Manuel P. Asensio, the founder of the Institute of Judicial Conduct, is the first American to use the Judicial Councils...Read More
The DRE complaints are filed under the “Judicial Council Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act” of 1980 (US Code, Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part I: Organization of Courts, Chapter 16, titled “Complaints against Judges and Judicial Discipline” [§§ 351–364]; hereafter Conduct Act) [Note ]. The Conduct Act states that any person may file a complaint alleging that a federal judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of justice.
The intent of Congress and President James E. Carter (in signing the Conduct Act) was for the American people to have an absolute, simple and effective recourse against federal judicial misconduct [Note ]. Further, the Conferences and Councils of Judges Law (Council Act) establishes that the presiding judge of the US Judicial Conference is the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, and grants him exclusive jurisdiction over the Conduct Act.
As the presiding judge of the US Judicial Conference, Chief Justice Roberts not only controls the Conduct and Council Acts but also controls the administration of the “Rules Enabling Act of 1934” (US Code [USC] Title 28 §§2071 to §2077 [Rules Act]) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). This is how Chief Justice Roberts operates the enforcement machine in secret.
The Conduct, Council, and Rules Acts and the FRCP are intended to be an effective safeguard preventing Chief Justice Roberts from affecting US rights without legal authority. However, legal experts have labeled this idea as “absurd” and as “political nonsense” [Note ]. The DRE is proof that Chief Justice Roberts is using supposedly innocuous “housekeeping” authority to eviscerate the rule of law through exercising “decisions, interred by antipathy” and through deliberately allowing federal judges to “tread on contested fact issues” [Note ].