Downloading and posting the presentation on exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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.

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your interest in the presentation that I made as a guest on Ms. Lidya Radin’s radio talkshow program Crooked Doctors.

A. The oral presentation in an mp3 file

  1. The presentation is contained in an mp3 file, which can be downloaded through these links:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

2. I can also send the file itself through Skype. Search for Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. or DrRCorderoEsq, and after finding me, send me a request for it

B. The written study of judges and their judiciary in a pdf file

3.  I would appreciate it if in close proximity to the presentation links, you would prominently indicate that the research and evidentiary basis for the presentation is my study of the judiciary and its judges, and that 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 810 pages and is more than 53 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

C. The outline linking the presentation to the study

4. The outline of the presentation is in the study file at * >ol:350. I encourage you to listen to the presentation as you follow it in its outline.

5. The outline has numerous internal links to sections in the study and articles accompanying it. All of them provide supporting and additional evidence and analysis concerning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

6. All links are active so that by clicking any of one of them the referred-to section in the study and accompanying articles is called up to the screen. This greatly facilitates its review, after which you can click the Previous View tool on the pdf Navigation Toolbar, i.e., the icon consisting in a left-pointing arrow inscribed in a circle. If that tool is not installed, click anywhere in the toolbar and go to More Tools >Page Navigation Toolbar and check Previous View.

7. The outline its worth reading on its own to get an overview of the subject. It is also a guide to my novel series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions identified through strategic thinking to advance such exposure and reform, as opposed to the traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about wrongdoing judges.

8. This highlights the substantive difference between:

a. complaining against a rogue judge, who, if removed, is merely replaced by another one of his or her ilk by the same conniving politicians, whereby the wrongdoing continues essentially undisturbed; and

b. exposing coordinated wrongdoing that has become the institutionalized modus operandi of judiciaries so that an informed public may become so outraged as to pressure politicians to take a stand on such wrongdoing and call for investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts, as well as for nationally televised hearings.

9. The politicians who can be most easily so pressured are those running for election or reelection, who need to appear sensitive and responsive to the public mood. In turn, the ones among them more susceptible to that pressure are those who must stand out in the overcrowded field of presidential candidates.

10. It is such exposure that opens the way to judicial reform. Consequently, it commands most deservedly the joint effort of all advocates of honest judiciaries.

 

D. Offer to make presentations so We the People may hold our public servant judges accountable

11. I offer to make a presentation, whether in person or at a video conference, to you and your colleagues as a means of so informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing.

12. Therefore, I respectfully request that you network me to other people who can conceivably network me to top officers of any and all presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist:

a. to present to them, and thanks to them to their candidate himself or herself, a strategy for drawing electoral support from the huge(* >ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

E. Your choice and opportunity to become a Champion of Justice

13. You can continue being a lonely victim of wrongdoing judges and keep complaining through ways that judges steer to failure for the worst reason, because they can, thus turning your effort into yet another exercise in futility; or you can join a courageous and visionary group of pioneers as they start to expose them through a series of novel, imaginative, and realistic actions(* >ol:349).

14. Thereby you can help yourself and We the People, the masters in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, assert their status and the right flowing from it to hold all their public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

15. By so doing, you can become nationally recognized by the People as one of their Champions of Justice.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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

Outline of the Presentation
on how advocates of honest judiciaries can join forces to pursue a series of
concrete, realistic, and feasible actions
identified through strategic thinking
to expose judges’ wrongdoing and
lead to judicial reform
that turn advocates into national 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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

A. Pragmatic two-fold objective: help parties and reach out to national public

  1. Help parties before same wrongdoing judge join forces and confront them

a. Ever more parties are pro se(jur:28fn35, 38, 64)

b. Organize court strikes to protest coordinated wrongdoing in a court

2. Inform and outrage the national public about judges’ wrongdoing(ol:333§G)

a. Turn the issue into a key one of Election 201

b. Develop a single-issue national movement to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing

c. Tea Party precedent and model for developing single-issue movement

B. Failure to make any progress in holding judges accountable(jur:21§§1-3)

3. Judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3): disregard of the facts and the applicable law

4. Only 8 federal judges impeached & removed in the 226 years since 1789

5. 99.82% of complaints against federal judges are dismissed(jur:10-14)

6. 75% of appeals disposed by summary orders + 11% by perfunctory orders

7. Judges cover for each other: systematic denial of en banc review motions

C. The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing(jur:1§1)

8. Secrecy: adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, disciplinary meetings

9. Unaccountability: abused self-disciplinary system; state within state

10. Coordination: among judges & between them and other insiders

11. Risklessness: all gain, no loss, attraction makes wrongdoing irresistible

D. Traditional, tried & failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:336¶68; 340§B)

12. In-court/judges-judging-judges; in-Congress/appointers-protecting-appointees

E. The need for strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C)

13. Dynamic analysis of harmonious & conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2;ol:52§C)

14. Advancing potential allies’ interests; not asking for their help(jur:xxxix, xliii)

15. Creating and undermining alliances according to their interests(dcc:8¶11)

F. The need to inform and outrage the national public(ol:331§§C, G)

16. Out of court, two step, strategy(ol:135)

17. The nature and ranking of outrageous information(jur:5§3)

G. Natural and potential allies(ol:332§F)

18. Victims of wrongdoing judges

a. parties: easy prey pro ses; those represented by solo-medium law firms

b. not ‘well-connected’ lawyers

c. court and law clerks and judges disgusted with the wrongdoing(jur:100¶b.6)

