|
FOR ADDITIONAL Information contact:
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
Jesusmm7@hotmail.com
PLEASE FILE THIS COMPLAINT
My complaint of Judicial Misconduct indicates that misconduct of federal
judges Dorina Ramos and Ricardo Hinojosa has helped perpetrators of hate
crimes and electronic aggressions. The judicial misconduct, as evidenced
by the federal record make possible that constitutional violations
continue unaddressed and undeterred. The Complaint asks the Chief Judge
of the Court to verify and consider whether Judge Ramos and Judge
Hinojosa have displayed a deep-seated-favoritism to corruption and a
deep-seated-antagonism to victims of constitutional violations. Because
judicial misconduct is detrimental to the public at large, anybody can
file a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct based on the same evidence on
the federal record. Your Complaint will help to prevent that aggressions
to our constitutional rights continue unaddressed and undeterred.
A sample of a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and copy of my Complaint
are attached. Please file this complaint and ask others to do the same.
If a complaint is mailed please send a courtesy copy to Jesus Mendoza
Maldonado 2202 E. 28th St Mission, Texas, 78574 or to Jesusmm7@hotmail.com
God bless you.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
600 Camp St. Room 102,New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130
504/ 310-7688
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed for filing is a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct
Truly Yours,
________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a).
CHIEF JUDGE: Now Comes ___________________________________and
respectfully
files on this Court a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 351(a), against the judges named on the Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct filed on this Court by Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and which
indicates that Judge Dorina Ramos and Judge Ricardo Hinojosa have
engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of
the
business of the courts.
For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge of
this
Court that upon consideration and verifications of the facts on the
federal
record submit this complaint to the Judicial Council of this Court.
Respectfully Submitted,_______________________________________
Address___________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a).
CHIEF JUDGE:
Now Comes Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and respectfully files on this Court a
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351(a), against US Magistrate Dorina
Ramos
and against US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, on the ground that
evidence
on the record indicate that Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa have engaged
in
conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of
the
business of the courts as explained herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On February 3, of 2003, I, filed Pro-se in the US District Court for
the
Southern District of Texas, a complaint seeking as relief an order to
compel
the defendant, the US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, to cease and
desist
from using directed electromagnetic surveillance on my family and on
myself
on the ground that defendant's malicious aggression has caused severe
physical harm to my children and to myself, on the ground that
defendant's
investigation of my activities is retaliation for bringing claims of
racial
discrimination and fraud of federal funds against some members of the
bar
and of the judiciary, collectively called the "Cooley defendants."
2. US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa referred the case to US Magistrate
Judge Dorina Ramos for pretrial matters. (Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v.
John
Ashcroft, Case No. M-03-038).
3. On April 4, 2003, Judge Ramos reset hearing on my application for
injunctive relief for April 15, 2003, impairing my ability to present
testimony of lay and expert witnesses in support of my applications for
immediate injunctive relief.
4. On April 7, 2003, I filed a motion to recuse judge Ramos on the
ground
that Judge Ramos had displayed a deep-seated favoritism, and a
deep-seated
antagonism while hearing a case of racial discrimination, fraud and
retaliation against the Cooley defendants. (Docket No. 13).
5. During the litigation against the Cooley defendants Judge Ramos
ignored
conclusive evidence of the Cooley defendants' fraudulent activities
within
the Southern District of Texas; ignored conclusive evidence of Cooley
defendants' fraudulent statements to defraud of venue Judge Ramos'
court;
ordered me not to file motions on the matter; severed the case when the
live
complaint states the elements of the conspiracy among the defendants;
recommended transferring the case against the Cooley defendants to the
state
of Michigan without considering evidence of my inability to travel long
distances; struck from the record my motion to stay the proceedings and
evidence of the injuries caused by the Cooley defendants after the case
had
been physically transferred to Michigan; and recommended dismissal of
the
complaint against the remaining defendants after Judge Ramos found
lacking
the elements of the conspiracy among the severed defendants. (Docket No.
36
at 5) (Maldonado v the Thomas M. Cooley Law School case # M-99-77
dockets
66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 85, 88, 97, and 99).
6. Judge Ramos recused herself from the case, and referred the motion to
another judge. (Docket No. 18)
7. On April 28, Judge Hinojosa denied the motion to recuse the
Magistrate
Judge and reassigned Judge Ramos for pretrial matters in violation of 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(3) which divests Judge Hinojosa of the power to assign a
Magistrate judge any duty inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of
the
United States of America. (Docket No. 24).
8. On May 15, 2003, my wife, my oldest daughter, and my brother, gave
testimony before Judge Ramos' court. My wife testified as to the
swelling
pain and suffering caused on me by exposure to electricity, and how this
has
affected our daily life. My wife testified to the suffering of my
children
when they are exposed to electromagnetic radiation inside our home. My
wife
testified as to how high readings on radiation meters inside our home
decrease when I attempt to record the occurrence in a video camera. My
brother, testified as to the pain and suffering, experienced by other
persons after I moved into their place. My daughter, my wife, and my
brother testified to my mental stability, and to my law-abiding conduct.
(Docket No 29).
9. Without a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Ramos
issued a
Report and Recommendation dated July 15, 2003, which finds irrelevant
the
testimony presented in support of immediate injunctive relief, modifies
the
testimony given by my wife, and recommends dismissal of my applications
for
injunctive relief. (Docket No. 32).
