The Federal Judiciary’s abuse of power by its judges dismissing complaints about them, which ensures their unaccountability, can be exposed through J. Kavanaugh and his peers’ dismissal of the 478 complaints about them, and your protest against the sham hearing on changes to the judges’ complaint rules and code of conduct

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:773

 

Dear Deans, Professors, Students and Members of the Media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

I read with interest the articles in The Crimson and those written by others at Yale concerning then-Judge Kavanaugh and the power of law students to cause their deans to take a position on his confirmation, as well as the letters relating to him that more than 2,400 law professors and more than 2,000 Mothers in the Law Profession published in The New York Times(NYT).

This is a proposal for you, your professors and students, the media, and me to join forces, not to revisit the sexual abuse allegations leveled against him, but rather to use his case to insert into the national debate on the evaluation of judicial candidates’ fitness to serve what is more important: their service.

Indeed, the very politicians who put judges in office cannot thereafter turn around and investigate their appointees for lack of integrity and competence, lest they incriminate their own vetting procedures and skills for evaluating character and competence.

To evade their responsibility for exercising constitutional checks and balances on ‘our men and women on the bench’, politicians have delegated to judges authority to self-discipline. In the federal government, they have adopted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *> jur:2418a).

Thereunder, the only way for anybody to complain about a federal judge is by lodging a complaint in the circuit where the judge serves. There it is processed by precisely his or her peers, colleagues, and friends. They are required to submit the statistics of their processing of those complaints to Congress and the public in the Annual Report of the Director [who is appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice] of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); jur:2623a).

Those statistics(>OL2:772§G) show that Judge Kavanaugh and his peers dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints about them lodged with their District of Columbia Circuit and reported in the annual official statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(OL2:748). They have abused their self-disciplining authority to grant themselves 100% exoneration from complaints regardless of the complained-about conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity.

Acting only in self-interest, he and his peers have left complainants and the rest of the public at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

Held by politicians and themselves unaccountable, life-appointed judges, in practice unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§a), risklessly abuse(*>OL:154¶3) for their gain and convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

Their service is incriminated, not by an individual’s allegations and partisan opinions, but by their own non-partisan, verifiable, and official statistics. The latter’s analysis through “the math of abuse” exposes them as Judges Above the Law.

This novel statistics-based approach to judicial service evaluation is the product and distinguishing feature of my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting
*

Volume 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

Justice Kavanaugh now has the strongest personal motive to prevent any investigation into his and his peers’ abuse of power to secure his and his peers’ 100% exoneration from complaints about them. Such investigation can force the disclosure of the complaints, conveniently kept secret; the detection of patterns and trends of abuse; and the exposure of the organization and execution of, and benefits from, their cover-up.

Nor can Justice Gorsuch, who comes from the 10th Circuit, allow such investigation. There he, who so values camaraderie(>OL2: 546¶¶4-6), and his peers dismissed 99.83% of complaints about themselves(OL2:548).

This explains why the 15 complaints about Judge Kavanaugh lodged in the last month that his peer, Judge Karen Henderson, referred to Chief Justice John Roberts, were in turn referred by him for processing to precisely the 10th Circuit.

The presumption of a whitewash would not be less justified if C.J. Roberts had referred them to the Second Circuit, the former circuit of Justice Sotomayor. While there, she and her peers denied 100%(jur:11) of petitions for review of dismissal of complaints about themselves (jur:65§§1-3). The percentage of complaints dismissed in all the circuits is 99.82%(jur:10, 12-14).

The exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its cover-up by VIPs published by NYT and The New Yorker pressured C.J. Roberts into referring for sexual misconduct investigation Former 9th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who then resigned.

The almost 700 letters of complaint about abuse in the Federal Judiciary submitted to the C.J. caused him to admit to abuse therein and to set up a study committee(>OL2:645). Its report has led to proposed changes to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules for processing complaints.

Only as recently as October 2 did the Administrative Office announce only on its website that the changes will be the subject of only one single hearing at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., rather than at each of the more than 200 federal courts.

How many people can afford to travel to D.C. at all, never mind do so the day before to be ready to testify at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, for only a few minutes?

Any request to be heard must be emailed by October 18 to CodeandConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov; for the first week, a ‘glitch’ prevented AO’s receipt of those emails; http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/10/02/judiciary-hold-public-hearing-proposed-changes-judges-code-and-judicial-conduct.

This has been an announcement pro forma about compliance in bad faith with the hearing requirement. It is a sham!

No change to the Code or the Rules will stop judges from dismissing complaints about themselves, just as the changes adopted in 2008 and 2015 did not.

Such dismissal is their institutionalized mechanism for enforcing the complicit agreement through which judges reciprocally ensure their unaccountability for their past abuse and the risklessness of their future abuse. Abuse of power is the modus operandi(OL2:457§D, 760) of Powerful Judges Who Can Do No Wrong.

Students have shown to have the power to draw public attention to abuse. You, law professors and students, and we lawyers have the duty to expose abuse by judges, the ones who run(OL2: 717) our profession and corrupt it by ensuring their impunity.

Your publication of this letter and one or more of my articles(OL2:755, 719§C) and your protest against the sham hearing can launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power akin to the one into sexual abuse sparked by NYT’s and The New Yorker’s publication of their exposés. Just days later, the MeToo! movement emerged. It has led to a historic societal transformation from silent sexual abusees to a national public that shouts:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

That is precedent for the reasonable expectation that if we join forces to expose judges’ abuse of power using J. Kavanaugh’s dismissal of complaints as a test case, we may bring about a historic transformation:

We can insert this issue into the mid-term elections, the national debate, and the presidential campaign; and enable We the People for the first time ever to hold our judicial public servants accountable.

We may expose what will be a national scandal: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications to each other and to others –did you receive my previous ones to you?-, shown by a statistical study and verifiable by IT experts examining computers and servers (See the following article; also at >OL2:775).

Thus, I respectfully request that you publish this letter and call me(*>jur:1) to invite me to make a presentation to you, school members, and media colleagues. Time is of the essence.

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate

to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org


Exposing government interception of communications of critics of judges as an abuse of power that would cause a national scandal and launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:775

A. Statistics as the source of probable cause to believe that there is interception

There is reason to believe that the communications among critics of judges, including Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, and between them and third parties are intercepted, which is prohibited as provided for in the Criminal Code under 18 U.S. §2511(*>OL:5a13).

This is demonstrated through the statistical analysis(>OL:192 >‡>ws:58 §7) of communications(>ggl:1;>OL2:476, 425, 405§§A-C) in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting
*

Volume 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

Statistically, people line up in a standard normal distribution, which is a continuum that goes from one extreme of low values to the opposite extreme of high values of the variable in question. This continuum, when graphically plotted on an X,Y system of coordinates produces a bell curve. Most people bunch up on either side of the top –the crown– of the bell. Hence, it is abnormal and a sign of manipulation to see the values for everybody on only one of the two extremes.

Although I email to tens of thousands of email accounts directly and through hundreds of yahoogroups, hardly ever do I receive an email that is positive and encouraging.

Nevertheless, my website (this one at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org) has 24,700 subscribers and counting; it is built on the most widely used platform in the world, WordPress. When was the last time that you liked what you read on a site so much that you subscribed to it, although you and the rest of us suffer under information overload?

It is counterintuitive for people to subscribe but leave no comment. It is decidedly suspect for the number of subscribers, which had reached an average of 90 a day, with peaks of over 110, to drop to 0 in the space of a week and then pick up to only around 3 a day(OL2:604¶2).

To some emails I receive no reply at all. Practically every reply that I do receive is negative and critical of them. That is counterintuitive in a country as divided as ours, where at one end of the spectrum of everything there are people strongly in favor of it and at the other end people strongly against it. Cf. A rubric of one of the national TV networks, either CBS or NBC, is precisely “A Nation Divided”. Although I have communicated with some Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for years, I do not receive emails from them anymore. People email me, I reply to them with an encouraging message, but then I do not receive any more emails from them.

More than 2,000 Mothers in the Legal Profession and more than 2,400 law professors took out each an ad in The New York Times regarding J. Kavanaugh. I addressed them in the Subject: line of emails that I sent to tens of thousands. Despite that and although I too am a lawyer, and a doctor of law at that, I have not received a single reply from any of them. This is most suspect because we have harmonious interests(>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3). Those protected under the 1st Amendment(>jur:2312b), are “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

Moreover, requests that I make for membership in yahoogroups are approved only for my next posting to them to be rejected because I am told I am not a member.

1. Recent cases showing government interception of communications

The National Security Agency (NSA) engaged in a warrantless, indiscriminate, mass ‘dragnet’ collection of the metadata of communications of scores of millions of unsuspected people(OL2:395§B), as revealed by the secret documents that Edward Snowden leaked.

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her personal and work computers to spy on the status of her investigative reporting on the attacks by extremists on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three of his aides; and the fiasco Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which sold even assault rifles to track their way to Mexican druglords(OL:346¶131) and resulted in one such rifle being used to kill an American border patrol. Her articles were so incriminating that A.G. Eric Holder would respond to congressional demands for documents with entire pages blacked out. He was the first sitting member of the presidential cabinet to be held by Congress in contempt of it. Accordingly, he was forced to resign.

These cases show that the government, of which the judiciary is part, engages in illegal digital activity against those whom it perceives as a threat, such as a persistent investigative reporter, and even those who are suspected of nothing at all, such as those caught in NSA’s surveillance dragnet.

It is the judges of the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that approve up to 100% of the NSA’s secret request for secret orders of secret surveillance. Do they do so for the quid pro quo of the interception by the NSA of the communications of critics of judges? That is what the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation must determine(OL2:600§B).

B. Money and a scandal that focuses the media on judges’ abuse of power

Potentially, there is money to be made by suing the government for breach of constitutional rights and the right to privacy. More realistically, exposing to the national public that judges have abused their power to intercept their critics’ communications and prevent their ‘assembling to petition for redress of judges’ abuse’ would constitute a scandal far greater than that provoked by Snowden’s leak. It would shock America’s conscience and put you and your organization on the frontpage of every publication and at the top of every newscast, and on the list of Pulitzer Prize candidates.

C. What you can do to expose government interception of communications

I respectfully propose that you participate in exposing the interception of the communications of critics of judges by those who have the greatest interest therein: judges themselves. You can:

  1. widely share and post my articles with your address as the reply address to see what kind and number of replies you receive, which you can forward to me under an unrelated Subject: line;
  2. help finance IT experts’ examination of critics’ email accounts and computers, and servers;
  3. help organize presentations(OL:194§G) by me at law, journalism, IT, and business schools, pro se groups, and venture capitalists who may be interested in my business plan(OL2:563).

Consider this proposal in light of these principles of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL2:570§E, 475§D, 465§1):

  1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (we share the interest of defeating our common enemy).
  2. The friend of the friend of my friend may want to become my friend (which speaks to the indirectness of connections and a means of building alliances of result even if not of interests).
  3. People never work as hard as when they work for themselves. (Ask yourself: What interest of her own can the person that I want to persuade to do something advance by joining forces with me? Cf. Some such interests are to make herself and her group or organization known.)

Time is of the essence to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse in the mid-term elections.

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

Subscribe for free to these series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate
to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org


How you can make the abuse by judges that you have suffered or witnessed known to the media that will investigate the Supreme Court nominee and the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold his confirmation hearings

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:725

A. You have no recourse against unaccountable judges, whose abuse is riskless

  1. You may be or have been a party to a lawsuit who have suffered, or may be or have been a court clerk(>OL2:687), a lawyer(*>jur:106§c), or even a judge(*>OL:180) who have seen others suffer, judges’ abuse(*>OL:154¶3) of their power over your and other people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame everybody’s life.

The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is the basis of this strategy. The study is titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting
*

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page # up to OL:393

Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394.

  1. Judges abuse their power, among other ways, by disregarding due process and the equal protection of the law, and making up rules as they go. They do not even read the majority of briefs, thus knowingly causing filers injury in fact(infra ¶23.d.4).
  2. Their motive for abusing power is their convenience at work and material and social benefits.
  3. They have the opportunity in the more than 50 million new cases filed every year(*>jur:8fn4,5) and the scores of millions being prosecuted or pending disposition.
  4. They wield the most frightening means: the power to do because they can and can get away with it. They are so empowered because they are held by the politicians who put them on the bench(OL2:610§3) and by themselves unaccountable(*>jur:21§§1-3). Theirs is unaccountable power, the kind that “corrupts absolutely”(jur:27fn28).
  5. As a result, when you were, or saw others, being abused, there was nobody you could turn to for help, let alone to hold judges accountable and liable to compensation. You were alone. When you try on your own to expose judges’ abuse, you stand no chance against them whatsoever(OL2:548).
  6. But that can change now if you think strategically(OL2:593¶¶15-16; 445§B): You can join forces with others to seize the opportunity to expose judges’ abuse opened by the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become the successor to U.S. Supreme Court Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. His party affiliation should be as irrelevant to you as has been yours or that of the judges who abused you or whom you witnessed abusing others.

    B. The duty of Judge Kavanaugh, all the other judges, and the Federal Judiciary itself, not to commit abuse and to expose it

  7. It is Judge Kavanaugh’s duty, and has been for the past 11 years as a judge:

    a.
    to keep his oath of office(*>jur:53¶106) to “do equal right to the poor [in connections with me] and to the rich [therein, such as “a brother and sister of the robe”(>OL2:546) and] to uphold the Constitution and the laws thereunder;

    b. to uphold the Constitution as it provides that a judge can keep his or her office only “during good Behaviour”(jur:22fn12);

    c. to enforce the constitutional provision that “all civil Officers”, including judges, are subject to impeachment and removal even for “Misdemeanors”(*>OL:126¶b);”

    d. to counter and denounce(OL2:611§B) any judge, and all the more so the Federal Judiciary as an institution(>OL2:633§D, 582§C), that abuses his or her power by interfering(OL2:395) with the constitutional right of every citizen, never mind a group of them, to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” against judges(*>OL2:633¶19);

    e. to report “grounds for believing”, which involves ‘a belief’ as opposed to evidence or proof, that a judge has violated a law and the matter should be investigated(jur:69fn130);

    f. to file a complaint against a judge who “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the business of the courts or is disable mentally or physically”(*>jur:24§b; OL:160§B);

g. to “uphold the integrity of the judiciary” by denouncing a judge who has engaged in misconduct(jur:57¶119); etc.

  1. Judge Kavanaugh has violated his duty of office by either committing abuse of power himself, as a principal, or tolerating it, as an accessory.
  2. Toleration of abuse occurs through knowing indifference or willful blindness(*>jur:90§§b-d), or systematic exemption from discipline by dismissing 99.82% of complaints against fellow judges(*>jur:10-14; >OL2:548). It is motivated by gaining the social benefit of being and remaining accepted by the other judges, rather than being outcast for denouncing abusers and retaliated against as a traitor.
  3. By tolerating abuse, a judge incurs accessorial liability by becoming:
    a. an accessory after the fact of the abuse that he has witnessed but has kept silent about, thus covering up for the abuser and enabling the latter to keep any abuse benefit; andb. an accessory before the fact of the abuse that through his explicit or implicit promise of complicit silence he encourages judges to continue or start committing.
  4. The other justices of the Supreme Court have likewise committed abuse of power individually(jur:65§§1-3) or collectively(OL2:455§§B-F; cf. 608§A). They continue committing or tolerating abuse when it involves a continuing crime, such as concealment of assets to evade taxes or hide the assets’ illegal origin(jur:65fn107b,c). Those assets can never be declared, lest the concealer incriminates himself or herself(jur:105fn213).
  5. Due to the abuse committed or tolerated, Judge Kavanaugh is unfit to become a justice and be entrusted for life with even more power to affect everybody in our country, just as the other justices are unfit to remain as such on the Court.

    C. What you can do to make your experience or knowledge of abuse known nationally

  6. Therefore, what should energize you is not the issue whether Judge Kavanaugh should staff the Supreme Court.
  7. Rather, what should catch your imagination and drive you to action is the opportunity to take advantage of the national attention concentrated on all things judicial by the media investigating Judge Kavanaugh and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary holding his confirmation hearings.
  8. You can endeavor to insert in the national debate as well as the primaries and mid-term elections the issue of how Judge Kavanaugh, the justices of the Court(jur:71§4), and the other judges have committed and tolerated abuse of power to such a routine, widespread, and coordinated degree as to have institutionalized abuse as their modus operandi(jur:49§4). They have turned the Federal Judiciary into a safe haven for abusers(OL2:645). Seize the opportunity to hold them accountable and liable to compensation.
  9. You the abusees and you the witnesses to abuse, regardless of your politics, can do this first by joining forces, and then by thinking strategically and imaginatively, which calls for doing the unprecedented.

    1. Building alliances with politicians and journalists

  10. The strategic strengthening of your forces requires that you build alliances with other people who share your interest in exposing judges’ abuse or can by so doing advance interests of their own that are harmonious with yours.
  11. Potential allies are politicians, whether members of either or no party. They are seeking your vote so that they must be sensitive and responsive to your concerns and demands. Moreover, they have access to the media, which are an indispensable ally to reach the national audience, in general, and opinion builders and influencers, in particular.
  12. Some politicians or people that they care about have been abused by judges or similar powerful entities, such as big money.
  13. Other politicians can be persuaded to see this as an opportunity to become the standard bearer of the parties to the cases pointed out supra ¶4, to whom must be added the scores of millions of parties and related people who deem their cases to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided. They form a huge untapped voting force: The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal System.
  14. Neither you nor the Dissatisfied nor the rest of the public need to suffer their abuse silently in the new era of a self-assertive people with a MeToo! attitude. We all can shout together across the country the rallying cry:

Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse from judges anymore.

2. A joint campaign to contact particular politicians to persuade them to advance their and your interests by exposing judges’ abuse

23. You can take concrete action to turn politicians into your allies of interests:

a. Read this email thoroughly and share it with all your friends and family, workmates, peers, other victims of judges’ abuse, advocates of honest judiciaries, etc.; and post it to social media as widely as possible;

b. Request that the Senate Judiciary Committee at the confirmation hearings on the nominee; https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial, hear not only the self-serving statements of the nominee, but also your experience or knowledge of judges’ abuse; contact:

1) Chairman Chuck Grassley, www.grassley.senate.gov/contact; tel. (202) 224-3744; Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations Majority Office, tel. (202)224-5444);

2) Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index. cfm/e-mail-me, tel. (202) 224-3841; Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations Minority Office, tel. (202)224-3244).

c. Contact two prominent politicians who have already attracted national attention, i.e.,

1) U.S. House Candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortéz, who in the primaries defeated the no. 4 in the Democratic hierarchy and presumed next speaker; us@ocasio2018.com; tel. (845)605-2742;

2) New York Gubernatorial Candidate Cynthia Nixon, an education and social activist, who played Miranda in Sex and the City; info@cynthiafornewyork.com;

d. Request that they:

1) hold a press conference to denounce judges’ abuse of power, as proposed(OL2:718, 722);

2) at the conference, invite the public to email them a concise 350-word(jur:124fn261.b) description of only those elements in their cases that lie outside judges’ margin of discretion so that they indisputably constitute abuse of power, e.g.

a) sexual abuse and harassment(OL2:645);

b) participation in a bankruptcy fraud scheme(OL2:614);

c) concealment of assets(jur:65fn107c);

d) money laundering(OL:194§E);

e) failure to comply with mandatory financial information disclosure requirements(jur:105fn213);

f) bribes disguised as unrelated financial transactions(OL2:470§2);

g) credit card fraud(jur:15);

h) mortgage fraud(*>jur:xxxviii);

i) coordinated exploitation of case information and ex parte communications with the opposing party (*>jur:xxxv);

j) conflict of interests and failure to recuse(jur:146fn272);

k) cover up of the wrongdoing of a fellow judge(jur:65§1);

l) connivance between judges and politicians(jur:77§§5-6);

m) official bias against pro ses, who must nevertheless pay the same filing fees(OL2:455§B);

n) failure to report partially and all-expense paid seminars and travel(jur:146fn272);

o) dockets showing document entry dates that do not correspond with the dates stamped on the documents or with carrier’s delivery notification;

p) tampering with transcripts produced by court reporters;

q) the failure to read briefs, evidenced as described at OL2:729, affecting the largest number of parties, involving the deprivation of the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law, and causing parties the loss of their whole investment in the case, which constitutes injury in fact (see ¶4) infra);

3) ask that the Senate Judiciary Committee hear also you and others similarly situated;

4) call on the media to do the unprecedented: in their own commercial interest and to repair their battered public image, hold nationally televised public hearings conducted by news anchors, top journalists, and professors and graduate students of journalism. This is how the media can become The People’s Spokesman; and

5) announce the unprecedented: the formation of a national movement of parties and related people who made an enormous investment to write, or have lawyers write, briefs and motions, and paid fees to file them with courts, whose judges did not even read them and dumped on clerks for them mechanically to affirm decisions on appeal and deny motions using dumping forms(OL2:608§A); the movement will demand the courts to refund the filing fees and pay damages(OL2:726).

  1. To request that those politicians take such action, you may forward this email to them and ask everybody else to do likewise. Then you can send it also to every other candidate in the primaries and mid-term elections. Let all of them compete for the title of National Champion of Justice and the donations and campaign help that come along with it; cf. https://www.governor.ny.gov/content/governor-contact-form.
  2. Victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, we must not miss this unique opportunity to insert the issue of judges’ abuse of power in the media investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate confirmation hearings, and the primaries and mid-term elections. We need not suffer in silence or fight alone a losing battle against abusive judges defending as a class their unlawful position: Judges Above The Law.

Join forces and take strategic action to expose them!

Visit the website Judicial Discipline Reform at,
and subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at judges’ abuse
and your passion for justice are.

Donate here through PayPal

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b


Your contribution to exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse of power by either irrationally continuing the filing of suits in court or promoting the out-of-court strategy to inform and outrage a public that is intolerant of all forms of abuse

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article is also at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:713

NOTE: This program irremediably changes the number of paragraphs and headings. Please excuse the abnormal result.

A. The precedent of The New York Times’ article on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its transformation of public attitude toward any form of abuse

  1. The publication by a national publisher of one or a series of my articles exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power could do what the NYT’s sexual abuse article of last October 5 unexpectedly accomplished: breach the taboo on the subject, set in motion a generalized media investigation of sexual abusers and abusees, and reveal public intolerance henceforth of that abuse.
  2. What the NYT article did is a realistic precedent: With surprising celerity, it gave rise to the MeToo!, TimesUp, NeverAgain, Stop School Shootings, and similar civic movements expressive of social transformation. People have broken their resignation to suffer abuse in silence and, on the contrary adopted a self-assertive attitude that courageously shouts against all forms of abuse a common and rallying cry:  

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse from anybody anymore.

  1. If a national newspaper and/or magazine publisher dare publish one or a series of articles, such as mine, exposing judges’ abuse of power, there is the realistic possibility of achieving:

a. the intermediate objective of causing the media and the public to insert the subject of unaccountable judges’ consequent riskless abuse of power in the primaries and the mid-term elections and thereafter in the national debate; which can pave the way to…

b. the ultimate objective of compelling the adoption by politicians–even if only after a constitutional convention(>OL2:517§B)– of judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8) that effectively holds judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

1. My already written articles on judges’ abuse are available for review by publishers

  1. I have the necessary academic and professional credentials(*>a&p:16) to offer for publication articles exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse.
  2. Many of the articles that I have listed in my query letter (below and at >OL2:703) and am offering for publication are already written. They are included in my over 1,150-page study* of judges and their judiciaries. So a publisher can examine what I have done rather than hope that I can deliver on what I offer to do.

That study is titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting*

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

2. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER for those who have the commitment and stamina to gain it

  1. The list of professionally researched and written articles will help empower those who recognize the pragmatic truth in the axiom “KNOWLEDGE IS POWER”. By reading and studying those articles, they can gain the knowledge that they need to confront the most powerful officers in our country: Judges Above the Law.
  2. The professional quality of the research and writing of an article and the concrete, realistic, and novel character of its ideas are the criteria that should determine whether it is worth reading by a potential Champion of Justice.

  3. The brevity of an article is the determining factor only for casual readers, judicial reform hobbyists, and pro ses self-improvised a lawyers. They cannot read anything longer than the offhand blurb of a blog, a mental hiccup digitally recorded as a thought scribble. Accordingly, they are likely to commit the gross dishonesty and incompetent advocacy of commenting on articles that they did not bother to read past their titles.

  4. Swapping blurbs with fellow group members is not a strategy for exposing judges’ abuse: It is a careless, often deceptive pastime.

  5. Blurb-only readers give us, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, a bad name. They cannot be expected to make the enormous effort necessary to amass the only power available to Advocates: the power of knowledge. That is the only power that we have to oppose to judges’ abusively exercised power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

  6. Knowledge is what earns us the attention and respect of others.

  7. Knowledge can allow us to outsmart judges on our own terms. Outsmarting judges begins with recognizing that Advocates will never prevail over judges in court, their turf, where judges apply and disregard rules however they want and conjure up new ones as they go to exempt themselves from discipline and ensure their survival.

