Evidence That Judge Sotomayor
Withheld Self-Incriminating Financial Information From the Senators
And What You Can Do To Require That They And The Media Hold Her Contrary To How She Holds Herself And Her Peers UnEqual Before Justice: Above Law
By Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
The evidence, with its sources cited in the linked files noted below, shows that Judge Sotomayor compromised her integrity and impartiality because she:
1. withheld personal financial information that she was required to disclose by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which imposed on her the duty to file an annual financial disclosure report, so that her failure to disclose began years before she was nominated, just as were nominated for high office Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer, subsequently exposed as tax-evaders;
In brief, she earned $3,773,824 since 1988 + received $381,775 in loans = $4,155,599 + her 1976-1987 earnings, yet disclosed assets worth only $543,903, thus leaving unaccounted for in her answers to the Committee $3,611,696 - taxes and the cost of her reportedly modest living.
2. likewise, withheld from the Senate Judiciary Committee the incriminating DeLano case, 06-4780-bk-CA2, which reveals her participation in a cover-up of concealment of assets -at least $673,657 of a 39-year veteran banker and bankruptcy officer, who pretended to go ‘bankrupt’ in preparation for a debt-free retirement but similarly did not disclose required financial information- as part of a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by bankruptcy system insiders and her peers below, whom she protected by upholding their denial and denying herself every single document in all creditor-requests, whereby she
a) denied the creditor all discovery rights,
b) denied herself the facts to which to apply the law, and thus
c) denied the fundamental Constitutional guarantee of due process of law,
while aggravating the misery of countless debtors, creditors, and the public at large to whom they must pass on their losses; and
3. thus acted in keeping with her pattern of gross partiality toward the close-knit class of judges established by condoning her judicial colleagues’ systematic dismissal of misconduct complaints against their peers and by participating, as a member of the Second Circuit Judicial Council, in the latter’s denial of 100% of petitions to review complaint dismissals during the 1oct96-30sep08 12-year reported period, thus injuring all the complainants, litigants, and the public at large, whom she left at the mercy of her complained-against peers, prone to retaliate with assurance of impunity.
>N:51¶¶1-4 & N:39; cf. reference 1 supra, at 7 of 40; and
4. A Follow the money! investigation of Judge Sotomayor’s financial affairs and of the concealed assets in the DeLano case by the Senate, the media, and bloggers is necessary in order to give practical effect “without respect to persons” (28 U.S.C. §453 Oath of justices and judges) nominated to high public office or down on their luck while suffering the economic crisis to the fundamental principle of our democratic government of “Equal Justice Under Law”.
You can help give effect to that principle of equality under law.
To begin with, you can review the evidence and exercise your own judgment without preconceptions in order to come to your own conclusion.
You may challenge the evidence on its soundness and sufficiency, but you cannot ignore it simply because Judge Sotomayor is a woman or is Latina. She is nominated to a justiceship for the rest of her life, a position from which for she must administer justice “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich, to ‘men and non-Latinos’”.
After analyzing the evidence, you can call the senators, particularly those on the Judiciary Committee, to bring it to their attention. To facilitate doing so, the following file contains as much contact information as I have gathered so far:
Try to talk to the senators’ chief counsel for judiciary matters, who is the staff member that deals with the matter in question. You may ask for his or her name and fax number so that you may fax them your statement or any of mine.
You should also leave a terse, well-rehearsed voice mail that goes to the point. For the sake of professionalism, leave your phone number, but do not even dream that they will call you back.
Anyway, every call does make an impression by letting the senators know how the public feels about the issue.
Likewise, do not even consider mailing anything given that up to three weeks may go by from the moment your correspondence is delivered to the Senate mail security facility to the time it actually reaches your addressee.
If the receptionist tells you that you should call your senator instead of the one you are calling, you can tell him or her that you are not approaching that senator to ask for a passport, schedule a visit to Washington, or request a recommendation to the military academy.
Rather, the senator is acting on an issue that literally affects every person in the country. Hence, you are exercising your First Amendment right to petition a member of government to act in your and the public’s interest.
Then you can ask: When a big company with a deep pocket ready to disburse a campaign contribution approaches the senator to lobby him on an issue, is it your response that it should go away and approach the senator from its state?
I encourage you to contact also local and national media as well as bloggers to share with them the summarizing numbered paragraphs above and their links to the evidence files.
Make the senators and the media aware that by pursuing that evidence so as to protect the integrity and impartiality of our judiciary, they can become the BobWoodward/CarlBernstein of our generation or the modern Senator Sam Ervin, who chaired the Senate Watergate Committee and made famous two questions that he doggedly asked of witnesses and other deponents, which can be updated thus:
What did the senators know about Judge Sotomayor’s withholding from them information about her financial affairs and the DeLano case and exempting from discipline 100% of complained-against judges, and when did they know it?
I welcome your comments on this article. Send them to Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com and …@cantab.net; be sure to use the first two lines of the title in your subject line. I will at least acknowledge receipt within 6 hours. If you do not receive such acknowledgment, then once more something or somebody prevented either your email or mine from reaching its addressee. If so, ask other people on your group or servelist if they had the same experience.
©2009 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for distributing and reprinting this article in its entirety without modification and with appropriate credit to the author and the website at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.