10. My wife testified as to how high readings on radiation meters inside
our home decrease when I attempt to record the occurrence on a video
camera.
The Report and Recommendation modified my wife's testimony into:
"Silvia Mendoza, who is Plaintiff's wife, testified that Plaintiff's has
trouble breathing, among other things. She also testified that
Plaintiff's
difficulty seems to subside when he operates a camera." (Docket No. 32,
at
5, Statement of Evidence, and my wife's affidavit denying giving that
testimony, Docket No. 40).
2. On July 25, 2003, I filed objections to Judge Ramos' alteration of
evidence, and objections to Judge's Ramos impartiality. (Docket No. 33).
3. On the Report and Recommendation to dismiss my case, Judge Ramos'
claims
reading pertinent documents from the litigation in the Western District
of
Michigan, and on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Docket
No.
8 at 2, and Docket No. 32 at 3). The Report and Recommendation states,
"The
Sixth Circuit panel noted that there is simply no doubt that Maldonado's
discovery defaults have been willful and in bad faith." (Docket No. 32
at
3). Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of
Michigan include uncontroverted evidence showing that the US district
court
in Michigan relied on the Cooley defendants' fraudulent statements, and
declined to consider my timely motion seeking protection from defendants
attempts to take advantage of my disability. Pertinent documents of the
litigation in the Western District of Michigan show that without a
hearing,
the district court dismissed my claims against the Cooley defendants
after
my health condition prevented me from attending depositions. (Maldonado
v,
The Thomas M Cooley Law School et al, Case No. 5: 01 cv 93 Dockets 162,
163 179, 180, 184, and 185).
4. Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of
Michigan
and in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit include
uncontroverted
evidence of Cooley defendants' false statements to defraud of venue
Judge
Ramos court; evidence of the Cooley defendants' scheme that operates to
defraud more than seventy-percent of minority law students of their
federal
loans while giving away law degrees to their affiliates, evidence of
fraud
of student money committed by the president of the law school and former
Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, acting in concert with a
law
school board member and judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals; evidence
of
the Cooley defendants' participation on a federal investigation of my
activities; evidence showing that the abusive active electronic
aggression
caused me severe physical harm; evidence in support of the legitimacy of
the
injuries caused by the aggression; and evidence of my mental stability.
The
evidence became conclusive as a mater of law when the US district court
in
Michigan denied Cooley defendants' motion for summary judgement and
admonished the Cooley defendants for failing to engage claims and
evidence
of their wrongdoing, and when the Cooley defendants failed to engage
specific claims of their fraudulent statements to the federal courts on
their Appellee's Brief, and on their response to my Appellant's Motion
for
Sanctions. (Maldonado v Ashcroft, Case No. M-03 -038, docket No. 13 and
Affidavit; docket No. 33 at 6-8; docket No. 36 at 5). (Maldonado v, The
Thomas M Cooley Law School et al, U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Case No. 5: 01 cv 93, Docket No. 131, 139,and
142).
(Docket No. 2, Exhibit C4, Docket 27, Exhibit D1). (Maldonado v the
Thomas
M. Cooley Law School, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case
No. 02-2095).
5. At several times relevant to this case, Judge Ramos indicated on
court
documents that the Thomas M. Cooley Law School may be visited on the
world
wide web. (Docket No. 8 at 1; Docket No. 13; Docket No. 14, and Docket
No.
32 at 2).
6. On July 31, 2003, Judge Hinojosa adopted the Magistrate Judge's
Report
and Recommendation to dismiss my claims. (Dockets No. 34, 35).
7. I filed a timely motion urging judge Hinojosa to reconsider the
evidence in support of my claims of Judge Ramos' misconduct. (Docket No.
36).
8. On an Order dated November 17, 2003, Judge Hinojosa denied my motion
for
reconsideration. (Docket No. 37).
9. On January 15, 2004, I filed on the district court a timely notice of
appeal. (Docket No. 38)
10. The appeal is based on the ground that Judge Ramos did not have
jurisdiction to refer a motion to recuse after she had recused herself;
on the ground that
Judge Hinojosa did not have jurisdiction to deny or reverse
a voluntary recusal; and on the ground that Judge Hinojosa did not have
jurisdiction to adopt a Report and Recommendation to dismiss my claims
when
the judicial misconduct of Judge Ramos has been established as matter of
law.
11. On January 23, I served on defendant and filed on the district court
a
Statement of the Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(c), including
my
wife's affidavit. My wife's affidavit denies testifying before Judge
Ramos
that my breathing difficulty seems to subside when I operate a camera.
(Docket No. 40).
12. On February 2, 2004, my appeal was docketed in this Court. Jesus
Mendoza Maldonado v. John Ashcroft, US Attorney General, Case No.
04-40095.
40). The appeal is pending before this Court.
13. The evidence in support of this complaint remains uncontroverted,
while
the judicial misconduct stated herein has allowed hate crimes against my
children, myself, and others to continue undeterred.
RELIEF
For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge of
this
Court that upon consideration and verifications of the facts on the
federal
record submit this complaint to the Judicial Council of this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________________
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Complainant.
2202 E. 28th St., Mission, Texas 78574
(956) 519-7140
August 1, 2004
|