  8. Nor can blurb-only readers be expected to engage in the intense thinking process necessary to analyze what they learn, figure out the functioning of our judicial and legal system, and devise an abuse-exposing strategy that is sufficiently concrete, realistic, and feasible to have a chance at success.

  9. That is the kind of strategy that can catch the imagination, and lead to the participation, of those called upon to implement it, the Advocates; and persuade those asked to provide what is indispensable to any implementation: donors of money.

  10. The strategy must also be sufficiently novel to avoid the application to those who devise and implement it of Einstein’s aphorism: “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”. Doing so is irrational because it ignores the fundamental law of our physical and human worlds: cause and effect.

  11. I give this and the following criticism constructively and mean for it to be taken likewise. It would be an inappropriate reaction to be peeved, defensive, and lash out at me.

  12. Instead, this criticism should elicit reflection, reevaluation of conduct, and reorientation of effort toward a productive joining of forces that advances our common cause of exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse.

B. Exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse by either the irrational continuation of suits in court and appeals to judge-appointing officials or the reasonably calculated out-of-court inform and outrage strategy

1. The irrational, self-contradictory premise of suing judges in court in the expectation that they will uphold the law that they are charged with breaking

  1. The Federal Judiciary is the model for its state counterparts, providing the standard for their rules of procedure and evidence. It officially weights a case filed by a pro se as one third of a case(>OL2:455§§B-D).

  2. Consequently, federal judges are not only authorized, but also expected not to waste more than a third of their time on a pro se case. A federal judge can have over 600 weighted cases in his or her caseload(*>jur36fn57).

  3. To think that by a pro se filing a case against a judge(>OL2:709§2), never mind a group of judges(OL2:708§1), progress will be made in exposing their abuse is wishful thinking, driven by ignorance of the statistics(*>OL:275§1) and incapacity to draw their implications.

  4. A case that charges judges with disregarding the facts as well as due process and the equal protection of the law yet asks judges who are judging judges and therefore themselves to order their peers and themselves to stay within the limits, and comply with the provisions, of court rules-enabling legislation is self-contradictory. One need not be a lawyer to be logical.

  5. One only needs to think rationally: It is irrational to ask a bully to stop breaking the neighborhood rule against bullying because there is a neighborhood rule that prohibits bullying. The bully breaks that rule, not because he does not know that it exists, but rather because he is a bully and could not care less about that or any other rules but his own: the rule of abuse.

  6. The irrational premise of such a case will induce a judge to give that case less than a third of the attention that he or she gives the average case. The official statistics bear this out(*>jur:21§a).

  7. One does not enhance one’s credibility by advancing such an irrational premise.

  8. The same holds true for any proposal to ask the federal or a state department of justice to go against the very judges that the president or the governor nominated or appointed.

  9. Why would a justice department antagonize the judges that can retaliate by holding the president’s or the governor’s political agenda unconstitutional, not to mention holding that the president or the governor broke the law by, for example, colluding with the Russians or hiding assets to evade state taxes?

  10. Expecting people to work in one’s interest and against their own is irrational. It contradicts the instincts of self-gratification and -preservation.

2.  The out-of-court inform and outrage strategy that appeals to the people’s power to expose judges’ abuse and establish their accountability

  1. The strategy pursued through the publication of one or a series of my articles is reasonably calculated to achieve this:

a. to inform the national and state public about the issue of judges’ abuse, and so to outrage it at, judges as to stir up the public to demand that those running for public office and incumbents take a position on the issue on their political platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting.

  1. Only We the People, the source of all political power, can by wielding our voting, street, donation, and campaign volunteer power compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to launch the investigation needed to expose the full nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse as the first step toward effective judicial reform.
  • The media, acting in its own commercial and reputational interest(>OL2:696§3), is the People’s indispensable ally in this endeavor.

  • That is why we the Advocates must cause the media to publish an exposé of judges’ abuse. It can be reasonably expected to outrage a public now intolerant of every form of abuse.

  • In turn, that public outrage will motivate the media to jump on the bandwagon of the investigation of that form of abuse: Audiences flock to the publisher of scandal news. Scandal sells copy. All publishers must investigate and publish it on pain of being abandoned by their respective audience.

  • C. Attracting media attention by parties joining forces to demand from their court the refund of filing fees

    1. Courts offer “judicial services”(OL2:608) and demand a fee to file any case or motion paper. Yet, they are not materially capable of delivering those services(“The math of perfunctoriness” OL2: 609§A).

    2. Their judges do not even read the majority of briefs. Clerks, who need not be lawyers and lacking judicial discretionary authority can only mechanically apply fixed instructions, dispose of most papers through their use of dumping forms(OL2:609¶5).

    3. Such a form has its blanks filled out with the minimum information necessary to identify the paper being disposed of; the rest is standard reasonless, fiat-like orders that disregard the paper’s facts and law so as to engage in ad hoc arbitrariness for gain or convenience, and effortlessly dump the paper off of the judges’ caseload.

    4. Disposition of a paper through a dumping form constitutes false advertisement, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract as part of the judges’ filing fee fraud scheme(OL2:609§2).

    5. The recovery of filing fees provides a monetary incentive for parties in the same court whose papers have been disposed of through dumping forms to respond to Advocates contacting(OL:276§C) them.

    6. Acting as a group –or even a class– of parties similarly situated as victims of the same injury in fact they would assert a common interest in obtaining the refund of their filing fees.

    7. The recovery of filing fees provides a monetary incentive for parties in the same court whose cases and motions have been disposed of by dumping forms to respond to Advocates contacting(OL:276§C) them. Acting as a group –or even a class- of parties similarly situated as victims of the same injury in fact they would assert a common interest in obtaining the refund of their filing fees.

    8. The publication of my article on dumping forms and filing fee recovery can spark the formation of Refund the money! groups everywhere.

    9. Their suits can attract media attention because they do not require the media to assess the facts and law of each case. On the contrary, it would suffice to notice that despite no two cases being the same, all their cases were disposed of in the only near identical and perfunctory way allowed by a form.

    10. The scandal of ‘dumping form justice’ can lead to ever deeper journalistic investigations into the operation of courts by unaccountable judges who coordinate their riskless abuse of power into the most harmful form of structured abuse: schemes(OL2:696§3).

    D. Asserting rights and making money by exposing judges’ interception of the communications of their critics

    1. I welcome the suggestion and invite you and all other readers to implement it: Post on social media, including Gab.ai, and Minds, my query letter(OL2:703) and other articles that I have written and will keep writing.

    2. Indeed, Google suspended my gmail account twice, doing so without giving me notice. Likewise, Dropbox and Microsoft disabled my accounts.

    3. The circumstances(>ggl) under which they did so, the harm to their commercial interest notwithstanding, provide probable cause to believe that they acted in coordination with those who benefit the most(>OL2:582§C) from intercepting the communications of critics of judges and preventing their formation of a team(>jur:128§4) in violation of their 1st Amendment rights to “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130fn268).

    4. If we Advocates hired computer forensic experts and they established such interception and traced it back to federal judges, we could assert our rights and make money too(below ¶9.m.2); and OL2:705¶9.m.2)).

    5. The ensuing public outrage would be more intense than that provoked by E. Snowden’s NSA revelations(OL2:395§B) and most apt to expose judges’ abuse as a Nixon-like criminal enterprise.

    E. You can contribute to implementing the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy by distributing my query letter widely

    48.  Therefore, I respectfully encourage all readers to distribute the query letter below as widely as you can to all your friends and family and peers and, of course, to all those who are newspaper and/or magazine publishers and journalists, or are associated with them, including journalism school deans, professors, and students, who can benefit from the proposed investigation and its abundance of leads(OL:197§G).

    1. Let’s expose judges’ abuse by our taking advantage of the current public intolerance of any form of abuse and the mid-term campaigning. Join the distribution of the query letter below so that We the People, informed and outraged, confront politicians when they are most vulnerable and responsive: when vying for votes. They are answerable for having in self-interest put judges on the bench and connivingly(>OL2:610§3) held them there unaccountable to the detriment of the People.
  • In that vein, I offer to make paid presentations and hold one-day seminars on the strategy for exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse(OL2:712§E).

  • Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Put your money where your informed outrage
    and your passion for justice are.

    Donate here


    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    (If a link does not open a webpage, copy and paste it into your browser’s web address box, and click ‘enter’.)

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City

    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com


    A proposal for a paid series of articles; and joint journalistic investigation, academic research, and reporting; concerning judges’ unaccountability and consequent abuse of power as their institutionalized modus operandi

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and non-commercially post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This article is also at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:702

    A. Identifying the addressees of the proposal and the benefit that they stand to derive from it

    1. This is a query letter addressed to publishers, editors, and officers of media and academic organizations as well as entities and groups of people that advocate honest judiciaries and defend against unaccountable judges’ consequent riskless abuse.
    2. I propose that you represent or publish my work, whether non-fiction, fiction, or both, already written or to be commissioned, and my performance as presenter of this work to a live audience composed of you, your associates, similarly situated people, and the public at large.
    3. In exchange, you can benefit commercially and reputationally from reaching the vast target market identified below at the most propitious moment, namely, when:a. We the People are preparing to wield in the mid-term elections our most significant democratic power, the power to elect our public servants; andb. people have been transformed from passive abusees who suffer abuse in silence into a self-assertive People who gathered in movements such as MeToo!, Time’sUp, and Never Again courageously shout the common and rallying cry:

      Enough is enough!
      We won’t take abuse from anybody anymore.

    B. A study and a website that allow you to verify the quality of the articles and their appeal to the target market

    4. Attuned to this national public attitude of self-assertive exposure of abusers are my proposed paid series of articles; and joint journalistic investigation, academic research, and reporting; on the topical subjects of the various types of writings that compose my study, thus titled and downloadable:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    This study contains the materials corresponding to the (blue text references) made below.

    1. You may review my study to ascertain the professional quality of my writings and of the investigation/research that provides their foundation and that is proposed to be jointly further pursued and reported on.
    2. What I have written on speculation I can adapt to meet your requirements; and can undertake other writings, including court briefs, commissioned by you.
    3. There is a market for the proposed articles and reporting. To begin with, they will attract many of the people who are parties to the more than 50 million cases filed in our federal and state courts every year(*> jur:8fn4,5) and to cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully.
    4. To those parties must be added many of their negatively affected or impressed friends and family, peers, employees, clients, shareholders, etc. They feel abused by unaccountable judges who for their own convenience and gain have risklessly disregarded the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, thus harming people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.
    5. All of those parties and related people form a vast target market: The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.
    6. In fact, the articles posted to this website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org have already attracted more than 24,160 subscribers, not just visitors(>Appendix). The website can be developed as my brand and selling platform as laid out in my business plan(OL2:563, 577).
    7. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that The Dissatisfied as well as the rest of the public, especially voters, will be attracted to my articles offered to them under a rubric, or in a syndicated column or newsletter, or reported on a TV or radio show(jur:2fn1) dealing with judicial unaccountability, riskless abuse, and reform.

    C. Subjects of the articles and reporting to inform about, and outrage at, judges’ abuse

    1. The following is a sample of the subjects of the proposed paid series of articles and joint further investigation, research, and reporting:

    a. judges’ unaccountability(*>OL:265) and their consequent riskless abuse of power(jur:5§3; OL:154§3);

    b. statistical analysis for the public(>OL2:455§§B-E, 608§A) and for researchers(jur:131§b);

    c. significance of federal circuit judges disposing of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [i.e., the pretext of “lack of jurisdiction”], unsigned, unpublished, by consolidation, without comment”, which are reasonless, ad-hoc, arbitrary, and in practice unappealable(OL2:453);

    1)  to receive “justice services”(OL2:607) parties pay courts filing fees, which constitute consideration, whereby a contract arises between them to be performed by the judges, who know that they will in most cases not even read their briefs(OL2:608§A), so that courts engage in false advertisement, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract(OL2:609§2);

    d. Justiceship Nominee N. Gorsuch said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”: judges’ gang mentality and abusive hitting back(OL2:546);

    e. fair criticism of judges who fail to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a);

    f. abuse-enabling clerks(OL2:687), who fear arbitrary removal without recourse(jur:30§1);

    g. law clerks’ vision at the end of their clerking for a judge of the latter’s glowing letter of recommendation(OL2:645§B) morally blinds them to their becoming executioners of judges’ abuse;

    h. the statistics of judges’ dismissing 99.82% of complaints against them(jur:10-14; OL2:548): how judges arrogate to themselves impunity by abusing their statutory self-disciplining authority(*>jur:21§a);

    i. escaping the futility of suing judges, who are exonerated by other judges to mutually assure their survival(>OL2:609§1): the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to stir up the public into holding judges accountable(OL2:581);

    j. how law professors and lawyers act in self-interest to cover up for judges so as to spare themselves and their schools, cases, and firms retaliation(*>jur:81§1): their system of harmonious interests against the interests of the parties and the public(OL2:635, 593¶15);

    k. turning insiders into Deep Throats(jur:106§C); outsiders into informants(OL2:468); and judges into criers of ‘MeToo! Abusers’(682¶¶7,8) that issue an I accuse!(jur:98§2) denunciation of judges’ abuse: thinking and acting strategically(OL2:635, 593¶15) to expose judges’ abuse by developing allies who want to become Workers of Justice(OL2:687);

    l. two unique national stories, not to replace a rogue judge, but to topple an abusive judiciary:

    1) Follow the money! as judges grab(OL2:614), conceal(jur:65fn107a,c), and launder(105fn213) it;

    2) The Silence of the Judges: their illegal, warrantless, 1st Amendment-violative interception of their critics’ communications(OL2:582§C);

    a) made all the more credible by Former CBS Reporter Sharryl Attkisson’s $35 million suit against the Department of Justice for its illegal intrusion into her computers to spy on her ground-breaking investigations onto its Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau’s disastrous Fast and Fury gunrunning operation and the killings at Benghazi, Libya, and embarrassing her reporting thereon(612§b);

    b) the exposure of such interception can provoke a scandal graver than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s revelations of NSA’s gmassive illegal collection of only non-personally identifiable metadata(583§3);

    c) the exposure can be bankrolled as discreetly as Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, bankrolled the suit of Hulk Hogan against the tabloid Gawker for invasion of privacy and thereby made it possible to prosecute and win a judgment for more than $140 million(OL2:528);

    d) principles can be asserted and money made by exposing judges’ interception;

    m. a Harvey Weinstein-like generalized media investigation into judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power keeps the issue alive(jur:4¶¶10-14); amortizes the investment in the joint investigation(OL:194§E) by reporters and me; and makes a higher return on investment possible;

    n. the documentary Black Robed Predators(OL:85), produced as an original video content by an investigative show, a cable company, an Indy, or journalism students, with the testimony of judges, their victims, clerks, lawyers, faculty, and students; and crowd funding to attract to the documentary’s making and viewing the crowd that advocates honest judiciaries;

    o. turning judges’ abuse into a key mid-term elections issue with the unprecedented holding by the media of nationally and statewide televised public hearings(OL2:675§2, 580§2): the media as We the People’s loudspeaker;

    p. parties’ joint search in their cases for communality points that permit detection of the most convincing evidence of abuse: patterns of abuse by a judge, the judges of a court, or those of a judiciary(OL:274-280; 304-307);

    q. the development of this website, http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, into:

    1)  a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by; and

    2) a research center for, the public(OL2:575); and

    3) the precursor to the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5) that begins as a multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§§1-4);

    r. a tour of presentations(OL:197§G) by me sponsored by you on:

    1) judges’ abuse(*>jur:5§3; OL:154¶3);

    2) a novel way of conducting statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis of their decisions and other writings(jur:131§b) -including by developing advanced software that applies artificial intelligence and forensic fraud accounting- in search of evidence of bias and disregard of due process(OL:42, 60);

    3) promoting the participation of the audience in the investigation and research(OL:115); and

    4) announcement of a Continuing Legal Education course, a webinar, a seminar, and a writing contest(*>ddc:1), all of which can turn the audience into clients and followers;  and even active members of a civic movement(*>jur:164§9);

    5) development of local chapters of investigators/researchers into judges’ abuse that coalesce into a Tea Party-like single issue, civic movement(*>jur:164§9) for holding judges accountable and liable to their victims: the People’s Sunrise(*>OL:201§J);

    s. a multimedia, multidisciplinary public conference(jur:97§1; dcc:13§C) on judges’ unaccountability and abuse at a top university(OL2:452) to pioneer the reporting thereon in our country and abroad;

    t. a constitutional convention(OL:136§3) and judicial reform unthinkable today, but rendered unavoidable by an informed and outraged People that has become intolerant of abuse(jur:158§§6-8).

    D. A versatile writer communicates through laughter, fiction, and education

    1. Entertaining skits that politicians, corporate VIPs, and comedians can use in an imaginative way to drive a message with laughter and prepare an audience’s mood at a rally before they take the stage:

    a. How Secretary Clinton stole the show at the charity gala, causing Mr. Trump to concede that “She’s such a naspy, naspy woman”, and the strategy that she devised to turn “naspy” into the theme that would win her the election(OL2:491);

    b. Trump and the Four Chicks (starring the four co-chairs of the Women’s March; OL2:530);

    c. Punting on the Digital River(*>cw:32), an infomercial video that uses an entertaining story to promote investment in the sponsoring entity’s high technology and prestige project;

    d. Behind the Black Robe Wall(*>cw:58), an excerpt from a legal drama;

    e. the synopses of eight movie scripts and two novels that reveal my capacity to entertain an audience with an intriguing and inspiring story with a topical message, e.g., against insidious bias and discrimination and in support of personal self-assertion and civil courage(*>cw:3);

    f. The DeLano Case Course: a week-by-week syllabus for a hands-on, role-playing, fraud investigative and expository multidisciplinary course for students at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools(*>dcc:1), which I or other professors can teach.

    E. Your publishing and reporting to inform the People and your associates in their and your own interest

    1. These and similar articles and reporting can empower We the People to assert our status as the sovereign source of political power, the masters of all our public servants, including our judicial public servants. We hire them when we vote them in; are entitled to hold them accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power; and can vote them out of office.
    2. For your contribution to empowering the People to assert their status, you can be commercially rewarded(OL:3§F) and become one of their nationally recognized Champions of Justice(OL:201§K).

    3. To that end, time is of the essence: The primaries and the campaigning for the mid-term elections have already started.

    4. So let’s discuss the proposal of this query letter. Use the contact information provided below and in my study.

    5. Should you and your associates deem that you and others would benefit from my holding on your premises a fee + expenses paid presentation(cf. OL:197§G) or one-day seminar(cf. OL:191, 202; OL2:622, 623; 694§2) of the proposal made here or any subject discussed in, or related to, my study, please let me know.

    Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

    Put your money where your informed outrage and your passion for justice are.
    Donate here.



    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    (If a link does not open a webpage, copy and paste it into your browser’s web address box, and click ‘enter’.)

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    To retain Dr. Cordero’s law consulting, research and writing, and representational services or request that he hold a presentation or seminar for your group, see his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383; >OL2:667).

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    Analyzing your odds of winning by suing in court versus going out of court to have other victims of judges’ abuse join you in shouting the rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won’t take judges’ abuse anymore

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This article is also at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:693

    A. Analyzing your odds of winning by suing in court

    1. Thank you for your emails to the previous article containing a template to address judges and their clerks (see below). To the question whether I can recommend lawyers, in general, and bankruptcy lawyers, particular, I do not recommend lawyers.
    2. Parties who want to retain a local lawyer to represent them in a case in which they are charging judges with judicial misconduct are asking the lawyer to commit professional suicide by becoming the target of the many forms of retaliation by judges(*>Lsch:17§C) and their abuse-executing clerks(>OL2:687).

    The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    1. Bankruptcy judges are appointees and thus protégés of circuit judges

    1. The retaliatory power of bankruptcy judges is particularly frightening for a lawyer because there may be only one such judge in a bankruptcy court so that if a lawyer challenges her authority, never mind accuses her of dishonesty or incompetency, the lawyer’s future before that judge becomes bleak. But even if there is a handful of bankruptcy judges in a bankruptcy court the solidarity among them and the instinct of survival of each of them are likely to prevail and cause them to ensure an equally bleak future for a lawyer with the reputation of being a ‘disrespectful troublemaker’.
    2. Bankruptcy judges’ instinct of survival is particularly strong due to the way in which they come onto the bench and can be removed from it. They are not nominated by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Rather, in a much local and personal way, they are appointed for a 14-year term by the circuit judges of the respective U.S. court of appeals(*>jur:43fn61a). Similarly, they are removed, not by the cumbersome and practically useless impeachment process in Congress, but by their respective circuit and district judges.
    3. Therefore, so long as a bankruptcy judge is doing what she is supposed to do to show her appreciation for her appointment and earn goodwill for her reappointment, she can do whatever she wants. In 2010, bankruptcy judges exercised their power to decide the allocation of the more than $373 billion(*>jur:27§2) in controversy between debtors and creditors in only the personal bankruptcies of consumers; they also allocated additional scores of billions of dollars in controversy in commercial bankruptcies. To learn about the mechanics for bankruptcy judges to divert unlawfully money over which they wield power of allocation, see “How a bankruptcy fraud scheme works”(>OL2:614).
    4. It follows that if an appeal from a bankruptcy judge’s decision ever reaches the respective court of appeals, it will be heard by the very circuit judges who appointed her. Have you ever heard of appointers turning against their own appointees to hold them incompetent or dishonest, thereby incriminating their own vetting procedures and judgment of character, and casting doubt on the company that they keep?
    5. In fact, the bankruptcy system has the same “cronyism”(*>jur:32§2) still today that Congress found in 1979 and which was cited as the factual justification for the ‘reform’ of the bankruptcy system.
    6. This bias against bankruptcy appeals and bankrupts’ lack of money to appeal explain why a minute number of bankruptcy cases reach the courts of appeals (jur:28§a; OL2:647fn5):
      .
      a. 2 of every 3 cases enter the Federal Judiciary through its bankruptcy courts annually.
      .
      b. In the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2017, 790,830 bankruptcies were filed; but only 729 bankruptcy cases (whenever filed) were appealed to the courts of appeals: 0.092% or 1 out of every 1,085.c. That year there were 50,506 appeals to the court of appeals, and those 729 bankruptcy appeals represented only 1.44% of them.d. Bankruptcy judges are aware of the insignificant risk that their decisions may be appealed. What they say sticks; that is the basis of their enormous power when allocating the most insidious corruptor: money!

    2. Role playing to realize the harmonious and conflicting interests in an interpersonal system

    1. The above illustrates the application to a given situation of dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(>OL2:593¶¶15-16; OL2:445§B, 475§D).
    2. This analysis is applied to understand the interpersonal relations in a system of people e.g., the bank borrowers, bank investors, bank managers, banking supervisory authorities, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, judges, bankruptcy trustees, politicians, etc., who compose the legal and judicial system. Who is an ally and who is a foe? Who owes loyalty to whom? Who has power to abuse and who is in a position in which he can be abused(>OL2:465§1)?
    3. There is a highly enlightening, convincing, and entertaining exercise that a group of people can engage in to understand the dynamics of conflicting and harmonious interests: role playing(*>OL:359§F) in a theater of improvisation the several kinds of members in the system.
    4. Since you and your associates are charging ‘public corruption’ too, when playing you need to cast one or more associates in the role of the very politicians who recommended and endorsed the appointment of their cronies as bankruptcy judges and who recommended and endorsed the nomination and confirmation of the district and circuit judges. They are all players in their power game and the game is rigged, as the analysis of the DeLano bankruptcy case shows(*>jur:xxxvxxxviii).
    5. Rushing to file a case in court without analyzing the dynamics of interests among the players there to determine whether they will let you, a party with a single case, have a fair chance to win by disrupting their steady relations of power and loyalty built over time is like crashing the party of the neighborhood bully to induct new members into his gang. Soon the partygoers will make you aware that you have nothing to look for there and are not welcome. What do you think their reaction will be when you let them know that you want the bully to order them to give back to you what they took from your store after slapping you around to make you feel the need to pay protection money? “Are you crazy?!
    6. You certainly are out or your mind and your depth. No judge is going to incriminate his or her peers, colleagues, and cronies, for all of them hear the same warning shout: “I know enough of your own wrongdoing and abuse. So, if you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!”(*>jur:88§§a-c).

    3. A suit against judges is lost before being filed

    1. Suing in court while expecting judges judging judges and their cronies to be fair and impartial despite their conflicting interest in their individual and class survival is not a reasonable expectation. Stubbornly pursuing its realization only leads to years of futile struggle, enormous waste of money, disappointment, and bitterness.
    2. Consequently, if you are charging “bank fraud, public corruption and judicial misconduct”, especially involving bankruptcy judges, you and your associates have already lost your case…although you have not even filed it yet.
    3. Nevertheless, your question remains: “How do we recover our money?”

