Hon. John G. Roberts Jr.’s Impeachable Conduct to Protect the DRE

Manuel P. Asensio, the founder of the Institute of Judicial Conduct, is the first American to use the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (the “Act”) against the US Chief Justice for his conduct as the Presiding Judge and Chief Executive Officer of the US Judicial Conference. The Act grants individuals the authority to take action against federal judges.

The complaint concerns Chief Justice Roberts Jr.’s collusion with the two federal judges that are members of the US Judicial Conference.  The two judges are the Hon. Robert Allen Katzmann, the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Hon. Colleen McMahon, the Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judges Katzmann and McMahon are subjects of two complaints under the Act filed under the numbers 02-19-90052-jm and 02-19-90053-jm with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit and the US Judicial Conference. Chief Justice Roberts Jr. is acting to conceal these federal judicial misconduct complaints from the US Congress.

The most fundamental accusation against Chief Justice Roberts Jr. is that he deliberately and maliciously violated federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) by entering into agreements with the New York federal judges that allow them to engage in joint fraudulent conduct with certain New York judges against Mr. Asensio.  Further, that Chief Justice Roberts Jr. designed and is operating these unauthorized agreements in private at the US Judicial Conference without disclosure of his actions and is doing so under the cover of the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction (“DRE”).

The first cause of action against Chief Justice Roberts Jr. is based on his deliberate violation of the Act’s Section 359 by failing to restrict Judges Katzmann and McMahon from serving on any special committee appointed under the Act’s section 353, upon a judicial council, upon the Judicial Conference, or upon the standing committee established under section 331, until all proceedings under the Act have been finally terminated.

The second cause of action against Chief Justice Roberts Jr. addresses the chief justice’s actions to protect himself from Mr. Asensio’s civil action titled Asensio et al. v. Roberts et al., 19 CV-03384 [Failla].

The third cause of action addresses Chief Justice Roberts Jr.’s actions to protect US District Court for the Southern District of New York Judges Ronnie Abrams from having to recuse herself as a matter of law under  28 USC Section 455(b) (iii), Canon 3(C) (1) (d) (i) and (iii) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and US Judicial Conference’s Advisory Opinion No. 103 of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct from Mr. Asensio’s federal civil rights case titled Asensio et al. v. DiFiore et al., 18 CV-10933 [Abrams]. This case seeking over $100,000,000 from New York State. However, the real wrongdoer is Chief Justice Roberts Jr. for allowing the New York federal judges to engage in fraudulent conduct under the cover of the DRE. Thus, it is necessary for Judges Roberts Jr., Katzmann, and McMahon to work with Judge Abrams and allow her to act fraudulently to protect their DRE scheme in New York State.

The fourth cause of action against Chief Justice Roberts Jr. leading a concerted and coordinated effort at the US Judicial Conference to protect the two federal judges at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York Judges Abrams and Katherine Polk Failla from judicial conduct complaints filed under the Act by Mr. Asensio in two federal civil rights cases titled Asensio et al. v. DiFiore et al.  and Asensio et al. v. Roberts et al..

With the evidence against Chief Justice Roberts Jr. is reinforced by experts, and made concrete and irrefutable evidence concerning individual conduct. The evidence provides the American people, Congress and the President with sufficient authority and evidence to impeach Chief Justice Roberts Jr. for engaging in responsible for the design and operation an unauthorized process 

The (1) legal and academic authorities below along with the (2) US federal statutes that provide (3) certain “housekeeping” powers the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court when he acts as the Presiding Judge and Chief Executive Officer of the US Judicial Conference and (4) expert legal articles showing that Chief Justice Roberts Jr.  using these “housekeeping” powers deliberately and illegally to affect Americans freedom and rights,e, along with the (4) evidence contained in the federal civil rights cases titled Asensio et al. v. DiFiore et al. and Asensio et al. v. Roberts et al. and the (5) judicial conduct complaints filed under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act

Click here for Legislative and Implementation History of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act:

UNDER CONSTRUCTION NUMBER 1

Click here for expert articles on Deliberate and Concealed Unauthorized Policy and Rule Making:

UNDER CONSTRUCTION NUMBER 2

Click here for CODE OF CONDUCT AND ADVISORY NOTICES:

UNDER CONSTRUCTION NUMBER 3

 

Click here for US Supreme Court Cases:  

  1. US. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013)
  2. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 159 L. Ed. 2d 98, 188 Ed. Law Rep. 17 (2004)
  3. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992)
  4. Sutton v. Leib, 342 U.S. 402, 72 S. Ct. 398, 96 L. Ed. 448 (1952)
  5. Ohio ex rel. Popovici, State of v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S. Ct. 154, 74 L. Ed. 489 (1930)
  6. De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 L. Ed. 765 (1906)
  7. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 S. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867 (1906)
  8. Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 21 S. Ct. 555, 45 L. Ed. 810 (1901)
  9. Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S. Ct. 58, 44 L. Ed. 115 (1899)
  10. Burrus, Ex parte, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S. Ct. 850, 34 L. Ed. 500 (1890)
  11. Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226, 1858 WL 9327 (1858) 

 

Click here for Articles by Academic Scholars: 

Below are articles written by legal scholars concerning the domestic relations exception. Click on the title of the report to view and download a copy.

