To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you in your capacity to remedy breaches of the rules of judicial conduct.
It seems readily apparent that on Monday, April 16, 2018, United States District Court Judge
Kimba Wood engaged in partisan political conduct which has resulted in a substantial and
widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts among reasonable people. Worse still, she
did so under the color of authority while presiding over a very high-profile case in Manhattan U.S.
District Court.
Millions of Americans now doubt the impartiality of the court due to the seemingly obvious
and readily apparent partisan political motive behind Judge Wood’s decision to compel Michael
Cohen Esq., a lawyer, to violate the attorney-client privilege of his clientele by revealing their
identities in open court when it likely would not have been lawful to compel even a sealed disclosure
of their names. Still seemingly beyond reason, a sealed disclosure would clearly have met the needs
of the opposing party while at least maintaining a modicum of the confidentiality that all such clients
of any attorney are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Millions of reasonable members of the public who are familiar with the customary safeguards
of the attorney-client relationship provided by the system of American jurisprudence either know or
will eventually find out that Judge Wood was near the top of a list of candidates being vetted for the
position of U.S. Attorney General in the 1990’s by former first lady and presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton, as well as that Judge Wood also officiated at the wedding of well-known political donor,
George Soros, who gave $10,556,793 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Millions will
therefore come to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that such a Constitutional breach as what
happened to Mr. Cohen’s clients could only have been ordered by a learned legal scholar such as
Judge Wood for the partisan political reason of damaging Clinton’s political opponents such as
Cohen and the people who he was forced to name.
Further, even allowing for the sake of argument that compelling such a disclosure in open
court could ever be proper -- and to be abundantly and redundantly clear I don’t believe that it can --
then still since Judge Wood knew of her previous candidacy for AG during the Clinton administration,
she none the less should have ordered her own recusal and allowed another judge to make that
determination, if only to preserve the public’s confidence in the courts.
I must also point out that Judge Wood’s previous behavior led her to be known as the “Love
Judge,” who was involved in a scandal called “Nannygate.” Indeed, she was withdrawn from
consideration for nomination to the position of AG for hiring a person who was labeled an “illegal
immigrant” at the time.
Finally, the gravity of this matter requires very serious remediation. There is no appellate
relief possible that can undo the disclosure of the identities of Mr. Cohen’s clients — as Judge Wood
knew there would not be at the time of her decision. It seems a foregone conclusion that an apology,
a pledge not to repeat this forced disclosure and/or Judge Wood’s recusal from the matter at hand
would not go sufficiently far towards restoring the public’s trust. Nor would even a public censure.

Signed under Penalty of Perjury,

__________________________________ __________________________________
Martin S. Gottesfeld Date
Marty Gottesfeld, ID#71225
Unit H1, cell 224
PCCF
26 Long Pond Road
Plymouth, MA 02360