    B. The out-of-court strategy to inform and outrage a public intolerant of any form of abuse and preparing to vote

    1. There are several actions that you and your associates can take to expose judges’ misconduct through their abuse of power and to have a chance of recovering your money and being compensated for the harm that the judges have inflicted and continue to inflict upon you. These actions are based on three principles of strategic thinking(>OL2:635, 593¶15, 475§D):
      .
      a. You are in a position of strength when you choose the battlefield.
      .
      b. There is strength in numbers.
      .
      c. A person works hardest when he or she works in her own interest.
      .
    2. In brief, this is how you apply these principles:

    1. Going out of court to battle judges

    1. The courts are the turf of the judges. There they disregard the rules that they do not like and make others up as they go.
    2. By contrast, out-of-court they are most vulnerable because they are required by Canon 2 of their own Code of Conduct ‘to avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety’(*>jur:68fn123a) and his Canon is applied to them by outsiders susceptible to becoming outraged at them.
      .
      a. Supreme Court Associate Justice Abe Fortas was made to appear by Life magazine to have committed improprieties Public outrage was such that he first had to withdraw his name from the nomination to become chief justice, and then had to resign from the Court on May 14, 1969(*>jur:92§d).
      .
      b. Circuit Judge Robert Bork on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit never made it to the Supreme Court because he was seen by senators and the public during his Senate confirmation hearings to have behaved improperly when years before he even was a judge and was only the Solicitor General he participated in the Saturday Night Massacre by firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating the Watergate scandal, after the attorney general and deputy attorney general refused President Nixon’s order to fire Cox.
      .
    3. Hence, it is out of court that you want to expose the misconduct of unaccountable judges who risklessly abuse their power.

    2. Strengthening your association by searching for other victims of judges’ abuse and helping to develop a clearinghouse and a research center

    1. The MeToo! public that can be traced back to the Women’s March and began with more definite demands by asserting its refusal to tolerate sexual abuse anymore has strengthened its numbers by bringing and admitting into its fold other kinds of abusees, whether they have suffered pay inequality, exclusion from the top boardroom positions, police brutality, mishandling on an aircraft, gun violence at school, misuse of their personal information entrusted to or collected by Facebook, discrimination at a Starbuck shop, etc. Its outrage is now swift, visceral, and taken seriously; its shared rallying cry is:

    Enough is enough! We won’t tolerate any form of abuse anymore.

    1. Likewise, you and your associates want to find as many other victims of your judges and their cronies as possible and persuade them to join forces with you. They share your outrage and are passionate about vindicating their rights and being compensated for the abuse that they have suffered.
    2. All of you together will strengthen your ‘lonely whining’ about your judges into a roaring clamor that will give the rest of the public reasonable cause to believe that those judges and their cronies have engaged in misconduct resulting in the parties being abused. So they too will join your association. Your clamor will become a rallying cry that further strengthens your association.
    3. To find those other victims:
      .
      a. search for other parties to lawsuits who have been or are before the same judges as you and who may likewise have cause to believe that those judges abused them. There is a detailed method for identifying those parties(*>OL:274-283, 304-307). Together you are going to detect points of commonality that reveal the most convincing type of evidence: patterns of abuse.
      .
      b. Then you donate to further develop the website of Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which already has more than 24,075 subscribers, not just visitors(>Appendixes). The objective is to turn the website, among other things, into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center where people can search them for patterns of judges’ abuse (see the Business Plan summary at >OL2:560, and its Table of Contents at 563).

    3. Giving journalists and media outlets an interest of their own in investigating your case as a means of exposing a bankruptcy fraud scheme

    1. The stronger the shown patterns of abuse are, the weaker the claim of judges that you and your associates are only “disgruntled losers” and as such dismissible.
    2. The strongest patterns are those that show how through coordination of abuse and wrongdoing the judges and their cronies have formed and are running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(*>jur:§§1-3).
    3. If you and your associates produce reasonable cause to believe that there is such a scheme, you can grow your numbers with an indispensable ally: journalists and media outlets.
    4. If you go to a journalist with another claim like those of millions of parties who lost in court, you are nothing but another whiner.
    5. Instead, do your homework in a professional way and make a persuasive presentation on a pattern of abuse so coordinated and extensive that it reveals a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by the judge(s) in your case, the judges of your court, and even the judges of a judiciary. That is how you and your associates can attract the attention and respect of journalists and media outlets. They will realize what is in it for them if they investigate your story: the personal and professional recognition of a Pulitzer prize and its concomitant commercial benefit.
    6. That is precisely the prize that The New York Times just won for the exposé of Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, among others, of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse; and what earned women with the courage to expose their sexual abusers the coveted recognition of becoming TIME’s Persons of the Year: “The Silence Breakers”.
    7. Those are but two of the many moral and material rewards(*>OL:3§F) in store for the ambitious and principled journalists and media outlets that realize that it is in their interest to investigate your story; and for those victims and whistleblowing judges and clerks(*>jur:106§c) who agree to be interviewed for the record.
    8. This third principle of strategic thinking explains why if you ask a lawyer to help you pro bono, thus offering to pay him nothing, you get what you pay for: No legal help of value, for he who asks for alms only gets pocket change.

    C. The concrete, realistic, and feasible action that you and your associates can take now in your own interest

    1. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Empower yourself by reading the template(>OL2:681) that can be used to persuade judges and clerks to admit to, whistleblow on, or be confidential informants about, unaccountable judges’ and clerks’ riskless abuse and thus become the Champions of Justice(*>OL:201§K) of a public intolerant of any form of abuse.
    2. Continue reading my written presentation of how you can strengthen your position out of court and in the midst of the public with the help of journalists and their media outlets pursuing their personal, professional, and commercial interests(>OL2:688). Go on reading as many as you can of their (blue text references) that provide supporting and additional information.
    3. SHARE this email and the article below with all your associates as well as your friends and family. Whether they are parties to cases or not, they are all affected by judges’ decisions because the latter bear on everybody’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame everybody’s life.
    4. Then, Put your money where your outrage and heart are. DONATE to the work of Judicial Discipline Reform of exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power as the national public prepares to wield its strongest power: the power to vote politicians out of, or not into, office in the primaries and mid-term elections.
      .
      a. It is now when a national public must be informed about judges’ abuse so that the public becomes outraged and demands from politicians that they take a stand on that issue in their political platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting. That is how the national public can assert its status as We the People entitled to hold all their public servants, including judicial public servants, accountable for their duty to comply with the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law; and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.
      .
      b. It is now when you and your associates can become the originating impulse for the formation of a MeToo!-like civic movement –the People’s Sunrise *>OL:201§J that grows to be powerful enough to force the adoption of judicial reform to end the privileged status that judges have arrogated to themselves: Judges Above the Law.

    Donate here

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    (If a link does not open a webpage, copy and paste it into your browser’s web address box, and click ‘enter’.)

    1. Should you and your associates deem that you and others would benefit from my holding on your premises a fee + expenses paid presentation(cf. OL:197§G) or one-day seminar(cf. OL:191, 202; OL2:622, 623) of the strategy laid out here, please let me know. Time is of the essence: the primaries and the campaigning for the mid-term elections have started in which it is in your interest to insert this issue.

    To retain Dr. Cordero’s law consulting, research and writing, and representational services or request that he hold a presentation or seminar for your group, see his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383; >OL2:667).

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


     

    Template for you to persuade your judges and clerks to expose judges’ abuse and become national leaders of a public that shouts, Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore, and turn judges’ abuse into an issue of the mid-term campaigning

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    The letter form of this article,
    which can be printed and mailed to judges and handed out to clerks and others,
    is at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:681

    A. The most propitious public mood to expose judges’ abuse

    1. On October 5, 2017, a reliable precedent was established: Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey published in The New York Times their exposé of Harvey Weinstein’s predatory sexual abuse and its condonation by Hollywood insiders.
      .
    2. No reasonable person could have anticipated the extent of their exposé’s impact here in the U.S., never mind abroad. Their exposé has provoked a change in people’s attitude that is historic and occurring unimaginably fast.
      .
      a. Victims of sexual abuse have found the courage to break their silence.

    b. The rest of the public has become assertive enough to expose or condemn not only sexual abuse that it has witnessed or learned about, but also unequal pay by gender and unequal access to top corporate positions by others than non-minority white males.

    c. Regardless of your position on guns, the fact is that high school students have been motivated to take action against gun violence and even large companies have found the courage to break their special commercial deals with the NRA and its members.

    d. People are also holding Facebook accountable for failing to prevent the misuse of the private information that they entrusted to it.

    1. In one after the other area of public life, people are shouting self-assertively the same rallying cry:

    Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore.

    1. The media has afforded the public the means of making that cry effective: Abusers are being held accountable.
      .
    2. This is a proposal for judges and their clerks to become the Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey regarding judges’ abuse(*>OL:154¶3).

    The materials with supporting and additional information corresponding to the (parenthetical references) in this email are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    Download those volumes for free and read as much as you can of the study because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

    However, conducting professional law research and writing, sharing and posting the study and articles, and running and protecting a website are not free.

    Donate to the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    B. What makes judges abusive: unaccountable power

    1. Judges are not naturally more abusive than the rest of the society of which they are members. But they are entrusted with a force that turns them abusive: They wield the most power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”(*>jur: 27fn28).
      .
    2. Judges’ power is absolute because they are held unaccountable for exercising it by the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed or appointed them(>OL2:610§3).
      .
    3. Also, judges exempt themselves from discipline in line with their implicit or explicit quid pro quo, ‘Today I protect you from this complaint and tomorrow you do likewise for me and my friends’(OL2:548). This is the foundation of their mutually assured impunity.
      .
    4. The system is rigged in favor of judges. So they commit risklessly abuse of power for their convenience and gain and that of their peers, colleagues, and friends.
      .
    5. Worse yet, judges abuse many more people than sexual abusers do: People file more than 50 million new cases in the state and federal courts every year(*>jur:8fn4, 5). Many of the parties to them are abused.
      .
    6. The ranks of those parties are increased by their affected friends and family, workmates, employees, clients, suppliers, neighbors, etc.
      .
    7. All of them form a huge group: The dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system. Many are outraged due to the abuse suffered or witnessed; most are passionate about vindicating their rights and being compensated; all are potential members of a civic movement to expose their abusive judges.
      .
    8. The Dissatisfied are exposers’ constituency, waiting for courageous judges and journalists to take the lead in such exposure and thereby utter the rallying cry that makes them national Champions of Justice.

    C. Judicial ‘authority’ that supports the exposure of judges

    1. Judges willing to expose judges can ‘quote as authority’ for their exposure important current events relating to abuse:
      ,
      a. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, a 35-year veteran of the Federal Judiciary, for investigation for sexual abuse to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, thus causing him to resign in December 2017. In his 2017 Annual Report on the Federal Judiciary, he recognized the existence of abuse in that Judiciary and announced the formation of a study group(OL2:645).

    b. Similarly, New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore admitted to deficiencies in “the level of justice services the people of New York have a right to expect and deserve” when she launched her Excellence Initiative and asked people to submit to her their complaints(OL2:607).

    c. In addition, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed in his January 2018 budget speech to the legislature ‘to have the state comptroller audit the judiciary to make sure that judges perform a full day’s work’ rather than close their courts after lunch. But the judiciary pushed back and forced him to cave in and withdraw his proposal.

    1. What other public servants or private employees dare not ‘be at work at least eight hours a day’? Politicians, the ones who put judges on the bench and do not want to establish a requirement against self-interest. Would you trust a judge to be conscientious enough to read your brief, research the law, and apply it to your case although he or she was not responsible enough to put in the normal hours for which he or she got paid? If not, to whom do you complain, to politicians or to the judge’s peers and colleagues? You complain to the media as proposed. Read on.
      .
      D. “Justice services” that are deficient and cause injury in fact
      .
    2. “The math of perfunctoriness and abuse”(OL2:608§A) analyzes official statistics and shows that even the preeminent NY justices whose jurisdiction includes Wall Street, the World Trade Center, the headquarters of national companies, and the law firms that cater to them, do not have the time, need, or incentive to even read the vast majority of appeal and motion papers filed in their court. The justices have those papers dumped out of their workload by clerks filling out dumping forms(id.) to pro forma affirm lower court judges’ decisions and deny motions. Thereby the status quo is preserved by clerks not entitled to alter it and judges unwilling to bother with cases other than the few that appeal to them.
      .
    3. The judges intentionally breach the illusory contract for “justice services” formed by parties paying filing fees for services that judges offer though knowing they will not be rendered.
      .
    4. Judiciaries are pervaded by secrecy: Judges hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never hold press conferences(jur:27§e). This allows them to coordinate their abuse. Would we have government by the rule of law if the members of Congress and the Executive appeared at hearings without having read any papers –as judges do at oral argument– and then retired to smoking rooms to cut deals among themselves?
      .
    5. For their own gain and their cronies’(jur:32§2), judges abuse the information that they receive, plotting the most harmful coordinated abuse, schemes, e.g., the bankruptcy fraud scheme(OL2:614, jur:65§§1-3), driven by the most corruptive force, money! In 2010, federal judges alone allocated over $373 billion in creditors v. debtors controversies(jur:27§2). Judges conceal assets(jur:65fn107a,c) and thereafter commit money laundering(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii; jur:105fn213).
      .
    6. Judges abuse also by proxy, that is, through the court clerks in the clerk of court’s office –where parties file papers in their cases- and the law clerks in the chambers of the judges for whom they research, write, and perform administrative work. All clerks are subject to judges’ supervision and control(OL2:687). Although clerks may have signed up to be Workers of Justice, judges reduce them to executioners of their abuse, either through the threat of arbitrary removal without recourse(jur:30§1) or by corruptively dangling before them a letter of recommendation, which can make or break their job prospects at the end of their clerkships(OL2:645§B).

    E. The courage needed to expose and a plan for courageous exposing

    1. Judges need a lot of courage to expose these and other forms of individual and collective judicial abuse and hold their peers and friends accountable. They too may have participated in, or condoned, such abuse. Their conduct may inhibit them from speaking up or be used to extort them into silence.
      .
    2. Self-interest in the avoidance of retribution and the gain of benefits caused insiders to allow Harvey Weinstein and other sexual abusers to abuse people for decades. As a result, many have been traumatized by what they suffered or by the guilt about what they should have done to keep others from suffering but failed to do.
      .
    3. Doing the right thing is most frequently fraught with personal sacrifice. That is why it can make history(OL2:607¶3) and earn the highest rewards of public recognition.
      .
    4. Judges as well as their law clerks and court clerks can do the right thing by exposing judicial unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse either openly or confidentially by providing inside information as Deep Throats(jur:106§c) to an exposer and recommending his articles and joint investigation(OL2:671, 672) to media outlets(PBS 612, 676; The New Yorker 620; The Washington Post 621; The Atlantic 630); Vanity Fair 683; Life 688) and professional schools(641, 644). To that end, they can:

    a. send their I accuse!(jur:98§2) denunciation to Chief Judge DiFiore or the Conference of Chief Justices(OL2:613) and simultaneously present it at a press conference to call for the unprecedented: the conduct by the media of public hearings as an independent 3rd party working in its commercial and the public interest. The media can think strategically to recruit a humiliated Gov. Cuomo as its open ally or Deep Throat informant because ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’(OL2:635, 593¶¶15-16);

    b. invite the media to sponsor a tour of presentations(OL:197§G) at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology (IT) schools, bar and media associations, law firms, etc., to organize the first and national multimedia and multidisciplinary conference(jur:97§D) on this issue; and hire business administration and digital forensic firms to audit judges’ decisions for quality and patterns of abuse(OL:274), and examine the evidence of interception of communications among their critics(OL2:633§D) so as to

    c. implement the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy for exposing judges’ abuse and cause the national public to insert the issue into the mid-term campaigning(OL2:583§D).

    1. To discuss how you and I can implement this proposal as openly or discreetly as you wish, I respectfully request that you call(OL2:612¶1b) me to arrange a meeting in person or over the Internet.

    Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
    can resonate throughout the country:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

    Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
    to support its work of
    exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers
    here



    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Subscribe for free to the articles on this website thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,.

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    To retain Dr. Cordero’s
    law consulting, research and writing, and representational services,
    read his model letter of engagement at *>OL:383.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    NOTE: Given the interception of Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    Proposal to PBS Newshour to investigate unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, which harms scores of millions of men and women, more than sexual abuse

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoric@yahoo.com

    In support of this proposal to PBS Newshour to investigate unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, you can forward this email to newsthirteen@thirteen.org, pressroom@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, amiller@newshour.org, frontline@pbs.org, viewer@rmpbs.org, member@rmpbs.org.

    Mr. William Brangham
    Correspondent
    PBS Newshour
    2700 South Quincy St. #250
    Arlington, VA 22206

    Dear Mr. Brangham,

    I watched with interest your reporting on widespread sexual misconduct against women in the Forest Service that goes all the way to the top of that agency. It was only because of the pressure generated by the first installment of your report that just before you went on the air with your second one the Forest Service issued a statement admitting to the problem. [On March 8, the Forest Service Director resigned.]

    This is a proposal for you to use the pressure of your reporting to bring to national attention a problem that harms scores of millions(>OL2:607¶2) of people far more deeply: judges’ abuse of their power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives(>OL2:672¶2). Yet, judges are taboo to the media.

    You can be the first to break the taboo by investigating institutionalized abuse of power in the Federal Judiciary involving, not subjective claims of excess of judicial discretion, but rather objective concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money.

    Judges systematically conceal assets by filing with reviewing judges false and misleading annual mandatory financial disclosure reports(*>jur:105fn213). Neither filers nor reviewers are subject to independent oversight(jur:21§1).

    Neither are the key agents of assets to be concealed: bankruptcy judges(jur:35§3). They dispose every year of hundreds of billions of dollars in creditor-debtor controversies -$373 billion in 2010(jur:27§2)-. Their unaccountability has led to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614). It is run by bankruptcy judges with the circuit judges who appoint them for renewable 14-year terms and who together with district judges can remove them(*>jur:43fn61a).

    Running the bankruptcy fraud scheme is facilitated by bankrupts’ unaffordability of lawyers and consequent appearance pro se. Most pro ses are abused due to their ignorance of the law. Their cases are weighted as 1/3 of a case, so judges are authorized and expected to dedicate to them only 1/3 of the care and time that they do the average case(OL2:455§§B, D).

    The investigation of this scheme(cf. >OL2:609¶2) is focused by the leads incriminating Justice Sotomayor in it(jur:65fn107a,c; OL2:672¶4), her cover-up by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who shepherded her through the Senate confirmation process, and the connivance of her nominator, President Obama(jur:77§§5-6).

    The investigation findings will outrage the public more than sexual abuse because while there has been moral ambivalence about, and secular toleration of, sexual abuse, concealing assets is a crime(*>OL:5fn10) and unequivocally condemned. Judges who disrespect the law enough to commit it also abuse their clerks and parties.

    So, you said that Forest Service employees have endured the abuse because of their sense of mission, but are speaking out against their abusers as a result of the MeToo! movement having launched a cultural moment that does not suffer abuse in silence. They are calling your tipline.

    Law and court clerks entered the judiciary to pursue a high mission: Workers of Justice; many can be assumed to be disgusted(>OL2:645) by having been reduced(jur:30§1) to executioners of judges’ abuse(OL2:608§A).

    After you conduct the proposed investigation and report on it, they will call a tipline on judges’ abuse as will the public: My website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, where I post my articles exposing judges’ abuse, has over 23,929 subscribers and even more visitors.

    By joining forces(>OL2:611§B), we can attain a realistic objective:

    1. to insert judges’ abuse in the mid-term campaigning as the issue most representative of our cultural moment: ‘Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore’; and
    2. organize the unprecedented: public hearings on judges’ abuse held by the media(OL2:675¶15).

    I respectfully ask that you call(>OL2:612¶1b) me to discuss a joint investigation of judges’ abuse.

    Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
    can resonate throughout the country:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

    Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
    to support its work of
    exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers



    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

     

    NOTE: Given the interception of Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    Launching a GoFundMe campaign to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse so that judges, as judicial public servants, can be held accountable by the masters of all public servants in “government of, by, and for the people”: We the People

    Not yet another mere request for a donation,
    but rather a thoughtful explanation of
    how you and your friends and family will benefit from it
    and how you will benefit the People
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    A. Your donation will benefit you by helping to expose how unaccountable judges abuse you and everybody else

    1. Abuse is a word that we hear very often these days in the context of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and other VIP sexual abusers, and all those who have covered up for them. However, there is a positive ring to what we hear: Those abused no longer suffer in silence, for they have found the strength for coming out and joining forces to expose their abusers. Far more people are abused by judges, including you even if you have not appeared before a judge.
    2. This is a fundraising campaign in the public interest to expose how judges abuse for their own gain or convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. They do so because there are unaccountable and can get away with it. Accordingly, exposing their abuse will benefit you, your friends and family, and the rest of us: We the People.
    3. More than 50 million cases are filed every year in the state and federal courts. There are at least two parties to each case. That number does not begin to count the scores of millions of cases that are pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully; or all the millions of people who like you may be the parties’ friends and family, employees, clients, neighbors, suppliers, consumers, patrons, etc.
    4. Even if you are not a party to a case, judges’ decisions affect you, as shown by their decisions on abortion, same sex marriage, healthcare, gun ownership, voting rights, political campaign contributions, electoral districting, class actions, etc.
    5. The vast extent of their power is illustrated by a fact that is indisputable regardless of what you are in favor or against: A single federal judge suspended nationwide a travel ban order of the President of the United States, who as a candidate ran on the promise of issuing it and who was elected by more than 62.5 million voters; and three federal circuit judges confirmed that suspension nationwide.

      1. Judges hold themselves unaccountable: we are at their mercy

    6. The fact is that every dispute in our country ends up in front of judges. They are the ones who wield the real, ultimate power in the U.S. Yet they do not end up in front of anybody to be held accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their malpractice. Far from it, judges hold themselves unaccountable:
      .
      a. Federal judges dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them. How impotent do you feel knowing from the outset that complaining against a judge is useless? They have abused their power to put themselves beyond your reach:
      .
      b. In the last 229 years since the creation in 1789 of the Federal Judiciary, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! This is significant given that on September 30, 2015, there were 2,293 judicial officers on the federal bench.
      .
      c. Judges abused their power to make for their own benefit the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Not only does it lack any basis in the Constitution, but is also contrary to its Article 2, Section 4, which sets forth the principle that all public servants are accountable.
      .
    7. If you appeal from a decision of a trial judge, and the appellate judges, who are his or her former peers, colleagues, and friends, accept your appeal at all, and if they find that the trial judge made a mistake, you are not compensated in any way. If the case is remanded for a new trial, tough luck! You pay again for it from your own pocket.
    8. By contrast, judges hold accountable and liable doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, priest and their churches, police officers and their departments, corporate officers and their companies, sexual abusers and their employers, etc. Judges do not hold themselves equal to the rest of us: They have turned themselves into Judges Above the Law.
    9. Still worse, judges do not hold you equal to parties who are represented by lawyers. If you cannot afford a lawyer and must appear in court for yourself, that is, pro se, the moment you check the box “pro se” in the Case Information Sheet of a federal court, your case is officially counted as a third of a case, no matter the nature or gravity of your case.
    10. As a result, the judges are entitled and expected to give your case a third of the normal attention and time, but you still have to pay the full case filing fee and comply with all the burdensome briefing requirements. That is how circuit judges treat more than 50% of all appeals to the federal circuit courts, which are filed by pro ses.
    11. What is more, federal circuit judges dispose of 93% of all appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., the pretext of “lack of jurisdiction”], unsigned, unpublished, by consolidation, or without comment”.
      .
      a. In addition, those judges stamp the majority of their decisions “not precedential”. Thereby they dispose of your appeal however they want without regard for the law or past or future cases.
      .
      b. These judges know that their decisions are in practice unappealable to the Supreme Court, which only chooses 1 in every 89 petitions for review and hardly ever a petition by a pro se. So you are stuck with the circuit judges’ reasonless, meaningless decision, borne of arbitrariness and intended to cheat you out of your day in court.
      .
      c. You may not be treated equal to the 7% of parties whose appeals are disposed of in decisions with an opinion, but again you had to pay the same filing fees and meet the same burdensome briefing requirements.
      .
      d. Do you consider this “Equal Justice Under Law”?

      2. Politicians hold judges unaccountable to avoid their retaliation: they look after themselves, not you

    12. Do not even think of asking your representative in Congress or state legislature to help you expose an abusive or wrongdoing judge: Politicians are the very ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed or appointed them to the bench. They cannot turn around to indict ‘their men and women on the bench’ without indicting their own vetting of them and judgment of character, and being suspected of complicity with the company that they keep.
    13. Also, judges have the power to retaliate against politicians by suspending their executive orders, holding their laws and even their legislative agenda unconstitutional, and making “enemy” politicians pay a heavy price when they appear in court. Politicians hear judges’ warning loud and clear: “Don’t you ever mess with us!
    14. Given such connivance and retaliatory threat, politicians condone the abuse and wrongdoing of “their judges”.
    15. This explains how judges have institutionalized abuse and wrongdoing as their means of doing business from the safe haven of their judiciaries.
    16. Since judges close ranks to protect their own from any complaint, and politicians look after themselves to survive, what chances do you stand of forcing a judge to afford you the due process and equal protection of the law that you are entitled to and paid for? You either fend for yourself or join forces with the exposers of judges’ abuse.

