U.S. Markets closed

US Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Subjected To Judicial Conduct Proceedings Pertaining To His Conduct As The Presiding Judge Of The US Judicial Conference

Of Immediate Concern is Chief Justice Roberts's Interference with an Investigation of Misconduct by Certain Federal Judges in a matter related to the US Senate's impeachment proceedings of President Donald J. Trump and Joseph Biden, the 47th Vice President of the US

Chief Justice Roberts is obstructing essential proceedings in determining whether the political associations of certain federal judges impermissibly influenced judicial conduct proceedings related to the granting of Devon Archer's motion for a new trial. The new trial will not be concluded until after the 2020 elections.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The Hon. US Attorney General, William Pelham Barr, is the only US executive official authorized to regulate the conduct of US Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jrs. Otherwise, Americans are forced to rely on the political will of the US Office of the Presidency and US Congress.

Manuel P. Asensio, the founder of The Institute of Judicial Conduct, Inc., has filed certain petitions with US Attorney Barr concerning Chief Justice Roberts. One of the petitions concerns Chief Justice Roberts's obstruction of essential proceedings in determining whether the political associations of certain federal judges impermissibly influenced judicial conduct proceedings related to the granting of Devon Archer's motion for a new trial.

Attorney General Barr has presented his policy towards judicial misconduct. Attorney General Barr has remarked that federal judicial misconduct leads to government with "no liberty, just tyranny," and judges that act as a "battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy," who "take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience," who claim to be on a "holy mission" and to be "virtuous people pursuing a deific end." Previously, former US Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions remarked that "Judicial activism is . . . a threat to our representative government and the liberty it secures." 

The conduct proceedings against Chief Justice Roberts pertain to his handling of certain judicial conduct complaints filed under 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)].

Chief Justice Roberts is the sole US official with authority to administer the Conduct Act under the "Conferences and Councils of Judges Law." The Conference Act is contained in the "21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act" enacted under Pub. L. 107-273 and incorporates the "Judicial Improvements Act of 2002" codified at USC Title 28 Chapter 16 and amends §§ 331, 332, 372, 375, and 604. For the legislative history, see H.R. Rep. 107-459 (2002).

Chief Justice Roberts is also the sole US official with authority to administer the "Rules Enabling Act of 1934" (US Code [USC] Title 28 §§2071 to §2077) and the creation of rules codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under the above laws, Chief Justice Roberts has exclusive control of the enforcement of all laws that are applicable to federal judicial misconduct. 

Chief Justice Roberts has the opportunity to act as a grand jury and then try the very judges accused of acting in bad faith without consultation or review, or disclosure. This includes judges who blatantly act based on this political interest and who act deliberately and maliciously. These are federal judges that deliberately act in clear absence any authority or jurisdiction, without any legitimate state purpose, without codified neutral principles or authorization.

Therefore, Chief Justice has the opportunity to act undemocratic and unconstitutional matter, and without any consultation, binding or otherwise, and to allow federal judges to in the same matter.

The American freedoms at issue cannot be codified, regulated or administered by the US government, including the purportedly non-political judicial branch, "at all, no matter what process is provided." These are liberties that are recognized as being far more precious than property rights, with which neither public power nor majoritarian views can interfere, liberties that cannot be codified under neutral principles.

The judicial conduct proceedings against Chief Justice Roberts concern his interference with complaints filed under the Conduct Act at the US Judicial Council for the Second Circuit. These were transferred under applicable law to the US Judicial Conference. The matter concerns events that occurred in the civil rights cases entitled Asensio et al. v. DiFiore et al. and Asensio et al. v. Roberts et al.

These civil right actions concern Chief Justice Roberts's unauthorized use of the so-called "domestic relations [and domestic violence] exception [DRE] to federal subject matter jurisdiction." The DRE lacks any foundation in the Constitution or law. It is an act of deliberate federal judicial misconduct, and an unauthorized denial of Americans' Articles I and III rights, including religious, speech and political liberty, and constitutional rights to access US judicial power to protect their rights under the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments from state interference.

Despite the above, Chief Justice Roberts is allowing the federal judge to use the DRE in US courts under the false predication that the DRE is a legitimate judicial doctrine of deference to federalism in family law.

Under this false predicate, Chief Justice Roberts has organized federal judges assembled at the US Judicial Conference to lobby Congress in favor of the DRE without notice to the American people of US Office of the Presidency.  This has closed all avenues of review to Americans seeking to protect their religious, speech and political freedoms from state infringement, and deliberately makes US Courts futile, hollow, and deceptive to these Americans.

For further information please email Manuel P. Asensio, individual and as founder of the Institute of Judicial Conduct at info@judicialconduct.org


View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-chief-justice-john-g-roberts-jr-subjected-to-judicial-conduct-proceedings-pertaining-to-his-conduct-as-the-presiding-judge-of-the-us-judicial-conference-300997136.html

SOURCE Manuel P. Asensio; The Institute of Judicial Conduct, Inc.