' complained about.
They themselves may have been complained about, but since the complaints are kept secret, it is not known how many have been filed against them and the gravity of the allegations.
The statistics explicitly tabulates some allegations, and they are very grave, for they include "acceptance of a bribe", "conflict of interest (including refusal to recuse)", "racial, religious or ethnic bias", "improper discussion with party or counsel", "partisan political activity or statement", "retalia-tion against complainant, witness, or others involved in the process", "failure to give reasons for decision", and "undue decisional delay".
Despite the gravity of those allegations, only one single special investigative committee was appointed, in 2013, and its report only led to the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that what it alleged was "not misconduct or disability". As a result, not even one of the 478 complaints filed in those 11 years led to the taking of any "remedial or corrective action".
What the statistic of 478 exonerations out of 478 complaints reveals is not merely a pattern of judges covering up for each other. Under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations⁴, "(5) "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity... within ten years". Engaging in such two-racketeering act pattern carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison or even life imprisonment if the racketeering acts include such a longer penalty⁵.
What 100% exonerations reveal is that covering up judges' complained-about abuse, without investigation regardless of its gravity, is the policy of the judges of the DC Circuit. The analysis of the statistics of the other reporting circuits and courts shows that they too enforce the same policy: Judges' abuse cover-up has become the Federal Judiciary's institutionalized policy. On the assurance that they will cover for each other so that their abuse of power is riskless, judges abuse as their modus operandi. Through their reciprocal exonerations and complicit silence, they are the enablers of each other's abuse. CJ Garland and J. Kavanaugh are only known enforcers and beneficiaries of that policy. They would tolerate and continue it as Supreme Court justices, as do Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices, all of whom have official access to the statistics.
Judges' oath of office requires that they "do equal right to the poor [in ties to them] and to the rich [in power to exonerate them in turn] [and] to uphold the Constitution and the laws thereunder"⁹. Unfaithful to it, they disregard the rights of complainants 100% and cover up for each other 100% as a matter of policy. Unconcerned by the gravity of the complained-about abuse, they show contempt for their sworn duty to safeguard due process and the equal protection of the law.
[Page 2]
C. Causes of action against a judicial cover-up The judges knowingly frustrate the complainants' reasonable expectation that their complaints will be processed fairly and impartially. The dismissal of complaints as a matter of policy constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress on the complainants.
Complaints are DOA; their dismissal is a clerical act to enable their burial. Their death was caused by judges at the time they adopted their undisclosed policy of exoneration. Since then they cause all the effort and money invested by complainants in writing and submitting their complaints to be a waste from the outset. That constitutes the known and intentional causation of injury in fact.
To such injury must be added the injury that the complained-about abuse has already caused and will continue to cause those left exposed to it, including complainants, current parties to lawsuits, non-parties foreseeably affected by the abuse, and the other parties that will come after them.
The exonerating judges show reckless disregard for the injury to the rights and well-being of any number of people for any length of time, and wanton indifference to the gravity of the injury.
Judges dismiss 100% of complaints in dereliction of their duty "to uphold the Constitution and the laws thereunder", such as the law governing those complaints, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which is intended to provide complainants redress for their grievances against judges¹⁰.
The judges know that as a matter of undisclosed policy complaints will be dismissed.
Yet, they continue their deceptive practice of accepting them for processing to pretend compliance with their duty to accept them. They also pursue a benefit for themselves: By dismissing them, they ensure their good standing with their peers and avoid being outcast by them as traitors to the class of judges. Furthermore, they ensure that when they or their friends are complained about, they too will be exonerated. Such conduct constitutes fraud, both in the inducement and in the performance.
The rules of evidence allow judges to let lawyers in the presence of the jury impeach the credibility of any witness who takes the stand. Their impeachment can be based on the witness's pattern of bad acts, such as his or her criminal record and record of bankruptcies, and reputation for untruthfulness and dishonesty. By the same token, judges who as a matter of policy cover up the abuse of their peers regardless of its gravity take the bench with their credibility about their oath to be impartial and law-abiding already impeached. They are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, judges' conduct provides probable cause to believe that their lack of impartiality extends to showing partiality for the friends and family of their peers, political partisans, members of their racial, religious or ethnic groups, their alma matter, etc. "Power corrupts and absolute power to exonerate peers corrupts absolutely, engendering bias toward or against any party"¹¹.
An impeached witness can add little credible testimony in support of his or her case, and a convicted defendant cannot serve on a jury to apply the law that he or she held in such contempt as to break it. Likewise, judges that for decades have covered for their peers and others regardless of the gravity of their abuse cannot sit in judgment of others who similarly covered up their peers at the expense of those whom they were charged to protect and protect equally.