      B. The campaign’s foundation: already available for your benefit

    17. The more you learn about unaccountable judges and their riskless abuse of We the People, the more you will be outraged.
    18. But you will also be empowered, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. With that knowledge, you will know what to expect from, and how to deal with, judges; and why you should join forces with Judicial Discipline Reform and donate to its effort to expose judges’ abuse.
    19. You can start gaining that knowledge now by reading the study dealing with judges and their judiciaries that provides this GoFundMe campaign with an already existing, verifiable, and reliable foundation. The product of professional law research and writing, the study consists of more than 1,150 pages and is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    1. To learn more about the statistics presented above and check their official sources, go to >OL2:645, 608, 546. .

       C. How the funds will be used for your and the People’s benefit

    2. The purpose of the funds is to implement the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to expose judges’ abuse. It aims inform the public about judges’ abuse and so to outrage the public at judges as to stir it up to:a. make the issue of judges’ abuse a decisive one of the fast approaching mid-term campaigning,b. force politicians to take a stand on judges’ abuse in their platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting; andc. cause the holding of nationally and statewide televised public hearings on judges’ abuse, which will render unavoidable judicial reform that today appears inconceivable.
    3. To implement that strategy, there is a full program(>OL2:648, 665) of concrete, realistic, and feasible means, including:
      .
      a. the continued research and writing of articles exposing judges’ abuse and promoting the joining of forces of all exposers of abusers of any kind(OL2:648);
      .
      b. their distribution through mass emailing, mailing, and social media campaigns;
      .
      c. the development of alliances with other exposers of abusers, such as the MeToo!(OL2:622, 639), Time’s Up, and Women’s March(OL2:529, 530) movements;
      .
      d. presentations(OL2:623) to journalists(OL2:612, 620,621, 630); at law(OL2:641) journalism(OL2:644), business, and Information Technology schools; and professional associations(OL:197§G), such as bar associations, think tanks, and public defender entities;
      .
      e. the enhancement of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has already attracted 23,817 subscribers, to turn it into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges loaded by, and a research center for, the public;
      .
      f. the formation of a coalition of talkshow hosts to expose judges’ abuse(*>jur:2fn1; >OL2: 571¶23d);
      .
      g. the making of the documentary Black Robed Predators(jur:85; OL2:464) on judges’ abuse;
      .
      h. the hiring of Information Technology and other experts to investigate the existing reasonable cause to believe that judges are intercepting the email, mail, and telephone communications among the exposers of their abuse and interfering with their criticism reaching the rest of the public(OL2:582§C, 583¶3, 581).

    1) A showing of the judges’ contents-targeted interception in their personal, wrongful interest of covering up their abuse will expose judges as the abusers of the most cherished rights of the People: those guaranteed by the First Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, [and] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:22fn12b).

    2) The outrage will be so intense as to provoke a constitutional and transformative crisis: abusive judges and condoning politicians against the People. It will support the emergence of a civic movement that demands a new People-government relation: the People’s Sunrise(*>jur:164§9; *>OL:201§J); etc.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5).and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf.

    D. Funds needed for timely action to influence the primaries

    1. For thousands of years, women were manhandled: abusive men handled them as objects for their sexual gratification and exhibition of their power. That situation has changed at a speed that no reasonable person would have imagined last October 5, when the article on Harvey Weinstein by Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey was published in The New York Times.
    2. That is the current, well-known, and reliable precedent for a repeatable event: an exposure(cf. ¶22 above) that so outrages scores of millions of abused parties to cases, in particular, and voters, in general, that they shout self-assertively throughout the primaries and the mid-term election campaigning and thereafter:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

    1. Time is of the essence. So is the generous donation of yourself and your friends and family to expose those who abuse you, them, and the rest of We the People, and do so most harmfully: Judges Above the Law. To that end, you may go to the GoFundMe campaign through the following link, which you may share with others to enable them to donate too:

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    or you may donate here through this button: 

    Subscribe to this website
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    thus

    > + New or Users >Add New

    1. I offer to make a paid presentation in person or at a video conference on exposing abusive judges and impacting their conniving enablers, the politicians in office or running for it in the 2018 elections.
    2. So I thank you in advance for your donation for your own and the People’s benefit; and look forward to hearing from you.
    • Sincerely,
    • Richard Cordero, Esq.
      Judicial Discipline Reform
      New York City
      http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
      Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com,

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b


    A bid for exposers of judges’ abuse to join forces with other exposers of abusers of any kind, such as the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements, and its support by the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy and means of implementation in preparation for the 2018 mid-term campaigning

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    A. The time has come for the exposers of sexual abusers and the exposers of unaccountable abusive judges to join forces

    1. This is the most propitious time to expose abusers in government and everywhere else because:
      .
      a. the public is ever more dissatisfied with a government that can get hardly anything done and has broken down to the point of provoking the shutdown; and
      .
      b. the exposure of VIP Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators of his ilk has led to the transformation of silent abusees into a self-assertive public, whose MeToo! attitude (†>OL2:611§B) is and must be extended(OL2:622) to become this:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take anybody’s abuse, including judges’, anymore.

    * † The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical blue references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting* †

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    † Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    1. The public, considered as We the People, is the only source of political power in “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172). Thanks to that status and the huge number of their members, the People constitute the only entity powerful enough to expose and hold accountable the most firmly established component of the Establishment: the mighty, life-tenured judges of the Federal Judiciary, a single member of which can suspend nationwide the Muslim travel ban of the President, who campaigned on issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million voters.
    2. Since federal judges are the models for their state counterparts, if the former are exposed and held accountable, the trend will develop to do the same with regard to the latter.

    3. Judges do not hold each other accountable when they receive complaints about one of their own and sit as judges judging judges(†>OL2:609§1). Instead, they dismiss all complaints against them to self-exempt from discipline(OL2:646¶8; 609§1).

    4. Appellate judges are not forced by a mere brief on appeal to correct the abuse of power of the judge below appealed from. As shown in “The math of perfunctoriness and wrongdoing”(OL2:608§A), appellate judges do not even read the vast majority of those briefs.

    5. Politicians maintain a conniving relation with the individuals that they recommended, endorsed, nominated and confirmed or appointed to judgeships and thereafter consider as ‘their men and women on the bench’(OL2:610§3) so that they will not hold them accountable.

    6. So, judges abuse their power(OL2:453, 608§A; *>jur:5§3) to do whatever they want because they are held by themselves and politicians unaccountable and can get away with it, their duty to abide by the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law notwithstanding(OL2:641¶2).

    B. The out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to expose judges’ abuse and its joint implementation with other exposers of abusers

    1. As a result of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse, pursuing in court a local, personal case(†>OL2:578) in an effort to obtain ‘justice in accordance with the rule of law’ is an exercise in futility.

    2. This fact warrants the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:639) for exposing judges’ abuse. It calls for informing the public about judges’ abuse of their power and thereby provoking such outrage at judges that the public unites to do what it is entitled to do as We the People: assert their status as the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse, and adopt reformative measures to prevent judges’ abuse and detect and punish abusive judges.

    3. We, exposers of judges’ abuse, can implement this strategy by joining forces with the exposers of those who engage in sexual and any other kind of abuse, e.g., pay discrimination and exclusion from corporate leadership positions, such as the MeToo!(OL2:635), Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements(OL2:513, 515).

    4. Together we can advance what constitutes our common cause: to expose all kinds of abusers, hold them accountable, make them compensate their victims, and adopt meaningful anti-abuse reforms under the control of We the People.
      It is in other exposers’ interest that we all join forces because judges’ abuse harms more(†>OL2:607¶2) people, i.e., the parties before them as well as the rest of the public due to their decisions’ scope of application, even national, and precedential effect; and because their harm is more severe since they wield power to dispose of people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

    5. With the support of more abusees, we can develop more cost-effectively the civil courage, and journalistic, legal, and legislative means for them to expose their abusers and hold them accountable.

    6. We can become the collective generators of a transformative and permanent product: a culture of intolerance of abusers. It is in that culture that we can make progress toward realizing the ideal of “Equal Justice Under Law” and attaining the goals of equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal access to “the Pursuit of Happiness”. We can enhance our respective public standing as advocates of the common good of the largest and most powerful constituency: We the People.

    C. Concrete, realistic, and feasible means of implementing the strategy

    1. Campaign to inform the public about judges’ abuse and make it an issue of national discussion

    1. The distribution of information about judges’ abuse(cf. OL2:608§A) can be carried on through:

    a. mass emailing, mailing, and social media campaigns;

    b. presentations(†>OL2:623) to journalists(OL2:612, 620,621, 630); at law(OL2:641) journalism(OL2:644), business, and Information Technology schools; and professional associations(OL:197§G), such as bar associations, think tanks, and public defender entities; and

    c. alliances with other exposers of abusers, such as the MeToo! (OL2:622, 639), Time’s Up, and Women’s March(OL2:529, 530) movements.

    1.  QUESTION: How can you, whether directly or indirectly, put us in touch with the top officers of these movements, schools, and associations with a view to my making a presentation to them on why it is in their interest that we join forces to expose abuse of any kind committed by anybody against any member of We the People?

    2. Insert the issue of judges’ abuse in the campaigns for the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections

    1. An informed and outraged public can force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to make an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation(†>OL2:611§B) of judges’ abuse. They must make it a centerpiece of their platforms and repeat it at their rallies and townhall meetings.

    3. A Let’s hear it call for public hearings on judges’ abuse

    1. Likewise, an informed and outraged public can demand public hearings where people can testify about their experience of abuse by judges. Deponents’ collective testimony will make it possible to draw a detailed and complete picture of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse(>OL:154 ¶3). This picture will make it possible to identify the most confirmable, reliable, and persuasive kind of evidence: patterns, that is, patterns of abuse, not dismissable as the abuse of a rogue judge and capable of revealing the coordinated and institutionalized nature of judges’ abuse(>jur:49§4).
    2. The hearings are the indispensable first step to holding judges accountable through substantive means based on ‘dots’ of abuse connected into patterns by the public rather than pro forma means(†>OL2:6473 >28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *>jur:21§1) intended to protect politicians-judges’ conniving relation(OL2:610§3). The general picture with its specific patterns of abuse will outrage the People so deeply that reformative means whose adoption seems inconceivable today will become inevitable(jur:158§§6-8). Hence the superiority of public hearings over private comments(OL2:607¶1).

    3. Before the background of that picture and the foundation of those patterns have been established, there must be no discussion of how to reform judges’ status, powers, and abuse-enabling secrecy(*>jur:27§e). A premature discussion can be intended only to stress the obstacles to judicial reform and evade the outrage that the public hearings will provoke and that will push through the reform.

    1) Public hearings conducted first by the media and then by lawmakers

    1. The public can demand that the hearings be conducted for the first time ever by the media, investigative journalists, and news anchors in their commercial, career, and public interest (†>OL2:612, 613). This can be the means of forging an equally unprecedented alliance between the media and the People, and avoiding the manipulation of the hearings by politicians.

    2. Indeed, politicians defend foremost their conniving relation(OL2:610§3) with ‘their judges’ and their privileges in the Establishment. However, the public can require that politicians confirm their I accuse! denunciation of judges’ abuse with an equally repeated Let’s hear it call for nationally and statewide televised public hearings, similar to those held by the Senate Watergate Committee, as the fact-finding act that sets in motion the unstoppable bandwagon to reformative legislation.

    4. Form a coalition of talkshow hosts

    1. Exposers of abusers can join forces to promote the formation a coalition of talkshow hosts(†>OL2: 571¶23d) who invite their audience to share their experience of abuse by judges and other abusers. Hosts can become Champions of Justice and their coalition a powerhouse of American politics.

    5. Investigate the interception of the communications of critics of judges

    1. Independent and reputable Information Technology experts can be hired to examine the evidence of interception of the communications of critics of judges(†>OL2:633§D, 583§3, 526¶56). This is what CBS and Then-CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson did, who is now suing the Department of Justice for $35 million on a charge of having hacked her work and home computers(OL2:633§D).

    2. Hardly any other finding of the public hearings and the proposed investigations (next) of judges’ abuse can provoke more widespread and intense public outrage than that those with the most to lose from being exposed, judges, have abused their vast computer network and expertise, and power to deprive their critics of their 1st Amendment rights to “freedom of speech, of the press, [and] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:2212b).

    6. Proposed journalistic investigations

    1. Exposers of abusers can entice journalists and journalism students to investigate judges’ conduct at judicial meetings and seminars, and reconstruct their conversations near ‘little people’ that are invisible to them, such as drivers, frontdesk staff, waiters and waitresses, and maids(†>OL2:646§D). They can follow the leads(>OL:194§E) of two unique national stories(OL2:598) apt to reveal judges’ money grabbing(OL2:614), concealment(>jur:65fn107a,c), and laundering(jur:105fn213).

    7. Make a documentary on judges’ abuse

    1. The documentary Black Robed Predators(*>jur:85; †>OL2:464) on judges’ abuse can be of such high quality and informative value, and can so deeply outrage the public as to stir it up into the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections; and force politicians to issue their I accuse! denunciation of judges’ abuse and make their Let’s hear it call for public hearings thereon.(OL2:536, 537).

    2. On my capacity to write an informative, entertaining, and commercially viable script, see:

    a. How Sec. Clinton stole the show at the charity gala, causing Mr. Trump to concede that “She’s such a naspy, naspy woman”, and the strategy that she devised to turn “naspy” into the theme that would win her the election(OL2:491)

    b. Trump and the Four Chicks (starring the four co-chairs of the Women’s March(OL2:530)

    c. Behind the Black Robe Wall(*>cw:58)

    d. Punting on the Digital River(*>cw:32)

    e. the synopses of eight completed movie scripts and novels(*>cw:3)

    8. Analysis of the official statistics of the courts

    1. The credibility of my study of judges and their judiciaries is based on my original and meticulous analysis of official statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(>jur:10-14; 21§§1-3; †>OL2:453, 546, 548); and state courts(†>OL2:608§A).
    2. Exposers of abusers can encourage and guide similar studies containing statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis(>jur:131§§b, c) to be undertaken, in general, by the public, and, in particular, by professors(>dcc:5) and students(>OL:115) at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools(OL:60); lawyers and journalists(OL:194§E); developers of software for lawyers(>OL:42; †>OL2:588); pro ses(OL:274, 280, 304), and others.

    9. Development of a clearinghouse for complaints about judges, and a center for research and coordination and funding of litigation thereon

    1. This website –http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org(†>OL2:575)- can be developed into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges to be uploaded and retrieved by complainants and others.

    2. Search engines and other digital applications can be developed for anybody, but especially people conducting analytical studies and those with cases before the same judge, to detect points of commonalities that reveal patterns of abuse and bias(supra §8).

    32. Patterns of judges’ abuse can give rise to a flood of motions for recusal, disqualification, reversal, etc., that can throw judiciaries into turmoil and highlight their abuse as an electoral issue.

    1. The development of the website and the center are the precursors of the creation of the for-profit(*>jur:119§1) Institute for Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy(jur:131§5).

    10. Fundraising to implement the strategy to expose judges’ abuse

    1. Nothing that is worth doing can be done without resources, whether they be manpower, a computer network, a physical office, utilities, supplies, postage, or the most versatile of all of them, namely, money. That requires raising funds through donations, bankrolling initiatives(†>OL2:528), and capital investment(OL2:560, 577).
  • QUESTION: Can you make a donation? It should not fall to one person the tasks of conducting professional-grade law research and writing –which is an intellectually exhausting and time-consuming effort engaged in at the expense of a gainful activity-, and distributing by email and mail the articles so produced while combatting judges’ interception of such communications, and in addition be the one to bear alone the financial burden of it all.

  • Critics of judges need to put their money where their mouth is. While whining about judges is free, exposing their abuse through strategic thinking(†>OL2:635, 593¶15; *>jur:xliv§C) and implementation is not. Far from it, exposing powerful judges’ abuse, just as exposing VIP sexual predators, is quite expensive.
    So is doing what has never been done in history: enabling the People to assert their right to hold their judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate their victims.

  • The thoughtful nature of this email as well as of the rest of the study*† with its more than 1,150 pages is evidence of Dr. Cordero’s capacity and determination to apply your donation conscientiously to advance our common cause.

  • Donate through this button

    subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    > + New or Users >Add New

    D. You too need to take action now, before the beginning of the mid-term campaigning, to advance our common cause

    1.  Each of us has to take action now: Time is of the essence to implement the above strategy through the described means in order to take advantage of the opportunity that the mid-term elections will give us to advance our common cause of exposing abusers of any kind and holding them accountable and liable to compensate their victims.
    2. The bustling environment of election campaigning will impart impulse to the means that we, exposers of judges’ abuse, want as vehicles for advancing our cause of judicial accountability and reform:

    a. the formation of a Tea Party-like single issue movement(*>jur:164§9) that asserts the People’s right to hold all public servants, not only judges, accountable for rendering the services that they were hired to provide to and on behalf of their masters; and liable for their dereliction of duty and abuse of power: the People’s Sunrise(OL:201§J); and to do so

    b. the convocation by Congress of the constitutional convention that since April 2014, 34 states, i.e., the 2/3 of all of them required under Article V of the Constitution, have petitioned it to convoke. The convention is necessary to replace the dysfunctional and entrenched two-party system with a new form of People-government relation. A new constitution is necessary to address the many topics that did not exist in 1789(OL2:516¶8); and enable the People to hold Judges Above the Law from the safe haven of their judiciaries down to the People’s level where The Law is Equal for All.

    E. An offer to make a paid presentation on the joint exposure of all abusers

    1. The convention is the vehicle that will bring all exposers of abusers forward if we climb on, and steer, it jointly. But we need not wait until then to work together. In fact, a lot of preparation and practice are needed in order to harmonize interests and resolve conflicts(†>OL2:593¶¶15-16), earn each other’s trust, and develop the means and habit of cooperation.
    2. Thus, I offer to make a presentation on advancing jointly our common cause to you and t your group. It must be a paid presentation, for if you do not have some skin in the game, this aphorism applies:

    What is received for free
    [such as the two volumes of my study of judges and their judiciaries* †, my articles, and access to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org] and can be dropped at no expense, is not appreciated

    and I am left alone on the sidewalk holding the bag of uncompensated painstaking effort, the presentation materials, and all the expense bills. It is not fair to make me run that risk or to require that I keep giving without receiving anything in exchange. To produce and advertise the presentation you may share this article widely.

    Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    I encourage you to donate to the effort to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. One of the intended uses of donated funds is the development of the website at http://www. Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and searched by anybody for commonalities revealing patterns of all types of abuse(*>OL:274; †>OL2:592, 563).


    ***********************************

    U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement “I am sure that the overwhelming number of judges have no tolerance for harassment” is knowingly misleading and contradicted by official statistics showing that he and his fellow judges cover-up all forms of their abuse

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    You, the Reader,
    are encouraged to share this article as widely as possible,
    especially with all those people and entities,
    such as the officers and members
    of the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements,
    who strive to expose abusers of any kind and
    hold them accountable and
    liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

    Share and post it in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to this website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    You are also encouraged
    to donate through the button below
    to the effort to enhance this website
    as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges
    to be uploaded and researched by anybody
    in search for points of commonalities that reveal
    one of the most persuasive types of evidence of abuse:
    patterns of abuse.

     

    A. The circumstances forcing the Chief Justice to cease tolerating harassment

    1. Last December 18, former 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski unexpectedly announced that he was resigning with immediate effect rather than defend against the numerous sexual harassment accusations that had been brought against him.
    1. His resignation was shocking because he had been on the bench for 35 years. Despite the vast number of IOUs that he must have collected during his above-average long career, he could not cause the accusations to be dismissed by his peers or prevent their referral to the 2nd Circuit for investigation by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
    2. On the contrary, Chief Justice Roberts announced on December 31, in his 2017 Report on the Federal Judiciary[1] the formation of a working group to review the handling of sexual harassment complaints. Therein he wrote “I have great confidence in the men and women who comprise our judiciary. I am sure that the overwhelming number have no tolerance for harassment”.

    [1]  http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/2017yearend_report_Chief_Justice.pdf

    1. Chief Justice Roberts made that statement only after some 700 letters of complaint[2] that he had received from former and current clerks made his silence risky in the wake of the exposure by the media of the accusations by fewer than 70 women of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein; their overcoming of their fear of his retaliatory career enders and intimidatory practices; and the exposure of other VIPs as sexual predators. The clerks’ fear of retaliation and lack of recourse in the Judiciary against judges’ abuse could no longer ensure their silence given a receptive media and MeToo! public.

    [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-says-courts-will-examine-protections-against-sexual-harassment/2017/12/31/94a55d00-ee40-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.9e953ba213a9

    B. Means of abuse: confidentiality agreements and retaliatory end-of-clerkship letters

    1. Judges, whether federal or state, have means of suppressing any complaint about their abuse of any kind and of anybody: The first means is the confidential agreement that judges require clerks to sign before clerking for them.
    2. Clerks are people who just graduated from law school, most are young, and clerk for a judge for one year before getting their first regular law job. They are saddled with a huge law school debt. They are vulnerable financially.

    3. It is prestigious to clerk for a judge because they can choose the best candidate –a Supreme Court justice hires three– among those who apply.

    4. So judges pay clerks only a modest salary. The complement comes in the form of a glowing letter of recommendation at the end of the clerkship. It can earn a clerk a signing up bonus from her or his new employer worth $100,000s -a clerk to a justice commands a $250,000 bonus- because the clerk has gained precious knowledge of the workings of, and contacts in, a court, the decision maker.

    5. A ‘poor’ letter is devastating, branding the clerk as a persona non grata in that court, or incompetent as a lawyer. That is what a clerk gets if he or she dare complain about any abuse by the judge.

    6. If the clerk finds a job, its salary establishes the floor for future salaries.

    7. If a clerk complains in a way that her or his hiring judge alleges to be in breach of the confidentiality agreement, the judge can bring suit, most likely under seal, before the judge’s peers. They decide any motion by the clerk for their own recusal. They have similar agreements with their clerks and the same interest in having them enforced to their benefit. If a judge goes against another judge, he or she becomes a treasonous, unreliable pariah among all of them.

    8. It follows that clerks stand no chance of winning against a judge.

    9. The above illustrates how to understand and influence the workings of a group of people by applying dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests as the foundation for strategic thinking(>OL2:593¶¶15-16).

    † * The materials corresponding to the parenthetical (blue text references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393 

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    C. Official knowledge of the Federal Judiciary’s statistics on systematic dismissal by judges of complaints against them

    1. Chief Justice Roberts, as a former law student, law clerk to Judge Friendly and Justice Rehnquist, and appellate judge, and as the current chief justice who hires clerks, cannot pretend not to have known for decades how judges use their recommendation letters to ‘purchase’ the right to abuse clerks; extort their silence; and compensate them for their abuse.
    2. He has imputed and official knowledge of how judges abuse sexually and otherwise, clerks, parties, and the rest of the public. Official knowledge denies the availability as a defense of willful ignorance and blindness and supports intentional dereliction of duty(*>jur:90§§b-d):

    a. Under 28 U.S.C. §601[3], the Chief Justice is charged with appointing the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts[4], the one whom he “asked…to assemble a working group to examine our practices and address these issues” concerning sexual harassment and complaints thereabout.

    [3] http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf 

    [4]  http://www.uscourts.gov/

    b. Under §604a(3), the director is charged with submitting an annual report[5] to the Judicial Conference of the United States set up under §311, whose president is the Chief Justice and whose other members are the chief circuit judges and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges.

    [5]  http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts

    c. Under §604h(2), in that report, the director is required to “include…the number of complaints filed with each judicial council under chapter 16 [the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, §§351-364], indicating the general nature of such complaints and the disposition of those complaints in which action has been taken”.

    1. That Act provides for any person, including a judge and even if not the victim of the abuse, to file with the chief circuit judge a complaint about the misconduct or disability of any judge in the circuit.
    2. Chief Justice Roberts has known officially[6] that when Then-Judge, Now-Justice Gorsuch served on the 10th Circuit(>OL2:548) and Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor on the 2nd(*>jur:11; 2420), 99.83% of complaints against judges were dismissed and that without investigation; appeals from those dismissals to the respective circuit council, set up under §332(a) (1), were denied up to 100%(jur:24§b). Those percentages hold true for the other circuits(jur:10).

    [6] E.g., http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016. The official statistics on complaints against judges for the year in question appear on Table S-22, e.g., http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30 .

    1.  The Chief Justice and the associate justices have official knowledge that judges abuse the self-disciplining authority granted them under that §351 Act of Congress so as to exempt themselves from any discipline:

    a. Under §42[7], he and each of the associate justices are allotted to one or more of the 13 circuits as circuit justices; and under §45(b), preside over any meeting of their respective circuit’s judicial council[8].

    [7] 28 U.S.C. §42. Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits. The Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Court.

    [8] 28 U.S.C. §45(b)….The circuit justice, however, shall have precedence over all the circuit judges and shall preside at any session which he attends.

    b. Under §332(g), each council “shall submit a report to the Administrative Office on the number and nature of orders entered under this section during the preceding calendar year that relate to judicial misconduct or disability” [9] under §351.

    [9] On the two-way flow of official information that reach the circuit justices and the Chief Justice through the Administrative Office, see also

    28 U.S.C. §332(a)(6)(c). The chief judge shall submit to the council the semiannual reports of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The council shall take such action thereon as may be necessary.