  1. Karla Doe. Let’s Not Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater: A Uniform Approach to the Domestic Relations Exception. 67 Emory L.J. 1077 (2018). 
  2. Joseph Carroll, Family Law Is Not “Civil”: The Faulty Foundation Of The Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Jurisdiction. Dickinson School of Law, Penn. St. U. American Bar Association. (2017)[1]
  3. James Pfander and Emily K. Damrau, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. A Non-Contentious Account of Article III’s Domestic Relation Exception. 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 117 (2016).
  4. Bradley G. Silverman, Federal Questions and the Domestic-Relations Exception. 125 Yale L.J. 1364 (2016).
  5. Steven G. Calabresi & Genna L. Sinel, The Same-Sex Marriage Cases and Federal Jurisdiction: On Third-Party Standing and Why the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction Should Be Overruled. 70 Miami L. Rev. 708 (2016).
  6. Mark Strasser, Congress, Federal Courts, and Domestic Relations Exceptionalism. 12 Pub. Int. L.J. 193 (2013).
  7. Courtney G. Joslin, Windsor, Federalism, and Family Equality, 113 L. Rev. Sidebar 156 (2013).
  8. Travis Grant, The Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction: Spousal Support Enforcement in the Federal Courts. 20 San Diego J. Contemp. Legal Issues 51 (2012).
  9. Meredith Johnson Harbach, Is the Family a Federal Question? 66 & Lee L. Rev. 131, 149-52 (2009).
  10. Emily Sack, The Domestic Relations Exception, Domestic Violence, and Equal Access to Federal Courts. 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1441, 1455-56, 1461-66 (2006).
  11. Kristin A. Collins, Federalism’s Fallacy: The Early Tradition of Federal Family Law and the Invention of States’ Rights. 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 1761, 1767 (2005).
  12. Lynn D. Wardle, Tyranny, Federalism, and the Federal Marriage Amendment. 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 221 (2005).
  13. Jill Elaine Hasday, Federalism and the Family Reconstructed. 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1297, 1322-23 (1998).
  14. Michael Ashely Stein, The Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Rethinking an Unsettled Federal Courts Doctrine. 36 C. L. Rev. 669 (1995).
  15. Naomi R. Cahn, Family Law, Federalism, and the Federal Courts. 79 Iowa L. Rev. 1073 (1994).
  16. Thomas Dobbs, The Domestic Relations Exception is Narrowed after Ankenbrandt V. Richards. 28 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1137 (1993).
  17. Maryellen Murphy, Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction: Ankenbrandt v. Richards. 28 New Eng. L. Rev. 577 (1993).
  18. Judith Resnik, “Naturally” Without Gender: Women, Jurisdiction, and the Federal Courts. 66 Y.U. L. Rev. 1682, 1682, 1739-50 (1991).
  19. Mark Stephen Poker, A Proposal for the Abolition of the Domestic Relations Exception. 71 L. Rev. 141 (1987).
  20. Barbara Freedman Wand. A Call for the Repudiation of the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction. 30 L. Rev. 307, 359 n.272 (1985).
  21. Barbara Ann Atwood, Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction. 35 Hastings L.J. 571 (1984).
  22. Bonnie Moore, Federal Jurisdiction and the Domestic Relations Exception: A Search for Parameters. 31 UCLA L. Rev. 843 (1984).
  23. Sharon Elizabeth Rush, Domestic Relations Law: Federal Jurisdiction and State Sovereignty in Perspective. 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1 (1984)
  24. Anthony Ullman, The Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction. 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1824 (1983).
  25. Rebecca Swenson, Application of the Federal Abstention Doctrines to the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Diversity Jurisdiction. 1983 Duke L.J. 1095 (1983).
  26. Federal Jurisdiction In Domestic Relations Cases – Spindel v. Spindel. 28 Md. L. Rev. 376 (1968).

[1] Mr. Carroll won the First-Place award in the 2017 American Bar Association Schwab Essay Contest, providing the harshest criticism of the Domestic Relations Exception by an Academic.

Click here for Constitutional Scholars on Jurisprudence:

Click here for the Most Cited Law Review Articles of All Time: