Judicial Canons and Oath of Office -  Judicial Impeachment Complaints

The judicial system has deteriorated to the point of criminal incompetence in many areas, especially family law. As a government monopoly it has no market forces or incentives to improve. It has no proper feedback loop (as any good business would need to survive from its customers) to use for adjustment as the world changes around it. The result is that it is run based on the special interests and personal self-interests of the people inside. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is just human nature when there is no proper oversight, management and leadership. Chief Justices are not prepared to manage and lead, they are judges, specialists and are promoted based on their legal skills not management skills. The result is the "Peter principal" judges are promoted to the level where they are incompetent (one level above their competence). This gets worse each year and has gone on for several decades at least. 

Judicial oversight boards are "the foxes watching the hen house". Total immunity of judges has resulted in them doing whatever they want, including taking personal retribution against people with immunity. In fact it can literally be argued that judges are now the most prolific criminals possible as they can can break the law many times per day and never be caught or punished in any way. It is a Herculean task to sue a judge and win, though it does happen. In fact whenever a judge breaks the U.S. Constitution, prevents proper due process or acts out of jurisdiction (often the case with die process violations) they ARE PERSONALLY liable - but you need to go to federal court where the judge who handles the case does NOT know the judge you are suing.


Chairman, Committee on Codes of Conduct
c/o General Counsel
Administrative Office of the
United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
(202) 502-1100
Fax: (202) 502-1033

Chapter I. Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Canon 1.
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2.
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3.
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4.
A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
Canon 5.
A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties
Canon 6.
A Judge Should Regularly File Reports of Compensation Received for Law-Related and Extra-Judicial Activities
Canon 7.
A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Applicable Date of Compliance
Checklists for Financial and Other Conflicts of Interest (PDF)


P.O. Box 69, Gedney Station Tel. (914) 421-1200 E-Mail: judgewatch@aol.com
White Plains, New York 10605-0069 Fax (914) 428-4994 Web site: www.judgewatch.org

Elena Ruth Sassower, Coordinator February 18, 1999


House Judiciary Committee Ignores and Conceals Hundreds of Judicial Impeachment Complaints

Impeachment is NOT over with last week’s Senate vote on the impeachment articles against the President. The House Judiciary Committee has other impeachment duties. Federal judges are also impeachable for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” under Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Unlike the President, who is elected for a term of years, federal judges are appointed and serve for life, unless removed by impeachment.

The House Judiciary Committee receives HUNDREDS of impeachment complaints against federal judges. These complaints are filed by ordinary citizens, no less entitled to their “day in court” than Paula Jones. Their complaints assert that they were deprived of that “day” by the misconduct of federal judges, warranting impeachment and removal.

How does the House Judiciary Committee handle these judicial impeachment complaints? In contrast to the House Judiciary Committee’s vigorous championing of “the rule of law” and “equal justice” on behalf of Ms. Jones, its response to citizens filing these complaints is very different. The Committee ignores their complaints -- no matter how serious and fully-documented. It does NOT investigate, refer, or even acknowledge them. It also ignores the follow-up inquiries of complainants, expecting that, sooner or later, they will give up calling or writing about their long-ago filed judicial impeachment complaints.

The Committee then conceals its misfeasance by NOT statistically recording the number of complaints it receives in its “Summary of Activities”, as it is supposed to. The latest available figures -- from the 101st and 102nd Congress -- are that the Committee received 141 and 120 complaints, respectively. These complaints are supposed to be “available upon request”[1], but the Committee withholds public access to them.

On top of this, the Committee has jettisoned its oversight duty to ensure that statutory mechanisms in the other two branches are functioning, as Congress intended, to protect citizens against dishonest and abusive federal judges. The Committee ignores documentary proof, formally presented, that the federal judiciary has systemically and corruptly subverted the statute that created a disciplinary complaint mechanism within the federal judiciary [28 U.S.C. §372(c)], as well as the statutes governing federal judicial disqualification and disclosure [28 U.S.C. §§144, 455]. This, in addition to ignoring documentary proof that the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section wrongfully dismisses, or ignores entirely, fact-specific, documented complaints of criminal conduct by federal judges.

The media has completely overlooked this story of how the House Judiciary Committee turns its back on “the rule of law” and “equal justice” for this nation’s citizens, victimized by dishonest and abusive judges. This, despite its many months covering the House Judiciary Committee in the context of the President’s impeachment -- during which time Chairman Hyde proclaimed, repeatedly, how he could not turn away from his impeachment duty to uphold the “rule of law” -- which he repeatedly described as a “three legged stool”, whose first leg is an “honest judge”.

The Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), a national, non-partisan, non-profit citizens’ organization documenting judicial corruption, has a FIVE-YEAR correspondence with the House Judiciary Committee, focused on the Committee’s willful abdication of its duty to address the hundreds of judicial impeachment complaints it receives. Capping this correspondence is CJA’s June 1998 written statement to the Committee, particularizing its complicity in the federal judiciary’s subversion of statutory protections designed to ensure judicial integrity. CJA offers these primary source materials -- including copies of judicial impeachment complaints filed with the House Judiciary Committee[2] -- to journalists interested in exposing how the Committee handles its impeachment duties in relation to the federal judiciary AND its actual commitment to “the rule of law”, “equal justice”, and “the integrity of the judicial process” -- the purported basis for its drive to impeach
and remove the President.

For a glimpse at the significance and power of these primary source materials, see CJA’s published article, “Without Merit: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline” [The Long Term View (Massachusetts School of Law), Vol. 4, No. 1 (summer 1997)], as well as its June 1998 written statement to the House Judiciary Committee -- both posted on CJA’s website: www.judgewatch.org.

[1] See Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, 1993, at p. 35.

[2] Among these judicial impeachment complaints are three filed by CJA, in June 1993, in March 1998, and in November 1998. The most recent impeachment complaint is against Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Associate Justices and is summarized in the accompanying press release.

Know your rights, demand your rights, or have NO RIGHTS! It is that simple!
The 2.6 million reports of child abuse & neglect, 66%, were unconfirmed, but NOT RETURNED 2 the family.
People who are disabled, poor or retired, are seen as easy targets by the SYSTEM!
For Information ONLY!

Source: article8.org
Bill of Address - removing the four judges who unconstitutionally changed the law
The cornerstone of taking back our government is removing activist judges who illegally and fraudulently twist the law to impose their own social and political agendas on the people. Our Constitution, written by John Adams, was specifically designed with the "bill of address" to protect the people. We must use it. So it's been re-filed.
Enacting the Bill of Address for this fraudulent ruling will be the official declaration that the ruling was unconstitutional and is null and void, and will keep a future court from repeating that ruling.
Bill # H652.
Sponsor: Rep. Emile Goguen. Co-sponsors: Rep. Edward Connolly, Rep. David Nangle, Rep. Marie Parente, Rep. Philip Travis.
Resolved, That both houses of the legislature hereby request the governor by way of address, under the provisions of Article I Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution, to remove Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office, to remove Roderick L. Ireland, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, to remove John M. Greaney, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, and to remove Judith A. Cowin, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office.

History of the Bill of Address

The bill of address process to remove judges under the Massachusetts Constitution has an interesting history. It has been successfully used six times (twice for two judges at the same time). In addition, three judges resigned after a bill of address process was begun against them. Over the years, one Supreme Judicial Court justice has been removed (1803) and an attempt was made against another (1922).
The last successful removal of a judge was in 1973. The most recent use of the bill of address was in 2001, against Judge Maria I. Lopez. In the Lopez case, a bill of address was filed and sent to the Judiciary Committee but she resigned before hearings commenced.
The bill of address is a two-step process. The legislature (by a majority vote in both houses) must ask the governor to remove the judge. Then the governor and governor's council must officially concur, and the judge is immediately removed.
Most of the bill of address actions are initiated by the legislature, but in one case (1978) the governor initiated it by calling a special session of the legislature. (The judge resigned after the process began.)
During the 1850s the legislature successfully passed a bill of address against the same judge three times. The first two times the governor refused to remove him. So they waited for a new governor, and it was successful the third time.
No reasons for the requested removal need be stated in a bill of address. Research has uncovered the actual reasons to include not only outrageous rulings and actions from the bench, but also extortion, senility, participation in a rebellion, bribery, lying under oath, and other offenses.

Bill of Address Actions in Massachusetts

William Whiting, First Justice of the Court of Common Pleas
James Perry, a Bristol County Justice of the Peace
(Both addressed and removed)
Justice Theophilus Bradbury of the Supreme Judicial Court
(Addressed and removed)
Judge Paul Sargent of the Court of Sessions
Judge William Vinal of the Court of Common Pleas
(Both judges were addressed and removed)
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court
(Addressed, but Governor refused to remove)
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court
(Addressed, but Governor refused to remove)
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court
(Addressed and removed by new Governor)
Judge Joseph Day of the Barnstable County Probate Court
(Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
Judge Joseph Day of the Barnstable County Probate Court
(Addressed and removed)
Judge Edward Pierce of the Supreme Judicial Court
(Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
Judge Ruby
(Resigned before commencement of removal hearings)
Judge Richard K. Gordon of the Third District Court of Essex
(Resigned after petition for address filed)
Judge Vincent Brogna
(Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
Judge Jerome P. Troy of the Dorchester Municipal Court
(Addressed and removed**)
Judge Robert Bonin, Chief Justice of the Superior Court
(Governor convened special session of legislature to consider address; address approved by legislative committee and Senate; Bonin resigned before consideration by House)
Judge Maria I. Lopez of the Superior Court
(Resigned before commencement of removal hearings)

**The Supreme Judicial Court had disbarred Justice Troy and had enjoined him from performing duties as a judge. But he refused to resign, claiming the court did not have the authority to remove him. So the legislature and governor subsequently removed him through a bill of address.