    1. Hence, Chief Justice Roberts knows that he misled the public when he wrote in his 2017 Report1 that he and the other justices and judges “have no tolerance for harassment and share the view that victims must have clear and immediate recourse to effective remedies”.
    2. Judges not only tolerate each other’s abuse. They have institutionalized the self-interested abrogation in effect of the §351 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act by unlawfully dismissing systematically all complaints against judges, thus ensuring their impunity by depriving complainants of ‘recourse to any remedies’.(*>jur:21§§1-3)

    3. If a complainant files with the Department of Justice a complaint against a judge, he or she is referred to the Act and the judges that apply it(>jur:78fn159, 160), for the very last thing that the Department wants is to become the target of judges’ retaliation(>Lsch:17§C) if the Department were to investigate the complained-against judge.

    4. After President Trump criticized two federal judges, they suspended nationwide his Muslim travel ban(>OL2:641¶3). President Roosevelt had a similar experience(jur:2317).

    5. When presidents and their Justice Department are powerless against judges, what ‘recourse to any remedies’ does a newbie, unconnected, puny clerk have against abusive judges and their peers closing ranks behind them as they shout in unison, “Don’t you ever mess with us!”(*>jur:22¶31)?

    D. Complaint processing rules can be suspended by any of their implementing judges to exonerate their peers and tolerate their abuse

    1. Chief Justice Roberts stated in his 2017 Report[1], “I expect the working group to consider whether changes are needed in our…rules for investigating and processing misconduct complaints”.

    2. He and his colleagues drafted and adopted those rules[10]. They provided under Rule 2(b) “A Rule will not apply if…a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference expressly finds that exceptional circumstances render [its] application unjust or contrary to the purposes of the Act or these Rules”.

    [10]  http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-disabili ty-complaint. Cf. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_rules.pdf

    1. The Rules are not mandatory, but rather discretionary with every officer or entity authorized to apply them; any of them can get any abusive judge ‘off the hook’ of the complaint. The Rules are illusory, a sham intended to deprive any complainant of any “recourse to effective remedies”.
  • Chief Justice Roberts has abused We the People with his pretense that judges have “no tolerance” for judges’ abuse. Through self-interested coordination, they even have a scheme to get away with it.

  • E. Journalistic investigation of judges’ common knowledge of their abuse

    1. Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices and judges attend the meetings of the Judicial Conference, the judicial councils, and/or the circuits’ §333[3] judicial conferences, all of which are held anywhere, mostly in fun cities.

    2. They also attend seminars and speaking events organized by private parties, e.g., corporations that can afford them as occasions for publicity and lobbying and may pay for all their judicial guests’ expenses, which is prohibited due to the risk of bribing. So, judges frequently fail to report their attendance at them(jur:146272). The late Justice Scalia is reported to have attended more than 250 of them.

    3. For most judges, these are out-of-town meetings and may include a hotel stay. Judges have lots of fun, particularly at the party in the suite of a chief judge or the seminar host.

    4. After they have had lots of whisky, cognac, lobster, caviar, waitresses and waiters too catering to them, their tongues move from serious conversations on valuable, especially if confidential, information to fun ones on how they abusively cut their workload(“The math of perfunctoriness and abuse”, >OL2:608§A) and manhandle clerks: It is time for Hollywood Access-type of outboasting each other.

    5. Drivers, bar attendants, maids, and similar little people invisible to VIP judges have lots of fun information and are not bound by confidentiality agreements.

    6. They and clerks, who can be turned into insider informants(jur:106§c; >OL2:468), should be contacted by journalists who find statistics and statutory provisions too dull for themselves or their audience.

    *************************

    I encourage you to donate to the effort to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. One of the intended uses of donated funds is the development of this website, http://www. Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and searched by anybody for commonalities revealing patterns of all types of abuse(*>OL:274; >OL2:592, 563)

    Donate through this button


    subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    > + New or Users >Add New

    As a call to join forces in a coalition to expose abusers of any kind and hold them accountable and liable to compensate their victims, share this article with the officers and members of the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movement and all those who shout self-assertively:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ and anybody else’s abuse anymore.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net,

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ********************************

    Ushering in a promising New Year with a concrete, feasible, and realistic strategy for the MeToo! public to be taken seriously as it shouts “Enough is enough! We won’t take unaccountable judges’ abuse anymore”

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
    in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org .

    A. The most propitious time to expose the abuse of the most powerful public officers in our country: unaccountable judges

    1. Judges dispose of people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. They affect you and your friends and family, whether you are a party before them or are subject to the precedential effect of their decisions. For proof of judges’ power, consider that a single judge of the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of a president that campaigned on the promise of issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million people; and three appellate judges of one circuit upheld the suspension nationwide. Are you confident that judges are so much in owe of you that they will respect your right to due process and equal protection of the law at the expense of their own convenience or profit?
    2. However, the astonishing event of last December 18 provides evidence that the accusers of abusive judges can be taken seriously as a result of the transformation of an intimidated public of abusees into a MeToo! public of courageous accusers:

    Former 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski
    resigned unexpectedly on accusations of sexual abuse
    and the impending investigation by his own peers.

    1. This means that women have been emboldened enough by the MeToo! attitude to accuse even a mighty life-tenured, in practice irremovable federal judge. They are expected to be taken so seriously by other women and men that an accused judge resigns rather than be investigated by his peers.
    2. The resignation of Judge Kozinski is all the more astonishing because he was on the bench for 35 years. So he must have collected numerous IOUs from his peers and their friends over the years on the strength of which he could wield powerful leverage over them. Yet, he could not cash them in to have the accusations against him dismissed, prevent the investigation of him by his peers, or ensure that it would be a whitewash.
    3. Though federal judges are appointed for life and as such the most firmly established members of the Establishment, not even they can take for granted any longer that they will be held unaccountable for their abuse, regardless of the nature of such abuse.

      B. Concrete, feasible, and realistic strategy to expose judges’ abuse of any kind

    4. Our strategy is to cause the MeToo! public to accuse judges who have abused their power in any way, even where their abuse is not sexual in nature. This includes abuse through their perfunctoriness(†>OL2:608§A) and wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3, *>OL:154¶3). Judges’ abuse harms litigants as well as the rest of We the People, who must bear the consequences of their decisions, as was the case after the Muslim travel ban was suspended.

    † * The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

                1. The concrete, feasible, and realistic elements of our strategy are:

    a.  to inform(OL2:631, 634) the public through emails, presentations(623), and allies of result(607), about judges’ abuse and provoke such national outrage at abusive judges as to encourage ever more abusees to come forward with their MeToo! accusations of any kind of abuse until the public shouts self-assertively

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take unaccountable judges’ abuse anymore!

    b.  to cause the outraged public together with the media and journalists acting in their own commercial and professional interest to insert the issue of abusive judges in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections;

    c.  to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to call for, and hold, nation- and state-wide televised public hearings on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power, which will provide the most visible forum for exposing the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse, and demonstrate the profound judicial reform required to prevent, detect, and punish it;

    d.  to cause the hearing findings so to intensify public outrage at judges’ abuse of power in connivance with politicians(†>OL2:610§3) as to make it no longer avoidable by Congress to convoke the constitutional convention petitioned by the constitutionally required 34 states since April 2014; and

    e.  to enable the People, the masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’, to adopt a new system for holding their public servants, including judicial public servants, account-able and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power. Just as judges hold lawyers, doctors, police officers, and even the President accountable, they too should be held accountable. But today they are unaccountable Judges Above the Law.

    C. Reaching out to MeToo! abusees to turn them into accusers requires donations

    7. These are some of the means for reaching out to MeToo! abusees and the rest of the public:

    a. mass emailing and what is still more professional even if slower and more expensive, that is, mass mailing of a formal business letter(OL2:641) to potential organizers of…

    b.  presentations at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools, civic organizations, and press conferences(OL:197§G);

    c.  the upgrading of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org to make it a clearinghouse for complaints against, and decisions of, judges, uploaded by the public and researched by it with the assistance of search engines to find the most convincing evidence of abuse of power: patterns of bias and wrongdoing(jur:274, 304);

    d.  the investigation of the unlawful interception(OL2:633§D, 583§3, 526¶56) of the communications of advocates of honest judiciaries by those who have the most to lose from the exposure of judges’ abuse, and who intercept them in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of “freedom of speech, [] of the press, [] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:2212b). Exposing judges’ interception as a means of silencing their accusers and covering up their wrongdoing would provoke national outrage and vastly contribute to inserting the issue of their abuse in the mid-term campaigning.

    8. Implementing this strategy costs a lot of effort and money. Therefore, I encourage you to make a gift in this season of giving in behalf of your own and the common interest in exposing judges’ abuse and ensuring their accountability to We the People.

    Donate through this PayPal and credit card button

    and subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:

    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    > + New or Users >Add New

    I hope that we can join forces to usher in the New Year of the MeToo! People for Justice.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com,

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    Opportunity for you to share your judicial complaint with an influential chief judge, New York State C.J. Janet DiFiore, and turn her into your and the nation’s Champion of Justice

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.JudicialDisciplineReform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    Submit your complaint against a judge or judiciary of any state to New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in support of her Excellence Initiative to correct the deficiencies in “justice services” and ask that she become the national Champion of Justice of all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and victims of unaccountable perfunctory and wrongdoing judges.

    To that end, contact her (see below) and share and post this open letter as widely as possible in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and the link to his website: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here:
    + New or Users >Add New

    NYS Chief Judge Janet DiFiore
    NYS Court of Appeals
    20 Eagle Street
    Albany, NY 12207-1009

    Dear Chief Judge DiFiore,

    I learned about your Excellence Initiative[1] on the website[2] of the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (AD1). It is a source of hope that a person in your position implicitly recognizes the deficiencies in “the level of justice services the people of NY have a right to expect and deserve”[1].

    [1] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/excellence-initiative/

    [2] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

    Historically, nobody has been held accountable for such deficiencies, for judges themselves are unaccountable. Consequently, they engage risklessly in perfunctoriness and wrongdoing. Your Initiative and request for comments imply your awareness thereof.

    This is a proposal to develop your Initiative through your public denunciation of those deficiencies and thereby rally behind you all those who have been harmed by them.

    Those harmed are parties to the more than 50 million new cases filed in federal and state courts annually(*>jur:85); to the scores of millions of pending cases and those deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided; and the other people affected by those cases, such as the parties’ friends and family, workmates, employees, suppliers, shareholders, etc.

    They are more powerful and important to you than an appointing governor, your fellow justices, and former peers: They are your potential constituency, the ones who can catapult you from being another judge into being a unique, historic figure. That is the objective of this proposal: to turn you in your own interest and for the benefit of everybody else into We the People’s national Champion of Justice.

    The People will support you because of their current attitude: For thousands of years, women were good only for the kitchen, the kids, and for men to manhandle them. Not anymore. Today the attitude of women as well as men is “I will speak up against my abusers and will not be complicit with my silence”.

    Likewise, throughout history, judges have been unaccountable and have abused their power over men’s and women’s property, liberty, and rights. They have generated a significantly greater pool of people with up to now pent-up resentment. Pent-up no more!

    The People’s newly found confidence for denunciation and self-assertion will drive women and men to explode and shout ‘I’m fed up and won’t take judges’ abuse anymore…Metoo!’ If you muster the courage to lead them in a movement of transitional history, they will rally behind you. You will become their Champion of Justice.


    * The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical blue text) references are found in my main study of judges and their judiciaries, which constitutes the basis of this proposal. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing
    field of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-DisciplineReform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    The study contains a wide variety of topics on that subject in its more than 1,150 pages of chapter-like articles and letters of advocacy. They are the product of my professional legal research and writing.

    To give my study a chance to be effective, it is available to you and the rest of the public for free because KNOWLEDG IS POWER and only a powerful public can hold judges accountable and force the reform of their judiciaries.

    However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write each letter and chapter-like article are not free to me….far from it. Such effort and time I cannot use for a gainful activity. On the contrary, trying to expose judges’ interception of emails among Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, including me, is very costly.

    Hence, I encourage you to donate to the pursuit of the common interest in holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any donation of $3 or more through the button below or my website is a positive contribution and for it I thank you in advance.



    Since you too, Chief Judge DiFiore, are unaccountable, most likely you have engaged in the same conduct or condoned it. That you can turn into a point of strength: You know about it firsthand; and can redeem yourself as Saul of Tarsus did after his epiphany by becoming Paul(The Bible, Acts 9:2).

    You can denounce judicial unaccountability, perfunctoriness, and wrongdoing in a historic Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like letter(jur:98§2) presented at a press conference cum State of Our Judiciary speech. There you can announce:

    a. the hiring of out-of-state public relations, business administration, and Information Technology firms to:

    b. conduct televised public hearings on judges’ and their equally unaccountable clerks’ perfunctoriness and wrongdoing;

    c. audit(cf. *>OL:274) judges’ decisions to determine whether they meet even first year law school standards of quality; and

    d. investigate judges’ contents-based interception of their critics’ communications, a First Amendment violation bound to provoke public outrage graver than that caused by Edward Snowden’s revelation of NSA’s interception of only the metadata of communications, i.e., telephone numbers, time of call, duration of call, but not the contents of the conversation(>OL2:583§3);

    e. your impending request to your fellows in the leadership of the Conference of Chief Justices and its other members to endorse your I accuse! denunciation and make their own regarding their respective judiciaries; and

    f. a tour of presentations in NY and across the country to inform your audience and outrage it into demanding of every candidate in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections to take a position on judicial perfunctoriness and wrongdoing, and call for congressional and state televised public hearings.

    Your I accuse! and Initiative can attract enough public support to:

    a. earn you the nomination to succeed JJ. Ginsburg or Stevens, or

    b. lead a party in the 2020 presidential elections; and

    c. be the first person in history to form a civic movement intent on empowering We the People as the masters who hold the most powerful officers in government by the rule of law, judges(>OL2:541), accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their perfunctoriness and wrongdoing.

    You can become here and abroad the Champion of Justice.

    To present to you this proposal I respectfully ask that you invite me to meet with you.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    To donate, use the following button: 

    Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here thus:
    + New or Users >Add New


    Overview of the proposal to
    NYS Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore
    to issue an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation
    of judicial perfunctoriness and wrongdoing
    aimed at her becoming
    the national Champion of Justice

    Based on the study

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
    and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    A. The math[3] of judicial perfunctoriness reveals the judiciary as a fraud scheme

    [3] See in-depth analysis of judicial statistics at *>jur:9-14; 21§§1-3; 105213; >OL2:455§§B-G; 548

    1. As a baseline for comparison, not as a standard of justice, there is the fact that the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and their pool of clerks and pick out of some 7,250 filings per year only some 78 cases to be heard and decided by written decisions(>OL2:459§E). Compare against that what the homepage of the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (AD1), states:

    Over 3,000 appeals, 6,000 motions, and 1,000 interim applications are determined each year. In addition, the Appellate Division admits roughly 3,000 new attorneys to the Bar each year, disciplines practicing lawyers, and otherwise exercises its judicial authority in Manhattan and the Bronx.2

    [2] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

    1. AD1 judges also prepare and hold meetings to administrate and make policy, induct new judges, honor retiring ones, and receive visitors; they also visit other courts. Some days they may be sick, busy with attorney registration matters, have a family emergency, attend seminars, serve on panels and moot courts, lobby attorneys and their associations to raise money and services to refurbish their courthouse, etc. Work is cut back during the summer recess months.
      .
    2. So it can reasonably be assumed arguendo that out of AD1’s 19 judges, only the equivalent to three 5-judge panels can be deemed to work on over 10,000 pleadings 250 weekdays per year after excluding 10 holidays and weather days. So each panel handles more than 3,333 pleadings a year and more than 13 a day. This includes over 1,000 appeals compared to the 78 that nine Supreme Court justices dispose of annually.
      .
    3. To handle 13+ pleadings in what is left of each 8-hour workday after deduction of the time allocated for oral arguments, panel deliberation, and research and writing decisions, an AD1 judge would have to read:
      .
      a. the briefs of 13+ appellants;
      .b. 13+ respondents, each having a maximum of 14,000 words or 70 pages4;

    [4] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/Practice&Procedures/rules.shtml >Rule 600.10.d.1.i

    c. even as few as 10 pages of each of 13+ records on appeal –each of which runs to hundreds or even thousands of pages of depositions and trial transcripts and other evidentiary documents–;

    d. their motions and answers, each having some 2,000 words or 10 pages;

    e. the exhibits to each; and

    f. some 10 pages of each of the 13+ decisions of the judges appealed from. No judge can read over 1,500 pages a day each of 250 days. Neither can nor will unappealable clerks.

    1. Reading is only the beginning. Determining a motion or appeal also calls on judges to:

    a. identify the relevant facts and controlling issues;

    b. research case precedent or statutory law;

    c. consider attenuating and aggravating circumstances;

    d. discuss them in light of legal principles and requirements;

    e. consider what only matters to a party, that is, each element of its “Relief requested”;

    f. state what most affects the court below on remand: the reversible error, why it was such, and how to remedy and avoid it;

    g. what concerns the court above on appeal: the implications of the reversal for future cases; and

    h. write a reasoned decision…13+ times a day!

    “Too much work. Forget’a ‘bout it! Dump it by form!

    1. That is how judges ‘determine’ motions and appeals: They have clerks gavel the clerk of court’s signature rubberstamp on dumping forms, i.e., forms with same wording whose blank is filled out by a clerk with only one operative word, mostly Denied, for a motion, or Affirmed, for an appeal5.

    [5] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/calendar/appsmots/AppMotIndex.shtml

    1. Thereby neither the clerks nor the judges assume responsibility for changing the status quo while avoiding the need to read the pleadings and write an opinion and decision similar in quality to the answer that law students are expected to turn in to a question on a test at the end of the first semester of law school. But judges expect their decisions not to be ‘corrected’ by anybody. As AD1 puts it:

    Since, with few exceptions, appeals to the Court of Appeals, the State’s highest court, are by permission only, the Appellate Division is the court of last resort in the majority of cases.2

    [2] AD1 website: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

    1. So are terminated most motions and appeals: with one-disposition-fits-all, mass produced, reasonless fiat on a dumping form.(OL2:546¶¶4-7) All elements of the “Relief requested” are indiscriminately denied by implication. Such dumping is inherently arbitrary because it disregards the merits of the case at hand. Any individualizing element on the form is limited to the names of the parties and details that a clerk took from the “Description of Appeal and Issues” section of the Request for Appellate Division Intervention form, thus avoiding having to read the much longer Statement of Facts of each party.
      .
    2. A complaint to the judges about pro forma disposition of cases gets the complainant nowhere since the clerks did simply what they were asked to do: dump most cases and allow the judges to work on the few that they like. Perfunctoriness is part of the courts’ modus operandi. So it is in the federal appeal courts, where 93% of appeals are dumped(OL2:457§D).
    3. .

     

    1. No wonder that judges come to ‘their’ courtrooms without having read motion pleadings despite their due process duty to afford the parties an ‘opportunity to be heard’ through their written statements. They do not ask of themselves the question “Are the parties ready?” Though ignorant of the facts and issues, they make on-the-spot, off-the-cuff decisions, indifferent to how they will affect the property, liberty, and rights and duties that frame the parties’ lives. After all, a reversal has no impact on their tenure, career, or salary. Judges’ conduct is riskless, for they are unaccountable.

    1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

    1. Most appellate judges come from the ranks of trial judges. They are not going to turn against their former peers to criticize them for the same perfunctory work that they rendered while sitting with them in the courts below. Worse yet, they may be judges because of their affiliation to the same political party that put them on the same electoral slate or that supported their appointment to the bench.
      .
    2. In the same vein, they are not going to discipline, certainly not in public, a judge that belongs to the same party. Nor will they discipline a judge that belongs to another party, for an explicit or implicit reciprocal conniving agreement governs their relation: ‘If you don’t discipline the judges of my party, I won’t discipline yours’.
      .
    3. Similarly, the judges of last resort will not hold the judges below accountable for their perfunctoriness, much less their wrongdoing. They are liable as principals or as accessories that have covered up for them(jur:88§§a-c), thus compounding their own wrongdoing.
      .
    4. In their ears rings the threatening shout: ‘If you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!’ Their conduct is not guided by ethical principles or commitment to the integrity of judicial process(jur:68 123a). It is determined by the self-interest underlying mutually assured survival: ‘Today I protect you so that tomorrow you and your friends protect me. Why should we reduce our benefits by mending our ways or denouncing our perfunctoriness and wrongdoing?’ We risk no adverse consequence of our conduct. The consequences are born only by litigants and the rest of the public. That’s their problem.’
      .
    5. This explains why in the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§1) Yet, on September 30, 2015, the number of judicial officers on the federal bench was 2,293(jur:2213). Federal judges are not only unaccountable and their appointment is not only for life “during good Behaviour”; in practice they are also irremovable despite ‘bad Behaviour’(id.).
      .
    6. Although state judges only serve for a term of years, during their terms they similarly can do whatever they want, to whatever standard of quality they want, and can fail to do whatever they do not want to do. What adverse consequence imposed by whom could deter them from being perfunctory or doing wrong?
      .
    7. Federal and state judgeships amount to having a license to be where no person ought to be: They are Judges Above the Law. Their judiciaries have become the safe havens for perfunctory performers and wrongdoers. Mere litigants, all at their mercy, cannot bring them down to where they can be held accountable and liable to their victims.

    2. A fraud scheme run by judges in their own interest

    1. So, judges have no scruples about going through the motions of judicial process without revealing to filers that their $45 motion filing fee and their $315 appeal filing fee will get the substantial majority of them nothing but a perfunctory dumping form.
      .
    2. For the payment of consideration in the form of such fees, filers enter with judges into a contract for “justice services” that the judges know will in most cases not be delivered. They not only fail to administer justice according to the rule of law, but also engage in false advertisement and the concealment of a pre-programmed breach of contract. They run in self-benefit a judicial system that is in effect only a fraud scheme.
      .
    3. Judges deserve this criticism because they have failed their duty, imposed by themselves in their own Code of Conduct for Judges, to ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’(jur:68123b, 4471).
      .
    4. Even if judges are overworked, they have dealt with that problem wrongfully, as the math of their operation reveals: Judicial process is mostly only for show because judges have neither the time, nor the need, nor the will to do the work required to assure due process and the equal protection of the law to the majority whose cases are dumped by form and the few who get fair and impartial process leading to a decision that judges expect to be scrutinized by the media and law journals, and that they strive to make meritorious of inclusion in a law school casebook and of their being considered for a higher court.
      .
    5. It has been judges’ duty of integrity(*>jur:68123a) to inform the public thereof so that people could decide whether they wanted to gamble their effort, money, time, and hopes on the off chance that they might receive the offered dispute resolution services if they went to court to sue or defend.
      .
    6. Since judicial process is pro forma, judges should have:
      .
      a. suspended the fraudulent collection of fees;
      .
      b. encouraged the parties to choose an alternative dispute resolution means;
      .c. demand from politicians more funds to run a judiciary capable of delivering the offered “justice services”; and

      d. accept an external control system that holds them accountable for their delivery, thus recognizing that self-discipline is anathema to human nature: Nobody can be an unbiased judge in his own cause(OL2:548).

    3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

    1. Instead, judges have in self-interest run their fraud scheme on the public knowingly and thus intentionally: They have abstained from demanding, not higher salaries(jur:2730), but rather more funds to fix the system. They have thus spared the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed or appointed them.
      .
    2. In turn, politicians have abstained from withdrawing judges’ self-discipline authority and subjecting them to an outside system of accountability empowered to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their perfunctory and wrongful conduct.(jur:158§§6-8)
      .
    3. However, politicians know from their status as legislators that unaccountability breeds wrongdoing. In fact, the rationale for exercising legislative power is that everything is permitted in a world without laws. That is the world of the jungle, ruled by the strongest and most violent and his gang. A legislature exists to curb lawless freedom, establish standards of acceptable restricted conduct, and hold people accountable for abiding by them. A toothless law is one that lacks any enforcement mechanism, means of breach detection, and punishment for breaching it.
      .
    4. When politicians hold judges unaccountable, they accept that the known consequences will follow: riskless perfunctoriness and wrongdoing, including judges’ risklessly padding their salaries by abusing their power and access to valuable information filed confidentially under seal or given them ex parte as a bribe. Unaccountability is the hallmark of ‘absolute power, which corrupts absolutely’(jur:2728, 32, 4260).
      .
    5. Politicians have condoned judges’ conduct to avoid their retaliation. It includes holding their legislative agenda and signature pieces of legislation unconstitutional, thus preventing politicians from delivering on their campaign promises and running on their achievements: P. Trump dare criticize federal judges and they suspended nationwide his Muslim travel ban(OL2:568§C).
      .
    6. So has arisen between judges and politicians mutually beneficial connivance. When they misleadingly assert that if put in office they will work in the public interest although they intend to work for their benefit, the detriment to the public notwithstanding, they operate a joint fraud scheme on the public.

