The Federal Judiciary is Infested with Sexual Perverts ~ Chief Justice Roberts Looks the Other Way

Brian Vukadinovich The Federal Judiciary is Infested with Sexual Perverts Chief Justice Roberts Looks the Other Way
A recent article came out by NBC News pointing out that because of many judicial improprieties that have been going on, that there have been increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts, but that Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. The article points out that the Supreme Court has refused for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other code, making it the only court in the United States without a formal set of ethics rules. Roberts’ stated position is that the Supreme Court has “no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.” Roberts says that “every justice seeks to follow high ethical standards” and that they may turn to “judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles and disciplinary decisions,” and also seek advice from one another.

Roberts has his head in the sand when he suggests that all is hunky-dory in the way that the judiciary policies itself. Contrary to what Roberts is trying to sell, a committee led by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 2006 noted the potential dangers of a system in which judges are judging judges. The committee wrote “A system that relies for investigation solely upon judges themselves risks a kind of undue ‘guild favoritism’ through inappropriate sympathy with the judge’s point of view or de-emphasis of the misconduct problem.” The Breyer committee found that complaints were not handled properly and the main problem detected, in high visibility and other complaints, was chief judges’ failure to conduct “adequate” inquiries before dismissing a complaint or to submit “clear factual discrepancies” to investigators to pursue.

Roberts’ statements lack credibility as he well knows that there is a serious problem with sexual misconduct by federal judges. In fact, the federal judiciary is infested with pervert judges, and Roberts knows it. According to a CNN report, in 1998 U.S. District Court Judge Walter Smith called a deputy clerk into his chambers in the Waco, Texas, courthouse and closed the door behind her. The woman testified in a deposition “He basically came over to me and put his arms around me and kissed me, and I just froze. I couldn’t move.” She went on to testify “And he said, ‘Let me make love to you.” And I just freaked out….And then he pulled me to him again, and he kissed me again and stuck his tongue down my throat, and he pressed himself against me…And then he started to try to touch my breasts, and I kind of pushed away and said…’I need to go.’” The next day, Smith sent her a dozen roses. The woman left her job soon after the incident.

And as we also learned from that CNN report, we had the situation in Denver where the local media began looking into alleged misconduct involving prostitutes by District Court Judge Edward Nottingham where according to the 10th Circuit’s judicial council order of October 2008, the council was following up on numerous allegations, including whether Nottingham “spent more than $3,000 at a topless nightclub in one evening and that he could not remember how he had spent that money because he had a lot to drink.” As an investigation was underway, another misconduct complaint came in from a woman who said she had been a prostitute and that Nottingham had been one of her clients. According to the judicial council report, the woman further alleged that “Nottingham asked her to lie to federal investigators about the nature of their relationship and not disclose that she was a prostitute whom he paid in exchange for sex. Nottingham resigned and the 10th Circuit judicial council dismissed the complaint the next day.

In February 2020, Olivia Warrant testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding sexual harassment she suffered while clerking for the late Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Warren testified how she was met with countless obstacles while attempting to report the harassment through the internal Office of Judicial Integrity.

In another highly publicized sex scandal, Alex Kozinski, who was a member of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, resigned in December 2017 after six women accused him of engaging in inappropriate comments and behavior. Reportedly one of Kozinski’s former law clerks claimed he (Kozinski) asked her to view pictures of naked people. The Washington Post reported that some 15 women had accused Kozinski of sexual harassment. The New York Times reported that the women, many of whom had served as his law clerks, said Kozinski had touched them inappropriately, made unwanted sexual comments and made them watch sexual materials on his computer. In December 2017 Kozinski retired following the accusations.

And then there was the slap on the wrist reprimand to Judge Carlos Murguia of the District of Kansas by the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in September 2020 for “inappropriate behavior”. Murguia was found to have sexually harassed court employees, with a specific finding that he “gave preferential treatment and unwanted attention” to female employees, and engaged in “sexually suggestive comments, inappropriate text messages, and excessive non-work related contacts, much of which occurred after work hours and often late at night.” He was also found to have had a years-long extramarital affair with a felon on probation and was “habitually” late for court. After the reprimand, a week later, he was back on the bench.;

In a Fox news report on December 31, 2018, Roberts said that pinpointing the problem within the judiciary culture remains elusive since in many cases it “frequently goes unreported.” The news report also quoted Roberts as saying “Inappropriate workplace conduct is not pervasive within the judiciary” and that “when it does occur, is more likely to take the form of incivility or disrespect than overt sexual harassment.”

