It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions,
I hereby bring to your attention and explain the significance for the assessment of the integrity and impartiality of Justice Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor of a case that she withheld from you and your Committee. Indeed, the latter requested in its Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees that she “13.c. Provide citations to all cases in which you were a panel member, but did not write an opinion” and “13.f. Provide a list of all cases in which certiorari was requested or granted”.1 Although the Judge
referred you to the Appendix2 for her answer and stated in her letter to you of June 15 that “In responding to the Committee Questionnaire, I thoroughly reviewed my files to provide all responsive documents in my possession”, she neither included that case in the Appendix nor in either of the supplements with her letters to you of June 15 or 193 following your requests for more precise answers.
..... The cover-up aimed to keep concealed from creditors at least $673,657 in just one of the unmanageable 3,907 open cases as of April 2, 2004, according to PACER15, brought by the same trustee, George Reiber, before Judge Ninfo. To that end, Judge Sotomayor condoned her Appointee‟s denial of, and denied me herself, every single document that I ever requested to defend my claim from the motion to disallow it and evidentiary hearing concocted by the DeLanos and J. Ninfo.16 That constituted a blatant denial of the right to discovery under FRBkrP 7026 and 7034 and FRCivP 26 and 34. By so doing, she showed contempt for the most important constitutional guarantee that any judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, must safeguard: due process of law.
..... Therefore, I respectfully request that your Committee 1) ascertain why Judge Sotomayor withheld from you DeLano as well as any other requested cases; 2) conduct a Follow the money! investigation of her financial affairs as well as of the DeLanos‟ concealed assets and of the parties to Pfuntner31 in order to expose the bankruptcy fraud scheme32; 3) investigate the impossible coincidence that on several occasions my four email accounts stopped receiving emails a day after I widely emailed articles with evidence of CA2‟s scheme cover-up33; and 4) invite me to be heard at the hearings on Judge Sotomayor‟s confirmation so that I may provide a firsthand account of her participation in the cover-up and its reflection on her integrity and impartiality34.
Dr. Richard Cordero holds a Ph.D. in law from the University of Cambridge in England; a law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, and earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan. Dr. Cordero is a member of the bar of the State of New York. For the past 5 years he has been involved in 11 federal bankruptcy cases, which he has appealed from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WBNY, to the U.S. District Court, WDNY, to the Court of Appeals, CA2, and to the Supreme Court of the United States.
These are very serious charges. Does Dr. Cordero have any proof? Yes. Indisputable and every single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has had this evidence (not speculation) since July 3, 2009. Dr. Cordero spent all last week calling every member of that committee, both Republicans and Democrats to confirm they received the documents. I called several offices (Sessions, Coburn, Franken) to confirm they had these documents. They do. And, yet, not a single question was asked of Sotomayor on any of the evidence presented by Dr. Cordero. Instead, all of them (Coburn, Sessions, Graham, et al) have remained silent.
Originally posted by MysterE
Still trying to wrap my brain around this one.. Have I read properly that she denied someone due process in order to conceal information to benefite financially? I would think that if this is as groundbreaking as it sounds that it would be all over certian media outlets. There are alot of very vocal people who do not want Sotomayor in office who have not mentioned this yet (and don't tell me they are in on it).
Originally posted by Sestias
I don't think the so-called fraud is sufficiently substantiated. She made a ruling that Cordero disagreed with. That's all.
In addition, Sotomayor was not required to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with every single letter that has ever mentioned her in her entire life.
Of course she's going to submit letters in support of her nomination.
If somebody wrote something untrue and defamatory about you would you include it on your resume?
Case not proven.
[edit on 21-7-2009 by Sestias]
Judge Ninfo did not review his petition for bankruptcy relief at all. Rather, he denied my request for production by the DeLanos of even their bank account statements. So did Judge Sotomayor, impervious to how much common sense, never mind review with due diligence, requires that such statements be produced by anyone claiming lack of money to pay his debts, particularly if still employed and earning an above average salary. She could not in good faith have considered that the DeLanos had no duty whatsoever to produce a single document to support their otherwise self-serving declarations in their petition; or that a creditor facing the loss of his claims on them had no right under any legal or equitable theory to obtain a single document from the self-portrayed bankrupts and was reduced to taking their declarations at face value.