    B. I accuse! with a ‘Metoo’ denunciation that makes you a Champion of Justice

    1. Only We the People, the source of all political power in a democracy, can assert our status as the masters of all our public servants, including judges, and hold them accountable and liable.
      .
    2. Honest judges as well as principled and ambitious journalists can set in motion the process of such assertion. That is facilitated by today’s generalized attitude that has prompted many women and even men to join the “Metoo” voices against sexual abuse: “Enough is enough and I won’t take it anymore!
      .
    3. That attitude is buttressed by the civic courage underlying Sen. Jeff Flake’s statement, “I will not be complicit or silent” about P. Trump’s conduct.
      .
    4. Judges too must speak up about their conduct. They can follow the historic example of Emile Zola and his open letter I accuse!, published in 1898(jur:98§2), which launched profound change in public exposure and accountability.
      .
    5. You, Chief Judge DiFiore, are an insider and as such in the know. You have recognized that judicial deficiencies warrant your Excellence Initiative1. You are the top judge of one of the most influential state courts; and a member of the leadership of the Conference of Chief Justices, whom you can persuade to emulate you regarding their own state judiciaries so as to give resonance to…

    [1] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/excellence-initiative/

    1. Your I accuse! can allow you to:
      .
      a. denounce the unaccountability and consequent riskless perfunctoriness and wrongdoing of the most powerful public servants in government by the rule of law, judges;
      .
      b. thus cause the undertaking of what must precede any talk of reform: the full exposure of their conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity, and their connivance with politicians;
      .c. set off a flood of motions to recuse, disqualify, vacate, etc., that will give your I accuse! and Initiative the widest practical effect and publicity;

      d. inform the national public and outrage it(OL2:604) into forcing all candidates in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections to put that issue at the center of their platform, rallies, and townhall meetings;

      e. launch a generalized media investigation akin to those into Watergate, Russia’s tampering with U.S. elections, and Harvey Weinstein-like wrongdoers;

      f. lead the public to compel politicians to hold congressional and state televised hearings on the issue;

      g. so outrage the public at judges-politicians’ fraud scheme as to generate enough public pressure to force Congress to do what it has avoided doing because it presents an existential threat to its members’ position of power and privilege in the national Establishment: convene the constitutional convention that since April 2014, 34 states have called for, thereby meeting the requirement of Article V of the Constitution(jur:2212b); and

      h. therein lead to a new We the People-government relation.

    2. Thus you, Chief Judge DiFiore, can become the leader of the first civic movement(jur:164§9) in history that further develops democracy by enabling the People to assure the transparent and accountable exercise of power by judges and all other public servants. That can earn you recognition nationwide and abroad as the People’s Champion of Justice.
      .
    3. Hence, I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss this proposal.
      .
    4. You, the Reader, can join this historic movement by sharing your complaint against any federal or state judiciary with C.J. DiFiore by email1 and/or mail to her Court address (see above), and encouraging her to issue her I accuse! denunciation and become our Champion of Justice.


    Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here thus:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    Joining forces to effectively inform the public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing, which is enabled by their secrecy and probably by their interception of the communications among their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,

    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible non-commercially, in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and indication of this website: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    NOTE ON FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,  DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    A. Pervasive secrecy infects the Federal Judiciary with wrongdoing

    1.  Secrecy pervades the Federal Judiciary: It holds all its adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors, and holds no press conferences(*>jur:27§e). Secrecy spares judges of scrutiny and allays their inhibitions about disregarding due process and equal protection requirements, and abusing their power for their own benefit. It constitutes a circumstance enabling(*>OL:190¶¶1-7) them to commit wrongdoing as their institutionalized way of doing business(jur:49§4).

    2.  Secrecy also enables judges to engage in coordinated wrongdoing, such as would be required to intercept the communications of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries(§B infra). If your boss could hide under the same level of secrecy, would you reasonably fear that he or she would do wrong ever more gravely, even if thereby he or she harmed you?

    NOTE: The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

    Volume 2:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

    NOTE: Each of these volumes is too big to be emailed. Accordingly, they take minutes to download, which requires patience. However, if by clicking on either of those links nothing downloads, then copy one link at a time, paste it in the search box of your browser, press “enter”, and wait for the volume to download.

    B. Is there interception of our emails? How to find out

    3.  In Volume II(>OL2:567) and not downloadable separately as well as hereunder is the article on joining forces to seize the opportunity presented by Trump’s chaos to implement nationally the inform and outrage strategy(§C infra) for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy. That article also accompanied this one in my latest email.

    a. Such seizing is the opposite of prosecuting separately a personal, local case, which is ineffective for the prosecuting party and brings no progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone reforming their judiciaries.

    4.  My emails elicit reply emails. I make every effort to acknowledge receipt of emails sent to me, although I cannot afford the effort and time to comment individually on each email that I receive. However, that intended two-way exchange of emails raises a troubling question:

    5.  How is it possible that readers who take the time to contact me to show their appreciation for my articles and make the effort to share with me their ideas, and to whom I gratefully write back, hardly ever contact me again?

    6.  That does not make sense at all. It constitutes conduct inconsistent with precedent. It need not be their conduct that is to blame. Rather…

    7.  Is there a third party intercepting our communications, in general, and those among Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, in particular, with the purpose of foreclosing our forming an effective team for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy? See the statistical study pointing to probable cause to believe that there is(*>OL:19fn2 >‡>ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C).

    1.  IT experts can investigate whether judges misuse their networks to intercept their critics’ communications

    8.  Experts in information technology (IT), including Advocates with advanced IT knowledge and appropriate hard- and software, can find out whether there is interception and, if so, whether it can be traced back to those who have the greatest interest in preventing our exercise to their detriment of our 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:130fn268), namely, judges.

    9.  IT experts(*>OL:346¶131; OL2:396§3) can investigate whether the interception is conducted by the judiciary, particularly the Federal Judiciary, misusing its national and advanced computer network. The latter is composed of each federal court computer system and runs the huge document filing and retrieving system PACER, the acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records; https://www.pacer.gov/.

    2.  A quid pro quo for, and financial benefits from, interception

    10.  The Judiciary can intercept communications either alone or with the assistance of any of the surveillance agencies in exchange for its federal judges’ approving up to 100% of the agencies’ secret requests for secret orders of secret surveillance(*>OL:5fn7).

    11.  The Judiciary can also misuse its and the surveillance agencies’ networks for the transfer for judges’ benefit of assets between disclosed and hidden financial accounts(*>jur:65§§1-3; 102§§a,b; 105fn213b).

    12.  If interception under judges’ auspices of Advocates’ communications were taking placed and revealed, public outrage would be profound and national, and that not only because it is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(*>OL:5a/fn13) and would be committed precisely by the public officers sworn to uphold the law.

    3.  Contents-based interception as opposed to only collection of metadata

    13. Such interception would also be outrageous because aimed at preventing our communications due to their judge-criticizing contents, thus involving judges in denying our constitutional rights and abusing their power in self-interest.

    14.  Contents-based interception is qualitatively very different from an intelligence and surveillance agency, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), collecting ‘metadata’, which would involve only the recording of the email addresses used and the time and place of the communications, without reading the emails, never mind preventing their delivery.

    15.  Contents-based interception of Advocates’ communications cannot be explained away as action by a third party “in the interest of national security”, for there is no evidence whatsoever that our criticism of judges’ wrongdoing endangers “national security”.

    16.  It follows that the revelation of interception by judges or at their behest(>OL2:525§H) would provoke national outrage graver than that arising from Edward Snowden revealing that NSA was conducting dragnet collection of metadata of millions of people’s phone calls, e.g., phone numbers and time and duration of calls, but without listening to their conversations.

    17.  If IT experts determined that there is such unconstitutional and power-abusive self-interested interception by judges of communications among the public, in general, and their critics therein, in particular, they would make a national name for themselves.

    18.  In the process, the IT experts would significantly advance our inform and outrage strategy by providing either evidence that judges engage in wrongdoing, probable cause to believe that they do, or “the appearance of their impropriety”(*>jur68fn123a).

    C.  Implementing the inform and outrage strategy by joining in sharing and posting the article; and precedent for its success

    19.  Our strategy for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing seeks to inform the public about, and so to outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing(>OL2:449§B, 461§1) as to cause the public to insert that issue in the national debate and the 2018 primaries and general election campaigns, and make that issue a decisive one for voters as well as politicians.

    20.  We all can participate in implementing that strategy if we disseminate this article and the one below while seizing the opportunity that Trump’s chaos opens for exposing judges’ wrongdoing. Share these articles with your friends and relatives and post it on social media as widely as possible. We need Advocates to Take action!

    1. Precedent for succeeding in stripping judges of their secrecy and holding them accountable

    21. Our joint and well-organized effort can be effective: Judges and politicians can stop some of us by denying our rights and intercepting our communications, but they cannot stop all of us, much less do so simultaneously.

    22.  There is precedent for success. Think of the model offered by the Tea Party. In fewer than 10 years, its grassroots members spread their message and managed to dominate national politics. They were disciplined enough to concentrate all their efforts on one single issue with national appeal: taxes. That is what Tea stands for: Taxed Enough Already.

    23.  Even millennial impossibles have been overcome by people who would not cease taking action until the “impossibles” were replaced by opposite realities: For thousands of years:

    a.  only landed white men could vote;

    b.  only the sons of the rich could get educated;

    c.  only the wealthy had access to medical treatment;

    d.  women could neither vote nor hold office;

    e.  African-Americans and other ethnic groups were enslaved;

    f.  employees were held in virtual enslavement by abusive employers wielding power of arbitrary firings from their business;

    g.  a landlord could evict tenants from his home into the street for any and no reason; etc.

    24.  Changing those ‘facts of life’ constituted millennial impossibles. But they gave way to the realities of today because some people kept taking action against the injustice of privilege and the abuse of the powerful.

    25.  We too can take action jointly to change the millennial unaccountability and secrecy of judges by asserting our status as We the People, the masters of all public servants, and our right to hold judicial public servants accountable for discharging the duty for which we hired them, namely, to apply the law to us and themselves fairly and impartially.

    26.  In “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172), No Wrongdoer is beyond accountability in a safe haven Above The Law.

    D. Massive dissemination can lead to nationally televised hearings that boost the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing

    27.  Cicadas are grasshopper-like insects that ensure their survival by overwhelming number of them making a shrill creaking noise at mating time.

    28.  We too can survive judges’ interception of our communications and make attention-grabbing noise by massively disseminating this article, the one below, and my other ones, all of which surpass any personal, local case by dealing with wrongdoing of national scope.

    29.  Our massive dissemination can marry conviction and action. The offspring is national outrage that causes the public to insert the judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing issue in the national debate and the mid-term elections.

    30.  Dissemination can be boosted by becoming a member of yahoo- and googlegroups(§E infra): One email sent to a group of which one is a member is automatically distributed to all its members.

    1.  Nationally televised hearings on judicial’ wrongdoing

    31.  The massive dissemination of these articles through sharing, emailing to groups, and posting on social media can pave the way for the most powerful means  of communication: nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing. They can expose before a national public judicial wrongdoing’s nature(*>jur:5§3), routineness(*>jur:28§3), gravity(*>OL:154¶3), and the harm in fact that it inflicts on litigants and the rest of the public whom judges abusively and for their own benefit(*>OL:173¶93) deprive of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives.

     a. Congressional hearings

    32.  Such hearings can be held by Congress, like the one held by the Senate to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey on June 8. It has been estimated that some 20 million people followed it live; to them must be added all those who have since watched on demand its recording.

    b.  Media hearings

    33.  But there is also an unprecedented type of hearings that we call for: nationally televised hearings organized by a board of national media outlets in the public interest as well as in their own competitive and commercial interest. They can be held across the country by panels of prominent investigative journalists, legal affairs reporters, newscasts anchors, publishers, and members of schools of journalism, law, information technology, and business, including students elected by their classmates and dutybound to report back to them.

    34.  These media hearings can generate the critical mass of outrage needed for judicial reform. They can serve the purpose of “…Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(¶2 supra). Thereby they can have a continuing effect, so to speak, a ‘successor’ over time.

    35.  Moreover, the media hearings can become a mechanism for a measure of direct democracy that bypasses a dysfunctional, partisan, and discredited Congress. They can not only take the pulse of the country, but also give a voice to its people to express how they want their representatives, that is, their public servants with legislative duties, to work for them rather than for their own partisan benefit and their permanence in power.

    36.  Indeed, the nationally televised public hearings can enable We the People to assert our status as the source of all political power, entitled to tell our legislative servants what and how to legislate on our behalf.

    c. Hearing findings as the basis for judicial reform

    37.  The findings of the congressional and media hearing will provide the factual basis necessary to convince the public and politicians that since judges are held unaccountable by themselves and politicians(>OL2:567§B), only judicial reform of a scope that today would appear unrealistic, and millennially has been held “impossible”, can ensure that judges apply and abide by the rule of law, e.g.:

    a.  Judicial reform through the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability that publicly receive and process complaints against judges; and to that end, exercise power of subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and indictment; and hold judges liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    E. Maximizing the joint effort to inform and outrage the public by emailing my articles to yahoo- and googlegroups

    38. Group membership and distribution are multipliers of the effort of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and other email senders to reach as many people as possible. A list of yahoo- and googlegroups to which we can email this article and the one below on the opportunity opened by Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure is at >OL2:433. A group of Advocates can take charge of dividing the list among themselves to email the article more easily and faster. To become a member follow these simple instructions:

    a.  Place only seven group addresses at a time and only in the To: line of your email; otherwise, your email will not be distributed. These measures take into account restrictions adopted by group programs to ward off spam to their groups.

    b.  A reply from each group will inform you that your email to it was not delivered because you are not a member. Scroll down and copy the email address intended for membership requests, which has this format: Name.of.group-subscribe [or -owner]@yahoogroups.com –or googlegroups, as the case may be- and replace with it the address in the To: line.

    c.  Likewise, replace the text in the Subject: line with ‘Membership request’.

    d.  Another reply email from that group will let you know whether your request for membership in it was granted and, if so, that you can start emailing that group. You must replace the address in the To: line with the normal address for emailing the group, e.g., Name.of.group@yahoogroups.com.

    e.  Every email sent to the group will be distributed to you too. Receiving them is the price to pay for having your emails to the group distributed to all its members. But to find out whether anybody replied to your email, simply copy part of the subject line used in the outgoing email and paste it in the search box of your email client, i.e., the email program from which you sent your email.

    f.  If you receive replies to my articles, please forward them to me.

    F. Division of labor to obtain the rosters of attorneys and invite them to join in the strategy and the dissemination

    39.  I appreciate a reader’s suggestion about contacting the attorneys on the official state and bar association attorney rosters to invite them to join in implementing the strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy, and disseminating the article.

    a.  Attorneys are indispensable to taking on successfully unaccountable judges, whether in their own turf, the courts, where they disregard the rules and the law as they want(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), or outside it.

    b.  Pro ses can do an enormous amount of necessary work, but they cannot improvise themselves as lawyers, much less match their legal knowledge with the judges’.

    c.  To beat judges at their own game, we need the best and the brightest of attorneys; otherwise, we will not be taken seriously, making rookie legal mistakes one after the other.

    40.  Division of labor is a basic operational principle of any organization. Hence, I would appreciate it if a reader would access those rosters -to the extent that they are available at all-, harvest the attorneys’ email addresses listed therein, and send them to me. Perhaps the reader could take the leadership in forming a group of Advocates that volunteer to do that work with you.

    41.  Good ideas are costless and welcome; but taking action is, though harder, always more effective.

    G. Sunshine can disinfect the Judiciary of its wrongdoing and wither impossibles

    42.  Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Its light must be shone on the Judiciary to disinfect it of its secrecy and the wrongdoing that breeds in it. When it enlightens people with outrageous information, they can be heated up to turn millennial impossibles into opposite realities.

    43.  Only the largest number of informed and outraged people, We the People, can force the holding of nationally televised public hearings by politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office; and by the media, lest they miss the opportunity to attract a bigger audience, sell pricier ads, and take advantage of Trump’s chaos.

    44.  Hence the need to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform, and overcome any interception of our communications by massively disseminating my articles, which deal with a national problem, not a personal, local case, through yahoo- and googlegroups, and social media, and by sharing them with friends, family, and attorneys.

    45.  By joining the effort to inform the public and outrage it into action, you too can become nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its articles series thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    > + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it. * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    *******************************

    From ineffectively pursuing a personal, local case, to joining forces so as to turn judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a key 2018 mid-term election issue

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible non-commercially, in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    Visit that website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users > Add New

    NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” and other formatting oddities in Dr. Cordero’s emails(>ol2:426§C), this email has them, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,  DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    A.  On the audience of my articles and my respect for all readers

    1. The main audience of my articles is composed of professionals. They are indispensable because they have the knowledge and skills necessary to take on the Federal Judiciary’s mighty, life-tenured judges, so powerful that they dare suspend nationwide two executive orders of a president as combative and outspoken as President Trump.

    a. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the models for their state counterparts. If Advocates of Honest Judiciaries manage to set in motion their exposure, it will be easier to launch the exposure of state judiciaries and judges.

    2. To attract those professionals, I myself must appear to have the knowledge and skills of a professional. These are revealed by the grammatical correctness of my articles, the meaningful contents and logical soundness of my argument, and the clean and well-organized presentation of the text. That is what I have endeavored to exhibit in my emails and my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCorderoHonest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    3. This objective is defeated by dumbing down my articles. No professional is going to risk attracting the retaliatory wrath of judges by following the invitation to join forces to expose them with a person who does not know how to write and who has nothing to say that is novel and convincing.

    4. In addition, it is dangerous to follow the suggestion that I dumb down my articles. Nobody likes to be treated as a dummy. If a lawyer dumbs down his way of talking to, and what he tells, the jury, he shows disrespect for their intelligence. The jury is most likely to resent it and make him pay a hefty price. An article for the general public that is dumbed down is likely to elicit the same resentful and punishing reaction…and it certainly loses the professional audience.

    B.  Neither local corruption nor local, personal cases should cause us to miss taking advantage of the opportunity in Trump’s chaos to expose judges’ wrongdoing nationally

    5. There is strength in numbers. If we, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, break down our support for the common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by concentrating our strength on local and personal matters, we will achieve only as much as we have up to now: nothing.

    a. Pro ses, who know about the judiciary only through the judge in their personal, local case are not in a position to claim that the whole judiciary is corrupt and that all judges are wrongdoers. .

    b. Would you dare claim that all medical doctors and nurses are hacks because those who treated you did not do succeed in restoring your health? Would that be fair? Would it be fair to claim that all people in your racial, ethnic, and religious class are bad people because some of them are thieves, drug-dealers, and terrorists? No, it would not be fair.

    c. Accordingly, pro ses need to do their homework: They must first learn about:

    1) the circumstances that allow judges to engage in wrongdoing, to wit, unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness;

    2) the most insidious motive to do wrong: money!, lots of money!(*>jur:190¶¶1-7); and

    3) the evidence showing that they engage in a pattern of wrongdoing(>OL2:546).

    d. Those are (blue text references) to volumes I and II, respectively, of my above-mentioned study. It is based on my extensive professional and original research, analysis, and writing on judges and their judiciaries, and their reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). You can help yourself and your case by reading them and sharing them with others.

    6. What the group in New Jersey is doing is of no interest whatsoever to what the group in Chicago is doing against local politicians and the guardianship abusers that they protect, just as what the group in Los Angeles is doing in exposing judges’ being paid an extra salary by the city council is of no interest to the group in Florida that is trying to expose collusion between bar members and judges. When was the last time that you read the case of an Advocate in any state other than yours…or just any case other than yours?

    C.  Joining forces to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    7. Unless we think strategically and proceed jointly, we are going to miss the best opportunity that we have ever had to bring judicial wrongdoing to the attention of the national public and thereby the public of the several states. As explained in the article below, this opportunity has been opened by Trump, who twice dare criticize federal judges.

    a. When indictments concerning, among other things, the Russia probe start making their way to the courts and despite Trump’s invocation of executive privilege, judges uphold search and seizure subpoenas and order members of his administration to produce documents, Trump is likely to rail against them.

    b. That will present a unique opportunity for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to cause Trump to look for support and donations from The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System and for us to cause The Dissatisfied to make their grievances known and demand from politicians running in the 2018 mid-term primaries and general election campaign that they call for nationally televised congressional public hearings on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, similar to the nationally televised Comey hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, June 8.

    c. The hearings are necessary to expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and demonstrate the profound judicial reform required to prevent, detect, and punish their wrongdoing.

    d. A public so informed and further outraged by the hearings will compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake the judicial reform that they have always resisted as part of their protection of the people that they recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed to office in the judiciary.

    8. This is the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. Trump’s chaos opens the opportunity to implement it.

                1.  From Advocates, to The Dissatisfied, to the mid-term election, and to We the People

    9. The implementation of the strategy requires that we inform thereof the Advocates so that they join the effort to inform The Dissatisfied, and all contribute to turning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a decisive national issue of the mid-term elections and thereby inform most cost-effectively the rest of We the People.

    10. The People are the only constituency numerous and strong enough to compel politicians to hold the indispensable national congressional public hearings on the wrongdoing by ‘their men and women on the bench’ and thereafter undertake judicial reform that recognizes the right of the People to hold all their servants, including judicial public servants, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing (see the article below and at >OL2:567).

    11. Pressure on politicians to hold those hearings in Congress may have to be built up. This is the rationale for calling for unprecedented nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform organized by the national media in the public interest and held by a pioneering, potentially trend-setting board of prominent investigative journalists, court reporters, newscast anchors, and schools of journalism, law, business, and information technology.

    a. Media executives will only organize such hearings if they realize that there is an audience large enough to justify both taking the risk involved in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and expecting a commercial reward by attracting advertisers interested in reaching the largest audience possible to whom to offer their goods and services.

    b. The media have the technical means and reach necessary to become the largest disseminator of The Dissatisfied’s complaints about judges; their capacity to multiply our judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform effort is unmatched. They are indispensable to our success. Thinking strategically, we can turn the media into our ally by our pursuit of an objective that is harmonious with theirs: the largest possible audience.

    D.  Joining forces and focusing them on implementing the inform and outrage strategy

    12. Therefore, I respectfully invite you to organize a presentation on the inform and outrage strategy and its implementation to your group by me in person and, if here in New York City, free, or if elsewhere, then at your group’s expense; otherwise, at a video conference.

    13. The article below provides a preview of the presentation. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read it and have your group read and discuss it.

    14. To attract others to the presentation organized by you, you may share and post the article as widely as possible.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ********************************

    An invitation to take advantage of the opportunity that President Trump’s “drama” offers to participate in a for-profit business to lead The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to turn judicial wrongdoing and reform into a national issue and a decisive one of the 2018 mid-term election: Thinking strategically and becoming Champions of Justice

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
    non-commercially, in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and
    indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. 

    A. Why you are invited to join forces to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. President Trump’s presidency is pervaded by what Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell charitably called “drama” when he  said, “We could do well with less drama from the White House”. Since Trump was only a presidential candidate, many commentators have used a more poignant term to describe the product of his personal conduct and managerial style: chaos(*>OL2:488¶1).

    2.  Last year, I took a different approach when, thinking strategically(>OL2:416), I described Trump’s chaos, not as a destructive force, but rather as an opportunity to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) and advocate judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). I wrote(>OL2:488¶8):

    Chaos Candidate Trump has added; more he will cause. But if he can harness his chaos and that of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, he can use chaos as the force that unrelentingly and unmitigatedly exposes the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(*>jur:65§B). Trump’s chaos can subject judicial public servants to accountability to their masters, We the People.

    *The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are contained in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    1. Knowledge prompts duty

    3.  People like you, who read this website, are likely to, and many who contact me definitely, have superior knowledge about the judiciary and its judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to its prescription in theory. That knowledge imposes on you a higher duty of care of judicial integrity: Knowledge commands action for the common good; otherwise, the knower is liable to the charge ‘you knew about that harm to us but did nothing to warn us’. Thereby the knower becomes an accessory after the harm done and before the next harm encouraged and facilitated by his or her silence(*>jur:88§§a-c).

    B. The facts and tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. The facts

    4.  Judges cannot hold other judges accountable who have been their peers, colleagues, and friends for years and will continue to be for more. They know about each other’s wrongdoing and implicitly shout at each other, “If you take me down, I’ll bring you with me!”, e.g., by ‘trading up to a higher fish’ in plea bargain(*>jur:69¶9). For holding them unaccountable today, they expect to be similarly treated by them in future. Their conduct is determined by the principle of reciprocally assured unaccountability required by mutually dependent survival(>OL2:466¶11; 468§A).

    5.  Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm for judgeships people of their ilk, who know how the power game is played. Thereafter they cannot turn against the very people whom they vetted and for whose honesty and competence they vouched by investigating them for being dishonest and incompetent, never mind find that they engaged in wrongdoing(*>OL:191¶¶3,4; OL:265§2). The appointer cannot indict his appointee without indicting himself.

    6.  They also hold judges unaccountable for fear of their awesome power to retaliate by, among other things, declaring even the key pieces of politicians’ legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17). Such declaration prevents the fulfilment of their key electoral promises and diminishes the accomplishments on which to run for reelection(*>jur:22¶31).

