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.
 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.