Here applies the strategic thinking principle 'if the enemy of my abuser is disgusting too, he should nevertheless be drawn to join the battle to weaken my abuser'.
Indeed, most likely you too were disgusted after the Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that more than 300 Catholic priests abused over 1,000 children during some 70 years and that the Church covered for them as a matter of policy.
Let the Church that has been condemned by judges who for decades have covered for their abusive peers use its resources to impeach those hypocritical judges on grounds of their moral and ethical unfitness to sit in judgment of those priests and Church policy. Let the Church move for the annulment of their cases; retrial before newly appointed judges that cannot have been part of the judges' cover-up; and compensation for the expenses that it incurred in the judicial process that those judges were not fit to conduct¹².
D. Public hearings, annulment of cases, and damages The publication by The New York Times of its exposé of Harvey Weinstein on October 5, 2017, sparked a swift societal transformation: The victims of sexual abuse, who had resigned themselves to suffering in silence, gave rise to a self-assertive MeToo! national public that courageously shouts since then the rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won't take abuse from anybody anymore.
Among that MeToo! national public is the huge untapped voting bloc of
The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal System. The Dissatisfied can join forces to assert their voting power in the mid-term and 2020 presidential campaigns. If they think and proceed strategically, they have a reasonably calculated chance of inserting judges' abuse as a key issue of the national debate and politics.
To that end, there are concrete steps that you can take:
● a. Share this article with all your friends and family, workmates, peers, other victims of judges' abuse¹³, etc.; and post it to social media as widely as possible.
● b. Request that the Senate Judiciary Committee at the confirmation hearings on nominee J. Kavanaugh and other judicial nominees¹⁴, hear not only their self-serving and tergiversating statements, but also your experience or knowledge of judges' abuse. Contact: 1) Chairman Chuck Grassley¹⁵; and 2) Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein¹⁶.
● c. Contact prominent politicians who have attracted national attention, particularly newbies, who have never recommended, endorsed, confirmed, or appointed any judge. They have the least conflict of interest, for they will not be torn between exposing and defending 'their own men and women on the bench'. Newbies have the most to gain by exposing judges' abuse: A campaign theme that distinguishes them and the opportunity to become the leaders of the huge untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied.
[Page 3]
● d. Request that politicians:
○
1. hold a press conference to denounce judges' abuse of power¹⁷;
○
1. ask that the Senate Judiciary Committee hear also you and other victims of, and witnesses to, judges' abuse;
○
1. call on the media to do the unprecedented: in their own commercial interest and to repair their battered public image, hold nationally televised public hearings conducted by news anchors, top journalists, and professors and graduate students of journalism. This is how the media can become The People's Spokesperson¹⁸; and
○
1. announce the formation of a national movement of former, current, and potential parties to lawsuits and related people to demand that the courts compensate them for the cost of researching and writing their complaints, pay damages¹⁹, and disqualify the judges that have committed or covered up abuse of power.
● e. Use official statistics rather than your opinion and allegations as the foundation for motions to recuse, annul, new trial, etc.²⁰
● f. Have politicians and the media review the article on "the math of abuse". Its basic math formula is a court's number of cases divided by the number of its judges or panel of judges equals an unmanageable number of cases per judge or panel. Hence, judges do not read most briefs. Instead, they dump the majority of cases, including motions, out of
their caseload by having their clerks, who do not read the briefs either, uncritically fill out dumping forms: unresearched, unreasoned, fiat-like orders²¹.
○
1. For proof, download from the DCC website the biographical note of J. Kavanaugh²². Take into account all the academic, social, associational, publishing, sport, and non-adjudicatory activities in which he participates.
Do the same as to the other DCC judges, and any other judge for that matter²³.
Then ask yourself: What amount of time is left for them to read briefs, never mind research and write reasoned opinions?
E. National movement & statistics-based and writing Judges' failure to read the brief causes its filing party to lose the thousands ($Ks) and even tens of thousands of dollars ($10Ks) that it invested in researching, writing, printing, filing, serving, and arguing its brief. Official statistics, no personal opinion, can furnish the foundation for convincing victims to form a national movement and to file motions to demand that the court in question refund their filing fees, pay damages, and only use reasoned opinions to decide cases.
If so, just as the NYT article launched a societal transformation, this can launch a transformation of the most powerful entity in what is supposed to be "government of, by, and for the people"²⁴: the Federal Judiciary, staffed by life-tenured, unaccountable, in effect irremovable, and risklessly abusive Judges Above the Law.
(Footnotes 1 to 24 containing reference links to the website Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
American laws such as RICO and 28 U.S.C., and citations to volumes of studies by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.)
[Page 4]
(Blank Page)
[Page 5]
Volume I Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. A study of coordinated wrongdoing as judges' institutionalized modus operandi and its out-of-court exposure through a multidisciplinary academic and business venture based on strategic thinking centered on dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests. (Contains download links for Volume I and Volume II by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.)
[Page 6]
Volume II Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing (Repetition of the descriptive text of the publishing volume and contact links for Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.)
[Page 7]
(Image of a user interface screenshot of the registration system on the website
Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org with instructions for filling out user fields)
[Page 8]
The file with the above table and its supporting materials can be downloaded and made available to others through this link:
[http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration _policy.pdf](http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_e xoneration_policy.pdf)
Their basis is my study of judges and their judiciaries... by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
● a. On judges' abuse of power over your property, liberty, and all the rights and duties...
and their systematic denial of your constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law...
● b. On their unaccountability through self-exemption from discipline... Visit the website Judicial Discipline Reform... Subscribe for free... Put your money where your knowledgeable outrage at judges' abuse of power and your passion for justice are. DONATE in support of professional research and writing... PayPal, VISA, GoFundMe. Enough is enough! We won't tolerate any abuse by anybody anymore. Dare trigger history!... and you may enter it.
Contacts: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
🔍 COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS (REGISTRATION)
The American report indicates an apparent systemic corporatism (100% of exonerations across 478 complaints in the DCC circuit). In the context of Brazilian Procedural and Constitutional Law, the alleged behavior would explicitly violate the national regulatory framework.
1. Confrontation with LOMAN (LC No. 35/1979) - Article 35
Art. 35 of the Organic Law of the National Magistracy imposes strict duties that directly collide with the practices described in the report:
● Art. 35, I (Comply with serenity and exactness with legal provisions): The discarding of cases by clerks using "ready-made formulas" without reading the briefs (as per item f of the report) violates the exactness and legality of the judicial act.
● Art. 35, IV (Treat parties and witnesses with urbanity) and VII (Exercise assiduous supervision over subordinates): Blind delegation of essential jurisdictional functions to clerks constitutes negligence in the duty of supervision.
2. Confrontation with the National Code of Judicial Ethics (CNJ)
The Brazilian code details the principles that would have been broken under the institutionalized conduct described:
● Art. 4 (Integrity): The magistrate must maintain blameless conduct. Reciprocal cover-ups ("policy of corporate solidarity") destroy judicial integrity.
● Arts. 5 and 8 (Impartiality): Partiality in favor of peers, friends, or interest groups (cited in Section C of the report) directly attacks the essence of the national ethical text.
● Art. 24 (Prudence/Reasoning): Requires the magistrate to explain their decisions clearly. "Fiat-like" decisions (ready-made/generic formulas) violate the duty of analytical reasoning (also consecrated in Art. 489, §1 of the Brazilian CPC).
3. Statistical Comparison: The CNJ Model (Post-EC 45/2004)
Unlike the scenario of "100% exonerations" highlighted in the American report for that circuit, the National Council of Justice (CNJ), created by Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 2004, altered the dynamics of impunity in Brazil.
● Effective Punishments: Since its physical installation in 2005, the CNJ broke the exclusivity of local internal affairs offices (which suffered from problems similar to the corporatism highlighted in the American text). The CNJ has already applied hundreds of severe disciplinary sanctions to magistrates (including compulsory retirements and availabilities).
● Active Transparency: The CNJ annually publishes the "Justiça em Números" (Justice in Numbers) report, ensuring public statistical control and mitigating the absolute secrecy criticized in Section B of the translated document.
🏛 SPECIAL CHAPTER: JUDGES IMPRISONED FOR CORRUPTION IN THE US
Although the US Federal Judiciary presents alarming statistics of corporate self-acquittal in its internal administrative disciplinary commissions (such as the 100% dismissal rate noted by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.), the criminal justice system—when provoked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI—has indeed sentenced prominent magistrates to prison for systemic corruption schemes. Below are the most emblematic recent cases:
1. The "Kids for Cash" Scandal – Pennsylvania
● The Magistrates: Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan.
● The Crime: These Luzerne County court judges received millions of dollars in kickbacks from builders and operators of private youth detention centers. In exchange, the magistrates imposed severe and unjustified prison sentences on adolescents for minor infractions (such as mocking school vice-principals on the internet) to keep private facilities filled and profit from the financial kickbacks.
● The Outcome: Uncovered by the FBI, Michael Conahan pled guilty and was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison. Mark Ciavarella faced a jury trial, was convicted, and sentenced to 28 years in federal prison. Thousands of juvenile convictions were entirely overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
2. Operation "Greylord" – Chicago, Illinois
● The Scenario: The largest judicial corruption investigation in United States history, conducted by the FBI during the 1980s in Cook County.
● The Crime: Undercover agents posing as lawyers and defendants exposed a massive network of buying and selling verdicts. Judges accepted cash bribes to acquit criminals, reduce bails for organized crime members, and funnel cases toward partner law firms.
● The Outcome: The operation resulted in the criminal indictment and conviction of 15 state court judges, alongside dozens of lawyers and court officers. The case proved that without external auditing and police infiltration, local corporatism would never punish its
own infractions.
3. Federal Judge Alcee Hastings – Florida
● The Crime: Hastings, a U.S. District Judge, was accused of accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for reducing the sentence and releasing the confiscated assets of two defendants involved in racketeering schemes.
● The Outcome: Although he was initially acquitted in an ordinary criminal court due to a lack of technical evidence at the time, the US Congress conducted its own investigation. In 1989, the House of Representatives impeached him and the Senate convicted him of perjury and bribery, resulting in his summary removal from his life-tenured position.
🌐 TRANSPARENCY PORTAL: WHERE TO OBTAIN COMPLAINT DATA IN THE US
If you wish to audit, research, or file complaints regarding the conduct of magistrates and officials in the United States, each state and the federal system have specific bodies that publish annual performance reports and complaint statistics. Use the official channels below:
1. Federal Judiciary System
To consult official conduct complaint tables (including the famous Table S-22 of complaints and the rules of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act):
● Expanded Link:
https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judicial-conduct-disability
2. State Directories of Judicial Conduct Commissions
Unlike Brazil, which has a unified CNJ, each US state possesses its own Judicial Conduct Commission.
To access annual complaint reports by state, consult the local regulatory agencies:
● Texas (State Commission on Judicial Conduct): https://www.scjc.texas.gov/
● Massachusetts (Commission on Judicial Conduct):
https://www.mass.gov/how-to/file-a-complaint-with-the-commission-on-judicial-conduct
● New York (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct): To access disciplinary decisions for the state of New York: http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/
● Center for Judicial Ethics (NCSC): A national organization that compiles and tracks disciplinary statistics and ethical processes against judges across all 50 American states: https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/reports
📚 LEGAL REFERENCES, ARTICLES, AND REPORTS (ABNT STANDARD)
International References (USA)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. Judicial Conduct & Disability: FAQs and Statistical Tables. Washington: AO, 2024.
Available at: https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judicial-conduct-disability. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
CORDERO, Richard. DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.PDF:
The official statistics of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers received during the 11-year period, 478 complaints against judges in their Circuit and exonerated 100% of them.
New York: Judicial Discipline Reform, Sept. 5, 2018. Available at: http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_p olicy.pdf. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
UNITED STATES. Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.
Washington: Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 1980. Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title28/USCODE-2011-title28-partI-chap16.
Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
UNITED STATES. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961-1968. Washington: Government Publishing Office, 1970. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title18/USCODE-2023-title18-partI-chap96. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
National References (Brazil)
BRASIL. Lei Complementar nº 35, de 14 de março de 1979. Dispõe sobre a Lei Orgânica da Magistratura Nacional (LOMAN). Brasília: Presidência da República, 1979. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp35.htm. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
BRASIL. Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 30 de dezembro de 2004. Altera dispositivos dos arts. 5º, 36, 52, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 102, 103, 103-A, 103-B, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134 e 168 da Constituição Federal, e acrescenta os arts. 103-B e 130-A; e dá outras providências [Institui o Conselho Nacional de Justiça]. Brasília: Congresso Nacional, 2004. Available at:
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/emc/emc45.htm. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA (Brasil). Código de Ética da Magistratura Nacional.
Brasília: CNJ, 2008. Available at:
https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/codigo_de_etica_da_magistratura_nacional_ 0.pdf. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA (Brasil). Relatório Justiça em Números 2025.
Estatísticas de produtividade, litigiosidade e processos disciplinares do Poder Judiciário.
Brasília: CNJ, 2025. Available at: https://www.cnj.jus.br/pesquisas-judiciais/justica-em-numeros/. Accessed on: June 12, 2026.
📝 EXPLANATORY FOOTNOTE ON THE TERM "DERRELICÇÃO" (DERELICTION)
The term derrelicção, derived directly from the Latin derelictio, onis, was utilized in the technical translation of the report as the exact equivalent of the North American legal expression “dereliction of duty” (found in Section C of the source file).
While in Brazilian Civil Law the term usually refers to the intentional abandonment of physical property (res derelicta), its application in Administrative Law denotes the "solemn abandonment, willful and conscious omission, or total negligence of a public authority regarding the official duty bestowed upon them by the State". It is not to be confused with a fortuitous material error or a mere operational delay; it signifies the formal abandonment of judicial adjudication and the breakdown of the integrity of the political function entrusted to the adjudicator.