    7.  Judges,  held unaccountable by themselves and politicians, are irresistibly attracted to the material, professional, and social benefits(*>OL:173¶93) that they can grab risklessly by abusing their powers(>OL2:267§4, 505). In the absence of any adverse consequence, wrongdoing thrives rampant. Theirs is shown in detail by the facts and statistical analysis discussed at *>jur:§§1-3.

    2. The tenet

    8.  The tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform is implicit in the principle of “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172):

    a. We the People are the sovereign source of political power. We are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom we hire to serve us. We are entitled to hold all of them accountable.

    b. In particular, We are entitled to hold judges:

    1) accountable for discharging their duty to ensure due process and equal protection of the law, and exercising in our interest the enormous power entrusted to them over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives; and

    2) liable for abusing that power for their own material, professional, and social benefit(*>OL:173¶93); and for compensating the victims of their breach of duty and abuse of power.

    3) After exposing the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing, We will be in a position to determine how and how far to exercise our right to detect, prevent, and punish it by reforming judges’ conduct in practice and in theory(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    C.  The thesis: Trump’s chaos opens a realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform because it will suck in judges and enable The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to become a constituency

    9.  A realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform results from Trump’s chaos. In brief, every disputed issue in our country ends up before judges, whether it is the ban on Muslim immigration, Obamacare, abortion, gun ownership, same sex marriage, voter identification and voting districting, campaign financing, etc. The more this is the case and stirs up national debate, the more we can highlight the political importance and grievances of the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Trump will need and appeal to them; and we will advocate for them and help them become a self-aware and assertive constituency.

    10.  Accordingly, Trump’s conduct and policies will end up in court and even in the Supreme Court, in connection with, for instance:

    a. the revised ban on Muslim immigration;

    b. deportation of immigrants;

    c. the probe into the interference of Russia in the past presidential election;

    d. the invocation of presidential privilege to quash subpoenas for Trump’s tapes of conversations in the White House and to prevent production of White House staff to testify before congressional committees and the special counsel;

    e. obstruction of justice;

    f. Trump’s removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution on a declaration essentially of his mental disability;

    g. conflict of official and personal business interests;

    h. the emoluments clause of the Constitution;

    I. timing and corrupt purpose of a presidential pardon;

    j. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s refusal to produce subpoenaed documents and Congress’s potentially holding him in contempt;

    k. the scope of the Russia probe and the powers of Former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct it as special counsel;

    l. Mueller’s eventual firing just as Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Preet Bharara; and

    m. the expected White House shake-up by Trump, which may provoke ‘spit and tell’ retaliation by those fired, with him countering by ordering the Department of Justice to prosecute them for having leaked information;

    n. etc., etc., etc.

    11.  No doubt, Trump’s chaos will spin a whirlwind of lawsuits. Through them, Trump will not only focus national attention on judges through media reporting, but also heighten tension with them by doing what he has already done, thus causing again Democrats as well as Republicans to react either in support of him or of judges’ independence: He will disparage “so-called judges” who in his view treat him “very unfairly” because for one reason or another they are biased against him; and he will feel justified in diminishing them because, as his Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller stated critically and he approved:

    “We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government”(>OL2:527).

    12.  Subsequently, Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, revealed a concurrent sentiment when he stated, thus outraging many:

    “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific [U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson for the District of Honolulu, Hawaii] can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power [to issue his revised ban on Muslim immigration].”

    13.  That judiciary and its judges Trump is bound to attack in an effort to survive his own chaos. Thereby he will cause the judges to react by applying the judges’ unwritten ‘canon’ of conduct that Then-Judge, Now-Justice Neil J. Gorsuch enunciated when he, though nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court, commented on his “so-called judge” derogatory remark about District Judge James Robart for having suspended nationwide his ban on Muslim immigration: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:527).

    14.  That ‘canon’ describes conduct that is not determined by reflection upon principles based on the law, professional duty, or social norms grounded in ethical consideration. It expresses the judges’ gang mentality. That is the way the gang survives in the hood. From the point of view of ‘we against the rest of the world’, every act of every non-gang member is a potential deadly threat to every member, their turf, and their material privileges and ‘respect’ in the hood, earned through sheer abuse of power and brutal retaliation. When the act is done by none other than the president of the enemy gang, the gang’s reaction reverts to its tribal, primitive, atavistic origin: ‘Us against the savage animal at the entrance of the cave’. The gang versus tyrannosaurus rex. Their fight to the death is preprogrammed by the survival instinct. It is in the nature of savages, gangs, and judges.

    15.  By Trump picking a fight with the judges, he will render realistic the opportunity for us to make him and his top officers aware of the significant moral and electoral support and donations that he can receive by appealing to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Simultaneously, we can appeal to The Dissatisfied as their advocates and organize them strategically to assert their First Amendment right “to petition for a redress of their grievances”(*>jur:130fn268) against unaccountable judges and their consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    16.  That is how we seize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform: by applying the principle of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    17.  hat calls on us to identify our main enemy: It is the one that has abusively taken our property, liberty, and rights, and can still wreck our lives by bullying us at will: the gang. T-Rex will be gone sooner or later. Before he does, we need his jaws to chase the gang out of the cave so that we can hold it liable for what it took from us and subject it to us: We the People.

    D. The need to join forces to realize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    18.  We can ever more effectively take advantage of the opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy if we join forces by engaging in harmonious activities aimed thereat and even coordinating them. Concrete examples of how each of us and all of us can do so given our respective status are provided in the next section.

    19.  However, to take full advantage of this opportunity we must join forces in a more organic framework that allows and at once requires us to think and proceed strategically. For such junction, I have developed a for-profit business plan. It is available upon request and discussed in an earlier article hereunder (also at >OL2:560), which is followed by its Table of Contents to provide an overview of it(>OL2:563).

    20.  In synthesis, the plan calls for raising the investment capital necessary to set up an office and form a multidisciplinary academic and business team of highly competent and responsible professionals capable of rendering an ambitious array of judicial wrongdoing and reform advocacy services(jur:128§4) to paying clients(jur:119§1) -e.g., representation, litigation, investigation, seminars and courses, advanced information technology research and development of software for auditing judicial decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing- and in the public interest –e.g., submission and access to databases of complaints against judges and research materials, analysis of court statistics, how-to articles.

    21.  Whether by joining forces through harmonious and coordinated activities, or by running the for-profit business, we will be able to pursue simultaneously two interests that are consistent with each other:

    a.  to work for the public good by making progress in the realization of the noble ideal of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6); and

    b.  to advance our careers by making nationally recognized names as well as earning tangible, valuable rewards(*>OL:3§6), eventually having the option of earning our living as members of the business.

    E. The initial harmonious and coordinated activities that we can pursue to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    22.  We can from now on engage in the following illustrative activities to inform the public about judges’ wrongdoing and so to outrage(>OL2:461§1) the public at judges that it is stirred up to demand that incumbent politicians and those who will soon run in the 2018 mid-term primaries and main campaign, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office(>OL2:517¶16), denounce judges’ wrongdoing and conduct or call for nationally televised congressional public hearings -like those being held by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey  and others- on people’s own and third parties’ experience at the hands of unaccountable judges who engage in consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    23.  We all can strive to insert that issue among the core ones of the national debate and the mid-term election so that being either for exposing or for covering judges’ wrongdoing is a decisive choice for incumbents -including Trump and his decision to campaign for or against somebody- all candidates, and voters(*>OL:356). To that end, we can do the following:

    1. The media members

    24.  A nationally known court reporter and a newspaper editor(>OL2:511) can:

    a. investigate(*>OL:194§E), interview, and write articles on the issue(>OL2:483);

    b. promote its investigation(*>OL:344; 374; >OL2:524) at journalism schools(*>Lsch:23) or by individual(*>jur:xlvi§H) students or those taking a team reporting class;

    c. facilitate the organization by students of a multimedia public presentation(*>jur:97§1) as part of a course(cf. *>dcc:31);

    d. induce talkshow hosts(*>OL:222§1) to hold a weekly or monthly show(*>OL:146¶1) and even form a coalition(>OL:113, 142) for judicial wrongdoing exposure, which can become a powerhouse of American politics, just as Roger Ailes developed Fox News into a conservative politics force to be reckoned with;

    e. produce a documentary(>OL2:464, 536, 537);

    f. call for, and produce an unprecedented and potentially trend-setting nationally public hearings held in the public interest by a board of national media outlets, prominent court reporters, editors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and schools of law, journalism, business, and information technology;

    g. thereby winning a Pulitzer Prize or commanding a higher salary with the same or a different employer;

    h. see to it that a series of my articles is published; and

    I. that I teach a related course at a school(cf. *>dcc:1, 23);

    j. am invited to make a presentation(*>OL:54) to their colleagues or at a school(*>OL:197§G); and

    k. am interviewed.

    2. The law professors

    25.  A preeminent emeritus law professor(>OL2:542, 543) and a tenured law professor(*>jur:xi) at an Ivy League law school can:

    a.  draw the attention of deans(>OL2:539, 541) and the legal community(>OL2:453) to the issue, and thereby become courageous academic figures that pioneer the study of judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to in theory; cf. Professor John Banzhaf III of George Washington Law School taught a public integrity class that successfully led three of his students to sue Former U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for having taken kickbacks and bribes while governor of Maryland, which he was forced to pay into the state treasury with interest;

    b.  organize the first academic conference ever on the issue(*>jur:97§1; *>OL:253), to be held during the 2018 primaries;

    c.  innovate on the role of law schools to turn them into independent, apolitical entities that instill in students the moral strength and develop their skills to hold judges accountable(>OL2:452), thus developing an academic niche for the school and a practice area niche for students;

    d.  promote the creation of an institute of judicial accountability and reform advocacy(*>jur:130§5);

    e.  apply their influence to allow me to present(*>OL:197§G) to their students, faculty, and student organizations(*>Lsch:1, 2):

    f.  see to it that I teach a related course(*>OL:60, 42; dcc:1, 23); and they can

    g.  request of law journals and book publishers(*>jur:x) that they publish my articles(>OL2:483) and study(supra ¶2) of judges and their judiciaries.

    3. The politician

    26.  A local politician(>OL2:487) can:

    a. adopt the issue to appeal to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, placing the issue at the core of her platform and turning it into her brand to enter the national scene and become a national leader that runs for national office; and

    b. invite me to address her supporters at her rallies and fund-raising events (*>OL:46, 51).

    4. The members of courts

    27.  A member of a court, even a judge (*>OL:180), can:

    a.  share with me on a confidential, Deep Throat (*>jur:106§c) basis inside information on judges’ conduct, individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and operation of their judiciaries (>OL2:468); and

    b.  eventually become a whistleblower and end up:

    1)  on the cover of Time Magazine as the Person of the Year(*>jur:iv/fn.iv) and

    2)  as the main character in a blockbuster movie or bestseller, like All the President’s Men(*>jur:4¶¶10-14), for her courageous service in We the People’s interest(*>OL:4¶7) and practical support to the rule of law principle that Nobody is Above the Law,

    3)  thus earning the national merit and name recognition to become this generation’s version of the historic Watergate figure of Deep Throat(*>jur:106§c). Why should a president be investigated and leaked on but not a judge?

    5. The members of district attorneys’ offices

    28.  A member of a district attorney’s office can

    a.  provide me confidentially inside information on:

    1)  how the assistant district attorneys (ADAs) perform in connivance(*>jur:L; ix/c-e) with judges to avoid the latter’s retaliation and abusive exercise of power by making capricious and arbitrary rulings and orders(*>Lsch:17§C), whereby ADAs try to preserve and enhance their “winning scores” and chances of a promotion;

    2) how ADAs’ choice of both cases to prosecute and manner of prosecution is influenced by the district attorney’s dominating goal of securing his reelection to ensure a tenure at least as long as that of his predecessor; and

    b.  manage to pass on to defendants and other litigants the information on how they can work together in small groups to audit(*>OL:274) judges’ decisions and other writings in search of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:282, 304, 308); and refer them to me for a free of charge seminar on auditing judges;

    c.  eventually becoming a whistleblower(supra §4) and gaining enough public recognition and gratitude to run for district attorney; and

    d.  use his or her connections to cause community and grassroots organizations to invite me to present the issue in person or at a video conference.

    F. Work through which we can have a consequential and historic impact here and abroad

    29.  By thinking strategically(>OL2:445§B, 475§D), we can seize the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers to launch the process of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. We can even take advantage of the opportunity to set in motion the development of a Tea Party-like, single-issue civic movement(*>jur:164§9) that seeks to hold judges accountable through, among other things, citizen boards of judicial accountability(*>jur:158§§6-8). This out-of-court strategy(OL2:461§1) is justified by the incapacity of judges to hold their peers accountable and of politicians their appointees(supra §B.1).

    30.  This would constitute progress of historic(*>jur:xLv§G) proportions by We the People in asserting our status: We are the source of all political power. We are the masters of all our public servants. We have the right to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. That assertion will express the awareness of self-identity and power of the movement: The People’s Sunrise(*>OL:201§J).

    31.  As with so many socio-economic innovations that started in America and set the example for the rest of the world, our analysis, business plan, and experience can travel abroad. We can take action in our country that can reach The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System in other countries. We can inspire them with the ideal of Equal Justice Under Law and share with them our means to advance its realization. We can set a trend that makes them aware of who they are: We the Peoples of the World, asserting our universal right to justice and our power as masters to ensure that our servants administer it fairly and impartially according to the rule of law.

    32.  By initially joining forces and then developing into a well-integrated team of competent and responsible professionals ‘dedicated to a mission greater than ourselves’, our work in life can be consequential and historic. In addition to deservedly earning material and professional rewards(*>OL:3§6), we can earn the highest reputational one: We can become recognized here and abroad as the Peoples’ Champions of Justice.

    G. Contact me to schedule a presentation in person or at a video conference

    33.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to contact me to choose a convenient time for us to meet so that I may present to you, if here in New York City, in person, or if otherwise, at a video conference, my invitation to join forces to take advantage of the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. On that occasion, we can discuss the extent to which everyone can initially get involved and how discreetly or publicly.

    34.  Hence, I look forward to hearing from you. To that end, you may contact me by email sent to the following bloc of email addresses:
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    .Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    *********************************

    A For-profit Business Plan for exposing how judges self-exempt from discipline by dismissing 99.83% of complaints against them, and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; and a proposal for public hearings conducted by Congress and/or a board of national media outlets on personal cases and the experience of litigants, lawyers, and others at the mercy of judges above discipline and their decisions by fiat

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
    non-commercially, in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and
    indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org 

    To subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website go to:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    Thank you for your emails replying to my article on Judge Neil Gorsuch and his fellow judges (>ol2:546), and for letting me know about your projects and seeking my opinion thereon. Kindly consider the following comments on two projects that are representative of others.

    † See my study of judges and their judiciaries as they perform in practice as opposed to the conduct prescribed for them in their codes of conduct and statutory rules. It is titled and downloadable as follows:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
    and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *†

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

    1. You want to ensure that “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals” are appointed to the bench. Yet, they must also have the academic qualifications and professional experience needed to perform competently as judges so that they are acceptable to the nominators and confirmers; otherwise, you and the nominees are headed for an exercise in self-embarrassment.
    2. The appointment of a judge, whether to the federal or a state judiciary, is a political act intended to assure that the laws enacted by the appointing party will be upheld as constitutional and interpreted as intended by their adopting party. A group like yours does not offer anything as important as that intended assurance. On the contrary, your demand for honest judges works against the interest of politicians:
    3. Known for their double-talk and opportunism, not their principles, politicians have an interest in appointing people of their ilk, willing to play the power game. They have no use for the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.
    4. Hence, your Washington sit-in will be an exercise in futility that will only waste the effort, time, and money of your group and cause through disappointing results an erosion of commitment.
    5. Neither the President, a governor, nor a legislative body will ever nominate a person who is not a lawyer and a judge, or who does not have the qualifications to be a judge –Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge but was a lawyer and former dean of Harvard Law School–. The risk is too great that the lack of such qualifications may lead to public criticism of the nominee, embarrassment of the appointer, and the forced withdrawal by the nominee of his or her name.
    6. You only need to remember the embarrassment of President George W. Bush when he nominated Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. She was roundly disapproved by even fellow Republicans as unqualified and had to withdraw herself from the nomination. Bush did not risk nominating even his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Instead, he went for a sure name, Then-Judge John Roberts, a member of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
    7. This shows that what appears to advocates of honest judiciaries to be a good idea must be evaluated in the context of one’s resources, the facts, and other people’s interests to determine how to turn it into a reality. This calls for pragmatism enhanced by dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests underlying strategic thinking and resulting in a strategy(>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

    B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

    1. Even if that circuit were broken up into two or more circuits, the judges that have been appointed for life would remain on the bench. Belonging to a smaller or a new circuit is not going to cause them to become “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals”, never mind political neutral and committed to applying only and always the rule of law. They will remain political appointees expected to rule along political lines.
    2. That is shown by the politically motivated controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of Judges Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, nominated to the Supreme Court by Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively.
    3. Worse yet, their respective interests favor maintaining the status quo: The politicians will not dare investigate for misconduct the judges for whose honesty they vouched, lest they indict their good judgment and vetting procedures and provoke the retaliation of all judges, for each could be investigated next. They will continue to hold them unaccountable and allow them to self-exempt from discipline, as shown by the analysis of the official statistics(ol2:546).
    4. The judges will keep risklessly engaging in wrongdoing for their gain and convenience at the expense of everybody else.
    5. Politicians and judges have a harmonious interest in frustrating the advocates’ conflicting interest in non-political judges. The Circuit break-up is not a strategy for judicial honesty. It is an effort that proves that in the absence of strategic thinking and its analysis of interests, there is only wishful thinking, amateurism, and improvisation that do not attain the intended objective.

    C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

    1. The first step to reform the judiciary is to show why it needs reforming: Judges abusively exempt themselves from 99.83% of complaints, are held unaccountable by their Republican and Democratic appointers, and risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3) harmful to everybody else.
    2. For instance, circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., a mere ‘for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect’] by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(ol2:455§§B-E). These decisions are so “perfunctory”(*>jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”…in a legal system rooted in precedent –as opposed to a code of rules– to prevent arbitrariness and off-the-cuff decision-making, and promote predictability and thus, conformance by the man and woman in the street of his or her conduct to reliable legal expectations.
    3. Circuit judges mostly affirm the decisions on appeal and deny motions raised in the appeals(ol2: 457¶26). District judges, who weigh pro se cases as 1/3 of a case and treat them accordingly(ol2: 45§B), know that most of their decisions will be affirmed pro-forma and act perfunctorily.
    4. Their decisions, whether reasonless or cobbled together, are the ad hoc fiats of the judges of “the swamp of the Establishment”(ol2:453), for their life-appointment and in effect irremovability –only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789(jur:21§a) – make them the Establishment’s most established members.
    5. So, We the People are at the mercy of judges who risklessly deny us due process and equal protection of the law, which are reserved for the 7% of decisions that, intended for public scrutiny, are reasoned, signed, and published.
    6. If this information, based on official statistical facts, is made known to the national public -not just the passers-by at the time of a sit-in in D.C.-, it can outrage the People and cause them to demand that their senators and representatives, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call on Congress to conduct public hearings on the experience of the People at the hands of the judges that they hold unaccountably independent.

    D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

    1. You and other advocates should meet locally to discuss the above facts and out-of-court inform-and-outrage strategy before embarking on any trip. Even demonstrating at your courthouse has no chance at present of accomplishing anything: Your demands will not imperil legislators’ electability or even make it to the newscast; they will be ignored like those of most demonstrators.
    2. Your focus should not be on your personal, local cases, which are of as little interest to anybody else as theirs are to you. Rather, highlight through the use of the official statistical tables accompanying the article on Judge Gorsuch and his peers how judges in your circuit abusively dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them, enabling their riskless wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) that harms and interests everybody else.
      1. If your appellate attorney failed to disclose that his or her attorney’s fees would buy you a 93% chance of receiving only a reasonless 5¢ form decision, consider suing him or her for malpractice. If your doctor failed to disclose that he or she would charge you thousands of dollars for medical treatment that for 93% of patients was useless but caused 100% of them a lot of anxiety for months on end, what would you do?
    3. Meet(cf. ol:274) with other advocates to use the table template (ol2:555) to draw up the table concerning your judges. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Gain and wield it to implement the inform-and-outrage strategy that can earn you public respect and attention, and make future demonstrations numerous and effective.
    4. You and others can inform the public by distributing that article by email and social media and discussing it with local groups.
    5. This will allow you to strategically pursue your and other people’s personal cases and share experiences involving wrongdoing judges by demanding that public hearings thereon be held with a view to judicial reform by Congress and/or a pioneering and potentially trendsetting entity: a board of national media outlets working in their commercial and public interest(ol2:558§§D,E).

    E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    1. If you and your group are travelling for a demonstration to D.C. or anywhere else for free and without having to sacrifice time that you could or must use to earn a living, I would like to know how you have managed that feat. Such scenario is, of course, unrealistic.
    2. Planning to travel there or just to demonstrate locally on a workday must have made you all realize that even the noblest objective requires effort, time, and money. Implementing any plan or strategy needs financing.
    3. Thus, I have devised a for-profit business plan to pursue through strategic thinking the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform. Its table of contents is below. I welcome your ideas on how to raise the necessary investment capital to implement that plan. If you have any experience with Fund Me initiatives or access to individuals willing to put their money where their noble or business ideas are, I would appreciate your letting them and me know.
    4. In this vein, I offer to present to you and your group by video conference or, upon your invitation, in person, why it is necessary and opportune to share and post widely the article that discusses judges’ official statistical facts; to implement a business plan that addresses the public harm caused by their unaccountable abuse of their power over your property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine your and everybody else’s life; and to hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, for they are not entitled to be Judges Above the Law.
    5. Your contribution to informing We the People that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ they are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants; outraging the masters at their servants’ wrongdoing; and empowering them to hold their servants accountable can earn you the People’s recognition and turn you into their Champion of Justice.
    6. So I look forward to hearing from you.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5) and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    *****************************

    Part I. OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
    their analysis points to its judges’ arbitrary handling of caseloads that denies due process and equal protection of the laws

    Sections A.-E(>ol2:454, 546)

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Table of Contents of
    Part II.
    THE BUSINESS PLAN
    for raising investment capital
    to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
    through a for-profit business
    that caters to professionals, litigants, and
    The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal Systems

    F. Executive Summary: Paying to acquire, and earning by providing, knowledge and services to counter judges’ power to harm by denying due process and equal protection of the laws and engaging in other wrongdoing

    G. Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries: the foundation for the for-profit business of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

     1. The publication of the study and the formats of publication

    H. Dr. Cordero’s website: the storefront for the public to look in and the billboard to attract clients

    I. The targeted segments of the market

    1. The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

    2. The market of professionals

    3. Professors and students as a pool of employees

    4. The market of pro ses

    J. Activities to be financed to enable the offering of services

    K. Formation of the team of professionals to pursue the multidisciplinary and business venture and its evolution into the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy

    1. Desirable association with a prestigious academic institution from early on

    2. The key members of the team or officers of the institute

    3. The logistics of setting up and running the office

    L. Key profit points of the business plan

    M. What investors can provide in addition to investment capital

    N. Conclusion: This is the most opportune time for a business intended to help “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”

    ************************************

    How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

    Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

    «An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

    Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
    The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
    UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
    WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
    The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    NOTE: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. 

    This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

    1. After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
    2. His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!
    3. J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
    4. He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

    NOTE: The file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546  and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf 

    contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

    1. the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
    2. its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
    3. the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
    4. the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
      a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
      b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

    This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability
    reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

    A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

    1. Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

    ‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

    B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

    1. J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
    2. With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
    3. Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(>ol2:455).
    4. The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
    5. The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
    6. What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
    7. In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
    8. For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
    9. No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

    C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

    1. So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
    2. Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
    3. Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
    4. By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

    D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

    1. It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
    2. Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
    3. Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
    4. President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
    5. To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ***************************

    Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

    NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

    and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548 

    Line Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10th Cir., filed with AO1 ‘06[5] ‘07[6] ‘08A[7] ‘08B[8] ‘09A[9] ‘09B ’10[10] ’11[11] ’12[12] ’13[13] ’14[14] ’15[15] ’16[16] totals
          1. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year * 2 14 7 0 52 18 26♦‡ 8 9 11 17 12 176
          2. Complaints Concluded 0
          3. Complaints Filed[17] 49 37 17 58 [18] 73 62 64 33 59 33 37 51 573
          4. Complaint Type/Source
          5. Written/Filed by Complainants 49 37 17 58 71 61 64 33 59 33 37 51 570
          6. On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
          7. Complainants♦♦
          8. Prison inmates 50 47 26 37 13 27 15 22 13 250
          9. Litigants 8 23 33 19 25 25 16 11 20 180
       10. Attorneys 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 4 2 17
       11. Public Officials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       12. Other 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 16
       13. Judges Complained About **
       14. Circuit Judges 24 18 3 29 21 10 12 3 28 1 4 14 167
       15. District Judges 40 27 43 34 35 22 16 23 29 22 291
       16. Bankruptcy Judges 2 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 3 14
       17. Magistrate Judges 8 12 7 2 6 17 15 6 14 9 4 12 112
       18. Nature of Allegations
       19. Erroneous Decision 2 46 50 57 30 53 16 28 46 328
       20. Delayed Decision 1 7 4 1 5 10 1 4 7 4 6 0 50
       21. Failure to Give Reasons for Decision 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
       22. Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel 4 9 6 6 6 8 7 2 0 48
       23. Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney 0 7 6 7 3 6 14 4 1 48
       24. Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias 14 19 13 28 2 3 9 0 1 3 4 3 99
       25. Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney 3 13 20 21 7 14 18 5 10 111
       26. Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse) 2 4 1 0 7 4 5 1 4 10 2 3 43
       27. Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
       28. Improper Outside Income 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
       29. Partisan Political Activity or Statement 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
       30. Acceptance of a Bribe 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
       31. Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 6
       32. Solicitation of Funds for Organization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       33. Violation of Other Standards 0 1 1 2 1 0 10 0 1 16
       34. Other Misconduct 57 48 23 28 14 23 0 25 40 258
       35. Disability 5 5 0 7 0 0 0 2 10 29
       36. ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
       37. Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
       38. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       39. Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
       40. Withdrawal of Petition for Review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       41. Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
       42. Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
       43. Complaint Dismissed in Whole or in Part 32 78 51 75 33 57 26 42 37 431
       44. Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability 1 0 4 4 3 5 0 2 4 2 25
       45. Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related 30 0 74 43 68 30 49 21 35 33 383
       46. Frivolous 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 18
       47. Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 30 0 46 43 61 18 32 19 32 36 317
       48. Allegations Incapable of Being Established 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
       49. Filed in Wrong Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       50. Otherwise Not Appropriate 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
       51. Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 14
       52. Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       53. Voluntary Corrective Action Taken 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
       54. Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 8
       55. Appropriate Action Already Taken 0 0
       56. Complaint Withdrawn 0 0
       57. Subtotal 0 0
       58. Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
       59. Actions by Special Committees
       60. Matter Returned from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       61. New Matter Referred to Chief Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       62. Judicial Council Proceedings
       63. Matter Returned from Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       64. Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       65. Received Petition for Review[19] 0 58 13 43 0 23 13 26 176
       66. Withdrawn 0 0
       67. Action on Petition for Review 0 0
       68. Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied 21 54 19 45 17 37 18 16 15 242
       69. Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
       70. Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       71. Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       72. Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
       73. Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report 0
       74. Complaint Dismissed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       75. Not Misconduct or Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       76. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       77. Merits Related 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       78. Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       79. Otherwise Not Appropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       80. Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       81. Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       82. Remedial Action Taken 0 0
       83. Privately Censured 0
       84. Publicly Censured 0
       85. Censure or Reprimand 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
       86. Suspension of Assignments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       87. Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       88. Removal of Bankruptcy Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       89. Request of Voluntary Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       90. Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       91. Additional Investigation Warranted 0 0
       92. Returned to Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       93. Retained by Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       94. Actions by Chief Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       95. Transferred to Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       96. Received from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       97. Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
       98. During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year 37 48 24 0 0- 96 50 83 33 57 47 40 36 551[21]
       99. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year] 26 0 29 30 7 8 11 18 14 27 170
                  1. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals

    [These notes are in the original.]

    Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

    ♦♦ Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

    Revised

    Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

    * Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

    Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

     

     

    ENDNOTES

    The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability andConsequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    [1]  This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

    Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

    The above table for the 10th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

    Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

    [2]  Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

    The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

    In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

    The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

    Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

    Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

    And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

    The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

    [3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    However, the website of the 10th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

    [4]  On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    [5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

    [6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

    [7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

    [8]  The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

    [9]  http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

    [10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

    [11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

    [12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

    Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

    [13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

    [14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

    [15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

    [16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

    [17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

    The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

    Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

    The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

    [18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

    [19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

    The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

    [20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

    [21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.

    When pro ses and lawyers think strategically and proceed unconventionally to join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities, turn clerks into confidential informants, and become We the People’s Champions of Justice

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City

    DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

    Subscribe to this series of articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or >Users >Add New

    You, a pro se or a lawyer, who have had a judge deny you or your client due process and equal protection of the law, can take unconventional, imaginative action to expose such wrongdoing (*>jur:5§3; ol:154§3) judge, e.g., one who has clerks allege that documents were served on you but who can neither produce copies nor even show a record that they were actually served on you.

    * All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:# up to ol:393

    Volume 2:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf  >from ol2:394

    A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

    1. There are two basic principles that should guide the actions that pro ses and lawyers take to defend their rights in court:
      .
      a. The court has all the institutional power. If a court wants to railroad you, there is nothing you can do about it, as shown in the analysis(>ol2:452) of the official statistics of caseloads and their management by judges. Suing the judge before his or her own colleagues, peers, and friends is an exercise in futility foretold and a show of lack of understanding of how and why judges cover for each other, as explained in the article(ol2:461) that discusses the concepts of:

    1) dynamics of interpersonal relations based on reciprocally dependent survival; and

    2) institutional circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing.

    b.  Think strategically! This means think outside the box, putting aside the conventional, in-court ways(*>ol:390§B) in which pro ses and lawyers have tried for centuries(jur:21§1) unsuccessfully to secure the respect of the law by judges and their clerks.

    1) Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) consists of the use of knowledge of parties –here: the parties in the judicial and legal systems– and their interrelations to determine through analysis their constantly strengthening and weakening harmonious and conflicting interests underlying and motivating those relations so as to figure out a way to influence those interests to one’s advantage through, e.g.:

    a) the forging of strengthening alliances or the driving of weakening wedges between parties, in application of the principles:

    (1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will do everything possible to help him prevail in order to help myself;

    (2) The friend of my friend is my friend…and I will help him because there is strength in numbers and my grateful friend may help me.

    1. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read as much as you can of my study of judges and their judiciaries*, starting with the (blue text references* ) to it herein. Then you can proceed, not by rote, but rather by strategy crafted against a formidable opposing party: judges and their clerks, who have all the power of their institutions and will use it to crush you. You only have the power of knowledge, which can help you outsmart them. This you can do in the following concrete ways that apply the above principles. They provide for you to use your case only as an element of a strategy: the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>ol2:458§1) for exposing unaccountable (ol:265) judges who consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing coordinated with their clerks.

      B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

    1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

    1. Go to the court website(jur:20), surf to, and download the docket of the case and the calendar of the judge for the last year. You must do that immediately to preserve those records as they stand now before they are altered to suit the clerks’ account of the documents in question. If you cannot download them, take screenshots of every screen –Shift + Screen print (the key after F12)–.
      .
    2. Indeed, whenever you visit a webpage for any aspect of this search, download and date it, and add its link to it because it can be moved or deleted. Add all of them to a single searchable pdf(ol:102; 277¶¶18-20) and bookmark each page to facilitate navigation through the pdf.
      .
    3. Go to the courthouse if those records are not online. Many state courthouses are located in the same building as the county clerk’s office, where the judges’ decisions as well as plaintiffs’ complaints and parties’ briefs, motions, and other case papers are filed as public records. It will become apparent below why it is pertinent to note that the county clerk’s office has other departments to keep, file, register, and issue a host of records, licenses, certificates, and applications regarding jury rosters, property, incorporation and sole proprietorships, marriage, birth and death, name changes, identification cards, voting, running in and results of elections, social security, public assistance, etc. County clerks work in close contact with state court clerks. The former know through the latter all the gossip about the judges and what happens in the court.
      .
    4. In a federal court filings are made in the in-take office of the clerk of court, which is not associated with the state county clerk’s office. In-take clerks learn from the law clerks, who are lawyers and ‘clerk for a judge’ (only for a year after law school) or for the court in general as their permanent job, what goes on in chambers, the courtroom, and elsewhere. An in-taker may also learn from a judge who wrongfully orders her to “change that motion’s docket date to today’s”.
      .
    5. These state and federal case filing offices are referred to here as the clerk’s office or office. Go there and quietly, without drawing attention to you more than needed, sit at a public computer terminal and check your case for its docket and the judge calendar. Print them AND take a picture of every frame with your smartphone or tablet, making sure that the picture allows the identification of the computer as that in the clerk’s office. If there is no computer available to the public, ask a clerk for the paper version of those records and make a copy or take a picture.
      .
    6. Likewise, download or print every single document in the docket. You want to determine whether the alleged document was docketed at all so that it is online and, if so, whether it was docketed in the proper numerical order. What you are looking for is:
      .
      a. the date stamp on the first page;
      .
      b. the sequential number of the document, which often is handwritten next to the date stamp;                       
      .
      c. the initials or name of the clerk who made each docket entry;
      .
      d. whether the document was docketed completely because it has all its internal pages;
      .
      e. markings on pages even if they appear meaningless at this early research stage…or no markings, but a year later the document has markings. Who reloaded it with them? Why?
      .
    7. Examine the judge calendar and look for any entries concerning your case. Are they plausible? Determine whether the judge was in chambers, holding court, or even in town on the date when the document in question was signed or the order for its issuance was allegedly issued; or he or she was at a seminar; teaching a class as an adjunct professor; judging a moot court session at a law school; at the wedding out-of-state of his or her son; on holiday; etc. So check the judge’s:
      .
      a. webpage on the court’s website, paying attention to dates, times, places, names of people, titles, relations, occasions, membership in organizations and clubs, etc.;
      .
      b. social media page, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube; download all pictures of the judge, his family, associates, etc., and accompanying articles for future use(infra, ol2:470¶25).
      .
      c. appearance on a Google search showing that he or she holds an honorary position in an organization that advocates positions that under the code of conduct for judges (jur:68fn123a >Canons 4 and 5) are inconsistent with the obligations of judicial office or involve political activity; or contradict his or her public statements.
      .
      ……………1) This is an example of serendipity: You are looking for one thing but detect another thing of great value because you are proceeding with your eyes wide open and a mind that looks at everything critically and integrates every piece of information into a system. A large percentage of findings are made thanks to serendipity.
      .
    8. Compare your case docket and the calendar entries for your case with those of the judge’s 20 other current cases; compare them with those of other judges. Does a pattern emerge that:
      .
      a. was broken in, or confirmed by, your case and points to the judge’s failure to abide by the injunction in Canon 2 of the judges code to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”?
      .
      b. raises suspicion?: e.g., the judge takes the type of order affecting you on Fridays close to the end of business: Is that a mere caseload dumping(ol:92¶b) measure for a light shoulder feeling that has nothing to do with the merits of the cases?
      .
      c. involves other parties that strangely enough are the same? One of the main rules of wrongdoing is: Involve as few people as possible to avoid leakage, mistakes due to lack of coordination of timing and action, infighting for turf, and reduce the number of ‘slices in which the cake’ of wrongful benefits must be divided among the wrongdoers:

    1) the same clerk, the same accountant, auctioneer, warehouser, guardian ad litem, executor, liquidator, evaluator, companies, and other parties with whom the judge and/or the clerk works together in a scheme(ol:85¶2, 91§E), the most complex, profitable, and harmful form of coordinated(jur:88§a) wrongdoing.

    1. Think like a lawyer: What arguments can you make based on each piece of information, such as a marking, in a source, such as a picture, a webpage, an article, and through their integration in, or failure to fit, a system? Arguments do not scream at you to identify themselves. You have to stare at sources critically and imaginatively to craft them; sources only provide a hint in the form of a piece of information. Does it hint at manipulation of dates, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, text replacement, bias, conflict of interests, counterfactual statement, odd behavior, etc.?

    2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

    1. Al Capone was convicted, not on his alleged mafia crimes, but rather for tax evasion. Likewise, a judge may not be brought down on account of her wrongful decisions, which peers and clerks may squeeze within her discretion or cover up, but rather on account of financial crimes(ol:250§B); after all, the most insidious motive for wrongdoing is Money, lots of money!(jur:27§2).
      .
    2. The key documents in this respect can be downloaded or examined and copied in the field and subjected to financial analysis to determine whether the judge is liable to the Al Capone approach for illegal benefits sought and/or obtained for herself or others. These documents are:
      .
      a. the judge’s mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) available for the last seven years(jur:105fn213a); and
      .
      b. the filings in county clerks’ offices(jur:110fn242-244) concerning the property in the name of the judge, her family, close associates, and even strawmen (fictitious people).
      .
    3. Such financial analysis may produce probable cause to believe that the judge may be:a. filing reports that make no financial sense(104¶¶236-237; jur:72§b; ol:315§6), which may point to off-shore accounts in tax heavens(ol:1, 2), money laundering, and tax evasion;
      .
      b. living above his or her means because on a judges’ salary –a matter of public record–:

    1) records in county clerks’ offices show that the judge has a yacht, a condo in Miami, a large investment in a company, in addition to a home in a gated community;

    2) based on the information found in huge commercial databases of newspapers and journals, e.g., Nexis(jur:108§d): the judge has three children at expensive private universities, takes vacations at luxurious resorts, is a member of exclusive clubs;

    c. taking indirect bribes, e.g., has taken out large loans for which little or no collateral has been posted by mortgaging a property and recording it in the county clerk’s office.

    15. The above should have allowed you to realize the strategic thinking that motivates this exercise:

    a. You are not looking to establish that the judge abused his or her discretion. That is a losing battle because by definition ‘discretion’ has a wide margin of leeway. Even if appellate judges would have exercised their discretion to do the opposite of what the judge did, they cannot reverse her decision if it was within her margin of discretion(ol2:437).

    b. You are looking for wrongdoing, including criminal activity, from which the judge and the clerks benefit(ol:173¶93). Three basic elements are considered to establish wrongdoing: motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). They may reveal a settled way of doing, the modus operandi, which manifests itself in a telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing. You only need to show ‘the appearance of impropriety’(jur:92§d), not prove with evidence.

    3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

    1. The search for patterns of wrongdoing is what can allow you to strengthen your case as nothing else can. Right now, you only have yourself, a pro se party or a lawyer for a party, who as such is by definition biased toward his own side of the story. You are alleging with nothing more than words that you are the victim of some form of judicial wrongdoing, e.g., that you did not receive a document or that the record of a document cannot be found. Nobody is going to take your word for it over that of a judge and her clerks, who are her protégés as her accessories in wrongdoing. Forget about people reading the whole record to reach their own conclusion. Thus, you are nothing but a lone whining loser. You need to break away from that damning status.
      .
    2. Strategic thinking and proceeding will allow you to become a member of a class of people victimized by a pattern of wrongdoing of a judge or judges and their clerks. How you form that class, beginning with a small, manageable team of three to seven people who have appeared before the same judge as you have, is described in painstaking detail in the article Auditing Judges (ol:274; and at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero_Auditing_Judges.pdf).

    C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

    1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

    1. To build the Auditing Judges class, you and your Auditing Judges team need inside informants: Deep Throats(jur:106§c), similar to the classic one in the Watergate Scandal, which brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign on 8aug74(jur:4¶¶10-14).
      .
    2. Clerks know a lot about judges’ wrongdoing, for they may be their willing or coerced assistants in committing it. Yet, most only get the smallest benefit, usually limited to holding on to their jobs: They either do what they are told or they are flung out(jur:30§1). If they are fired arbitrarily, they can hardly count on other clerks testifying on their behalf. If they file a suit, they land in front of the firing judge’s peers, who have an interest in sending a message to all clerks: ‘Don’t you even think of disobeying our orders: You can only jump from the pan to the fire.’ Cowardice and helplessness breed resentment in the clerks. How many female clerks have had to endure sexual abuse by judges, such as J. Samuel Kent(jur:22fn14)? Read about it and turn this subject into a talking point to strike up a conversation with a clerk identified as a potential informant.
      .
    3. This explains why clerks may be the ones most indignant about the judges’ wrongdoing: They may have joined the court expecting to be Workers of Justice, but have been forced to become the judges’ Enforcers of Wrongdoing. They may not feel proud about their behavior.
      .
    4. All this points to the need to:
      .
      a. identify former clerks: They know a lot about what went on in the court; still have contacts there, and cannot be fired…or were fired for protesting;
      .
      b. imagine scenarios of how to approach a given clerk based on what you are learning about her that may persuade the clerk to become an Informant for Justice; and
      .
      c. role play(ol:356) frequently with other team members, even on the phone, or in front of a mirror: Do not wing it! Here are three steps for you and your team to search for informants: identify, learn and choose, and contact:

    a. Identify current and former clerks

    a. Go to the website; download and print the picture of every judge and clerk; identify each with name and title, and affix all to The Wall of Insiders of your home, where you will build their organizational diagram (organigram) with those pictures and additional information found elsewhere; use 3” x 5” cards for people whose picture have not been found;

    b. download the telephone register, which lists the name and title of judges and clerks;

    c. check the website’s Contact Us webpage;

    d. check the webpage for each judge, which may identify his or her law (chambers) clerks;

    e. send a crawler to roam the Web for people who in social media or resumes have listed among their former jobs ‘clerk at court X [=wild card]’ or ‘clerked for Judge X’;

    f.  Go to the courthouse; look in the lobby for a directory on a wall listing the name, title, and room of each judge and clerk; take a picture with your smartphone or tablet;

    g. go to the county clerk’s office, the in-take office, the court library and other departments:

                 1) the personnel headshot gallery, with name and title, may be on a wall; take a picture;

    2) ask a clerk for a roster of clerks to help you navigate your way through the maze of departments that you have been told you need to work with. If the clerk has such a roster but not for distribution to the public, ask to be allowed to copy it;

    3) inconspicuously take a picture of every clerk and the desktop nameplates;

    4) ask for newsletters, brochures, fliers, forms, etc.; some may be downloadable;

    h. go to the court library; check the publications that report court decisions, called reporters and advanced sheets, which at the front or the back may have a list of clerks’ names;

    i. check the pages posted on the outside wall of the courtroom on the day when a judge holds motion hearings, which may list the name and phone number of the judges’ clerks;

    j. walk through the courthouse and pay attention to the shingles outside some doors indicating the names of the several departments and their respective heads;

    k. strike up a conversation with any clerk even if you show that you are in the wrong department and have no clue what it does. Use your ignorance to ask for, and receive, the names of current and former clerks in that and other departments with whose requirements you have to comply…to receive child support for a newborn after changing your name after your home was foreclosed and your new address is your car that was stolen. Bad day!

    l. if needed, go to the courtrooms and photograph judges on the bench and their clerks.

    22. Think, think, think creatively, imagining and rehearsing scenarios in advance, to come up with the opportune questions or comments at the right moment. Think strategically to craft a plan of action and, very importantly, to ‘connect the dots’ represented by each big as well as small, even tiny, piece of information. You are doing field research work: You are a Detective for Justice.

    23. Go back home; print and post new pictures and add your field information to that already in the organigram on your Wall of Insiders. Google names and run pictures through face recognition software(jur:146fn271, 272 for a spectacular result of so doing); read the related articles; and add information on 3” x 5” cards. You will be impressed by your own work and so will be others.

    24. Reproduce your Wall on your computer using PowerPoint preferably, otherwise Word, and its many collapsible/expandable features for adding information, such as digital sticky notes, call outs and cloud forms, connecting and freeform lines, etc., also available after you save your PP page in, or add it to a, pdf. Save a copy on your mobile device so that you can share your organigram with other team members(ol2:416§A) by email or when you meet them; and compare it with theirs in order to correct, combine, and enlarge it. This is team work, not competition.

    b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

    1. After compiling the list of clerks, you and the team must learn about each. Check their social media pages and Google their names, as shown above concerning judges. Learn as much as possible about where and what they studied; what their past jobs were; whether they have family and who their friends are; what school their children go to; where they went for their holidays; what hobbies they have; what associations or church they are members of; where they are likely to be found outside the courthouse; etc. Every piece of information will allow you to relate to them better when you meet them. With insatiable curiosity, imagination, and foresight, hog information.
      .
    2. The determination of what clerk is most likely to become an informant begins with those who are more relatable to you because of age, race, educational level, religious affiliation, marital and family status. However, keep in mind that young people are likely to still be idealistic. They may resent more the injustice that they see in the court and that they are forced to participate in. An unmarried young clerk who still lives at home may still be sensitive to a motherly figure.
      .
    3. Old clerks may have become jaded. They have established links of, not only conspiratorial relations with judges, but also of friendship and loyalty. They may be so deep into wrongdoing schemes that they risk too much if they give you any piece of information that may lead to any aspect of the court being investigated. Their ‘fingerprints’ are in every wrongdoing. They knew or should have known about it. They are not only accessories under duress(ol2:462§1); they have become principals(jur:90§§b,c). They may be close to retirement and cannot envisage losing their pension just because you tell them to think back to the days when Justice mattered to them.

    c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

    1. The previous two steps called for members with a bent for research and organization of data and capacity for profiling people(jur:xLvi§H). The third step calls for people’s persons, those with great social skills, talkative, and the ability to touch other people’s soul. They have to go in the field to befriend clerks who have been determined likely to become confidential informants.
      .
    2. Befriend a clerk until you can appeal:
      .
      a. to his or her moral fiber:
      .
      b.  the image of themselves as decent persons, who “Treat others the way they would like others to treat them”;
      .
      c. as honest public servants who take pride in serving the public;
      .
      d. as good parents who want to set the right example for their children;
      .
      e. people with a personal and civic conscience who would be outraged upon being informed(ol:236) that you and so many others, their families, employees, suppliers, etc., have been harmed profoundly by the wrongs, committed with the coerced assistance of their clerks, of the judges who have deprived them of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives. The harm is real –injury in fact–; the pain is constant.
      .
    3. Elicit understanding and empathy, positive reactions that generate personal identification with a common cause and commitment to its advancement; not guilt, a negative feeling that drains people of energy and draws them into self-absorbed recrimination that causes degenerative self-worthlessness. Get the clerk to confide in you under the assurance that you will preserve their anonymity. Share only the information with the other team members(ol2:416§A). Invite the clerk to meet and join them.

    2. The invisible little men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

    1. There is another class of people that can provide an enormous amount of information about judges and their wrongdoing: They are outsiders: hotel drivers, receptionists, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, room cleaners, and similar ‘little people’ with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts, experience with VIPs, and financial interest in satisfying their every wish– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges full of themselves, and in whose ghostly presence Judges Above the Law uninhibitedly discuss, or engage in competitive boasting about, their wrongdoing(ol:175§2).
      .
      a. Got to the places where, according to your research, the judge went or frequently goes. and show the ‘little people’ the pictures of the judge, her family, associates, etc.;
      .
      b. ask them what they know about the judge and the others. Any apparently insignificant dot of information can become significant once you start ‘connecting the dots based on what makes people tic and the world go around’(ol:279¶25) and a richly detailed figure emerges of the judge, her train of living, property, extra-judicial activities, etc. So, ask about:

    1) the occasions on which the judge was there;

    2) the other people that were with the judge: spouse, boy- or girlfriend, children, other VIP’s, shady people;

    3) who picked up the tab;

    4) any bit of the conversation among them that the little people picked up;

    5) how the judge treated the little people; etc.

    D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

    32. Einstein said that “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, because it ignores the fundamental law that governs both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. The secular practice against wrongdoing judges is to sue them in court, lodge complaints against them with a judicial performance commission, and ask legislators to investigate them. If you do that, you will likewise end up frustrated, exhausted, and abused; and with dissatisfied one-time clients.

    33. Strategic thinking leads to a radical departure: inside knowledge and rational analysis of people’s interests. It detects patterns of wrongdoing and devises an out-of-court/commission plan of action that imaginatively fosters or hinders such interests to expose wrongdoing and hold wrongdoers accountable. This calls for hard work, but it is reasonably calculated to have positive results: objective, verifiable, and convincing wrongdoing patterns that you and your team can take to:

    a. journalists, who do not pay attention to the self-serving allegations of a single party;

    b. politicians(ol2:416) who are looking for a novel issue on which to run for office, set themselves apart from their challengers, and develop a personal, reliable constituency;

    c. documentarists looking for a story that can make them the next Michael Moore, with the equivalent of a hugely successful Fahrenheit 9/11(ol2:461), or Laura Poitras(ol:35, 36);

    d. to other parties before the same judge or other judges in the same court, in other courts in the same city, in other cities, and beyond to build a class and develop a precedented, Tea Party-like movement(jur:164§9) of victims of wrongdoing judges and the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who are members of the dominant segment of the population: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment;

    e. even the judge on a motion for recusal; an appeals court for disqualification or remand and new trial; and a judicial performance commission to support a fact-based complaint;

    34. You are not alone. There are many like you out there. The above is a plan of action for you to become their rallying point. It all begins in your mind, by strategically thinking, then taking imaginative action(ol2:431). Strengthen your mind by reading in my study* because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read and reread the Auditing Judges article(ol:274) to learn how to form a small team of people who have appeared before your wrongdoing judge. They share your experience and frustration. They understand you. They are on your side. Your success is their success. You can become the leader of many pro ses and even lawyers by starting with a few just like you.

    35. Take heart from the people who never dreamed of becoming leaders until they were hit by an event that knocked them to the ground. But they would not stay down and take it: They stood up and fought back. They became reluctant heroes(ol:142§B).You never know what you can do until you decide that enough is enough and take the risk: To do your most. That is how you become recognized by We the People as one who asserted our right to Equal Justice Under Law and to hold all our public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing because Nobody is Above the Law.

    36. Thus, I offer to make a presentation at a video conference(ol:350) or in person on how you can become one of the People’s Champions of Justice.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.