Make no mistake about it, Roberts very well knows there’s a big problem with sexual abuses in the federal judiciary, he just doesn’t want the public to know about just how serious of a problem it is. The fact that Roberts doesn’t want to come clean with this speaks volumes about the federal judiciary’s concealment of sexual abuse activities by federal judges. This is what happens when we are subject to a “secret society” type court, and make no mistake about it, that is exactly what we have in this country with Roberts as Chief Judge of the United States.;

Sexual harassment in the federal judiciary was a topic in Roberts’ 2018 year-end report, but a very sugarcoated topic. Roberts tried to downplay the significance of the sexual harassment problem in the federal judiciary by stating in his 2021 report that a panel of judges and judicial administrators had concluded in 2018 that although there had been several serious high profile incidents, “inappropriate workplace conduct is not pervasive within the judiciary.” Roberts suggested in his report that although he “appreciated that Members of Congress have expressed ongoing concerns on this important matter, he assured that “the Judicial Conference and its committees remain fully engaged.”

Despite Roberts’ downplaying of the problem, and because of the obvious severity of the problem, in 2021 members of both parties introduced the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 that would provide some much needed protection for judicial employees subjected to sexual harassment by judges and other high level court officials. It would give judiciary workers the same rights and whistleblower protections as other federal employees.; However, on August 25, Judge Rosalyn Mauskopf, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee indicating that the Judicial Conference opposes the bill. Mauskopf wrote that the bill, “fails to recognize the robust safeguards that have been in place within the Judiciary to protect judicial employees, including law clerks, from wrongful conduct in the workplace, including protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct.” Mauskopf also wrote that “the bill interferes with the internal governance of the Third Branch…and imposes intrusive requirements on Judicial Conference procedures”.

Roberts’ resistance to the adoption of the Judicial Conference Code and Mauskopf’s objection to the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 bill is very concerning. Roberts’ thumping of his chest in making such cavalier statements about how great of a job the Supreme Court is doing by policing itself and his bold statements about how priestly the federal judges have been operating in the lower courts are very much belied by the facts. A great portion of the country doesn’t appear to share Roberts’ enthusiastic view of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary as a recent Gallup Poll showed only a 40 percent approval by the public of the court’s performance, which is down 20 points from two decades ago and a new low for that survey.

History tells us that we shouldn’t be surprised when the forces in power step in to protect sexual predators. Even sexual predators who become nominees for the Supreme Court are afforded great protections by certain forces whose mission is to destroy the credibility of the women who bravely disclose sexual harassment’s by judges. The Clarence Hill and Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings showed us just how far some people and groups will go to protect a judicial sexual predator by destroying a credible woman’s integrity. The infected process has resulted with a third of the six men on the Supreme Court having had sexual misconduct allegations against them. But what we don’t know is how high of a percentage of sexual perverts do we have in the federal judiciary as a whole? We don’t know because Roberts doesn’t want us to know. So what we have is a two-fold problem when it comes to acceptance of judicial perverts in the federal judiciary, we have a built in system already put in place to protect sexual predator nominees for the federal judiciary before they even get fitted for their new robes, and we have a chief justice, John Roberts, who plays along and looks the other way after the perverts make their way onto the federal judiciary.

Another sad part to this story is that pervert federal judges who retire after victims report their sexual abuses against them, do so with their full salary, for their entire lifetime, almost as if they did no wrong. This is something that needs to stop. If Roberts had any credibility, he would make this suggestion, but we know he doesn’t have the integrity to do that, we know it because we see how he misleads the public when he acts as though there is no serious sexual abuse problem in the federal judiciary when we know it is indeed a perverse problem.

One thing is for sure, there most certainly is a problem with sexual harassment in the federal judiciary. The country has a right to know how serious of a problem it is, and Roberts has an obligation as Chief Judge of the United States to be honest with the public about it. So far he has failed that test. We all know what happened in the Catholic Church back in the day with the pedophile priests running rampant all over the country sexually abusing young kids with church officials looking the other way. Unfortunately with the complicit Chief Justice John Roberts in charge, we are subjected to have to put up with much the same problem with judges in the federal judiciary sexually abusing women. Having a federal judiciary infested and permeated with sex abusing judges is a bad thing for our country. It is unfortunate that we have a chief justice who chooses to turn a blind eye to it.

More about Brian Vukadinovich

More Articles by Brian Vukadionvich

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.