Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
News release
Evidence of J. Michael Mukasey’s incapacity to stand up to
wrongdoing friends in the judiciary.
To consider in the Senate hearings to
confirm him as Attorney General.
The confirmation hearings for Former Circuit Judge Michael Mukasey are scheduled
to begin on October 17, at 10:00 a.m. in the Senate,
The principal reason why another Attorney General is needed is that Former AG
Alberto Gonzales conceived his main function as that of serving and protecting
his friend and mentor, President Bush, rather than acting as the top federal
law enforcement officer. An investigation is still underway to determine
whether he tolerated, or even participated in, the firing of U.S. Attorneys
because they were investigating friends or supporters of the President.
Hence, a key consideration in confirming Judge Mukasey should be whether he has
the required independence and strength of character to apply the law even to
his former friends and colleagues in the judiciary and not misuse his office to
obstruct any investigation of wrongdoing judges.
Let’s see.
As chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Mukasey was a member of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, the
body of judges that must “make all necessary and appropriate orders for the
effective and expeditious administration of justice within the circuit”. As
such, he decided on petitions for review of denials by his colleague, the chief
circuit judge, of judicial complaints against his peers in the circuit engaged
in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice”, including bribery,
corruption, prejudice, bias, and conflict of interests.
Yet, he participated in the systematic denial of such petitions without any
investigation, thus leaving complainants as well as the public at large at the
mercy of peers of him that were actually, or gave the appearance of being,
unfit for judicial office.
Moreover, Judge Mukasey was, between 2004-06 also a
member of the Judicial Conference, which is the highest policy-making body of
the federal judiciary and presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. As such, he had access to the reports on conduct and disability orders
from all the 13 judicial circuits.
Thus, as member of both bodies, he had actual or constructive knowledge of the
shocking official statistics, which now stand thus: Between 1997 and 2006,
7,462 complaints were filed against federal judges, who only disciplined 9 of
their peers! Judge Mukasey and his peers granted themselves immunity from the
judicial self-discipline law.
Judge Mukasey did not stand up to his peers even when he repeatedly received
documentary evidence of a pattern of acts pointing to the support by judges in
the U.S. Bankruptcy and District Courts in Rochester, NY, of a bankruptcy fraud
scheme.
In one case, a 39-year veteran of the banking industry, still working in M&T
Bank’s bankruptcy department, filed bankruptcy petition 04-20280 claiming that
he and his wife had only $535 in cash and on account, yet IRS and mortgage
documents show that they had earned or received $673,657, which is still
unaccounted for because the judges covered for them by not requiring that they
produce even their bank account statements! (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/DeLano_docs.pdf
)
Judge Mukasey first covered for his peers by dismissing the evidence by his
letter of March 2, 2004, though he had a statutory duty to report it to the
U.S. Attorney. So before he becomes AG and must cover for his friends, lest he
incriminate himself, he must be investigated.
(http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/JMukasey.pdf
)
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
DrRCordero-JM@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org