Regulating Federal Judiciary Policy Making

On October 15, 1980, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, during the Second Session of the 96th US Congress , which convened on January 3, 1980, Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, signed the “Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 that became the Judicial Conduct Act and the Conference and Councils Law (Act)” [1]

The Act is the result of an epic struggle between the American people and the federal judges. The Act ended voluntary unsupervised self-regulation and impeachment as the only two methods of disciplining the federal judges. It did so by authorizing any person to file a complaint against a federal judge or federal judges, and requiring that those complaints be resolved. The Act created the position of presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Conference) to supervise and control the processing of these complaints and review their resolution.

As a result of the Act, John G. Roberts, Jr.’s (Roberts) most significant authority, his greatest responsibilities and duties are not those of chief justice of the US Supreme Court. They are the administration of Act. The Act provides Roberts with very limited statutory executive power [not broad and constitutional power that belongs only to the president] to discipline the federal judges. The Act provides Roberts’s sole executive power to control of the Conference. This executive power is statutorily limited. It provides Roberts the power to execute his legal responsible to govern nation’s federal judicial conduct. Roberts is the US official responsible for the policing and disciplining the federal judges.

Roberts has authorized a policy the federal judges call the “domestic relations [and domestic violence] exception [DRE] to federal subject matter jurisdiction,” and authorized the federal judges to use the DRE policy to dismiss all constitutional actions involving family private property, freedom of religion, speech and political expression, and private morals. Roberts has authorized the the federal judges to deliberately use of a false predicate that the DRE policy is a “legitimate judicial doctrine of deference to federalism in family law.”

Roberts has authorized the DRE while being consciously aware that the DRE is an illegal act, a fiction, a complete fabrication with no foundation at all. And knowing that DRE authorizes state judges to assert jurisdiction over the America people’s most protected, substantial and unassailable rights without neutral principles or due process. Roberts did this knowing the DRE illegally abrogates the American people’s power to petition government for redress without fear of punishment or reprisals at the state and federal level. Knowing that the DRE authorizes the states to convert Americans’ most precious rights into a free-for-all boondoggle for lawyers.

To protect DRE, Roberts is fabricating fictitious and fraudulent processes in US court and at the Conference as a matter of policy.

At the top of its “About the Judicial Conference” [2] page on the Conference’s website in large italic letters, between two lines, the Conference boldly declares and asserts that it is “the national policy-making body for the federal courts.” In fact, the Conference’s constitutive function is to regulate, limit, control, and discipline the conduct of the federal judges in order to protect the Constitution and nation from federal judges making policy. In fact, the federal judiciary is the weakest branch and has no political, legislative, or executive discretion, authority, right, power, or jurisdiction to legislate or execute.

No federal (or state) judge has any discretion, authority, right, power, or jurisdiction to use deliberate violations of the canons of good conduct, truth, and reason; to deliberately, maliciously, dishonestly, or fraudulently conceal, ignore, or refuse to consider any fact, factor, or circumstance, or law or right, relevant to a ruling, decision or judgment; to act without clear authority or violate the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine; to fabricate fictitious narratives in order to manufacture a fictitious reason for making a decision, ruling, order, or judgment that will “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right” [28 US Code Chapter 131 §2072(b)], or that can be “construed, administered, and employed” to delay, obstruct, impair, or interfere with the right to secure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [any] action and proceeding” in US (and state) courts. [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure §2017 Rule 1].

No federal judicial policy can authorize any of the conduct that violates §2072(b)] or §2017 Rule 1 for any reason or purpose. Neither the Roberts or any federal judge, nor Conference has any discretion, authority, right, power, or jurisdiction to engage in any form of policy making that remotely affects or infringes any right, evidence, or judgment, or that is not based on a neutral principles that can be codified.

Any policy making by Roberts or the Conference is a colossal violation of the Constitution and canons of truth and reason. It would authorize the federal and state judges to act outside of their authority, maliciously, dishonestly, fraudulently, and criminally, and still be protected by the presiding officer at the Conference, and under the doctrines of judicial interpretation, independence and immunity in court.

The war is on. The game is afoot. The American people cannot fail. The DRE must be abolished and the Act must be modified to prevent policy making. Roberts should have accepted this outcome. Roberts of his own free will choose to engage in a cover up. Now Roberts must be made to resign.

Footnote:

1. Public Law 96–458 (S 1873), October 15, 1980, 94 Stat 2035, 18 USC. 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]). The “Conferences and Councils of Judges Law” and the “21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act” enacted under Pub. L. 107-273 and incorporates the “Judicial Improvements Act of 2002,” which enacts USC Title 28 Chapter 16 and amends §§ 331, 332, 372, 375, and 604. For the legislative history, see H.R. Rep. 107-459 (2002).

2. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference/about-judicial-conference.