19. Journalists

a. not a monolithic industry

b. scandal sells

c. fiercely competitive: the Nielsen ratings

20. Politicians

a. of different parties

b. incumbent v. challenger

c. top senator v. first term member of the House(ol:231§3)

d. presidential candidates

H. Concrete, realistic, feasible actions: the three at the core(ol:337§2)

21. Auditing judges(ol:274, 284, 304)

a. Identifying 4 or 5 dissatisfied parties before the same judge

b. Searching for commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing

c. Presenting journalists with patterns of wrongdoing, not one case

d. Court strike by parties and lawyers

1) ‘the Spring the Courts’ campaign on social media

22. Presidential candidates(ol:311)

a. Candidates: need to say something to attract media & public attention

b. Outraged voters compel candidates to take a stand on the issue

c. Networking to top campaign officers, e.g., the chief of staff

d. Presentation on their drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

e. A candidate’s denunciation(jur:98§2) at a press conference or rally of evidence of, and statistics on, judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§1-3)

f. The two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B; ol:138; 321)

1) P. Obama-SCt Justice Sotomayor: concealment of assets (jur:65fn107a,c) and the Follow the money! investigation

2) Federal Judiciary-NSA: electronic transfer of concealed assets between hidden/declared accounts; interception of exposers’ communications(ol:344§§B,C): the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

g. A Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation:

1) Trojan horse-like(ol: 269§1) investigation(ol:194§§1-2) of the two stories leads to enabling coordinated wrongdoing, causing

2) systematic investigation of judges’ wrongdoing, results in

3) pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:2§2) first at federal, then state, level

h. Turn judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of Election 2016(ol:269§2)

i. Nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing

23. Radio and TV talkshow hosts(ol:146, 308)

a. holding a meeting of network officers and talkshow hosts

b. making a presentation at each talkshow

c. each host to hold a weekly show on judges’ wrongdoing, how to audit judges(ol:274) & progress thereof; shows as victims’ rallying point

d. forming coalition that becomes a powerhouse of American politics

I. An effort at presentations(ol:197§G)

24. Journalism schools and associations(Lsch:23; ol:319)

a. not even judges can retaliate simultaneously against all journalists

b. investigator can become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame

c. enhance portfolio for student’s first job or journalist’s promotion

d. conducting team investigation of the two unique national stories

25. Law schools(Lsch:1, 2, 21)

a. glut of unemployed law school students and attorneys(a&p:23§W)

b. create a niche market(ol:257§2) for motions to recuse, and vacate orders of, judges who failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”

c. offer a seminar on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(ddc:1)

26. Business schools(jur:119§a; ol:324)

a. Fraud and Forensic Accounting Investigation

1) Follow the money! from bankruptcy, tenant, probate courts

2) Statistical analysis of judges’ wrongdoing to detect patterns of individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and trends(jur:131§1)

27. Information Technology schools and institutes(ol:42, 60)

a. Conduct Follow the money! & Follow it wirelessly! investigations

1) concealing assets for tax evasion and money laundering

2) abused access to confidential information in sealed case files

b. Develop commercial software to perform statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing of judges’ writings(jur:132§§2-9)

J. Supporting actions(ol:337¶74)

28. Pitching the judges’ wrongdoing study(jur:1)to book publishers(jur:l)

29. Contacting and coalescing bloggers and website owners; and inducing digital news media start-ups and documentarists(ol:313) to investigate

30. Identifying authors of scandal books & private investigators to persuade (jur:21§§1-3) to investigate judges’ wrongdoing(jur:65§§1-3; ol:191§§A,B)

K. Material and moral rewards(ol:3§F)

31. A scoop, Pulitzer Prize, and interviews on news casts and talkshows

32. Bestseller on the two unique national stories & institutionalized wrongdoing

33. Blockbuster movie, e.g., All the President’s Men & President Nixon’s resignation

34. In-house promotion and advancement to a more prestigious company

35. Appearance on the cover of Time magazine as Person of the Year

L. Your choice and what is next

36. Traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:347§A) v.

37. Novel, reasonable strategy for appealing to people’s interest in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform: the agenda(ol:329)

38. A statement of your contribution

a. experience, qualifications, skills, networkable relations

b. commitment to an action and hours per week

c.  money; mass emailing; library research and field investigation

39. Key effort: organizing presentations to colleagues, schools, institutes, etc.

40. Forming a multidisciplinary academic(ol:115; 327) and business venture team of people with professional skills and work ethos(jur:128§4)

41. Building a movement for judicial accountability(ol:201§§J,K)

a. Tea Party-like single-issue the People’s Sunrise movement(jur:164§9)

b. first expose nature, extent, & gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:49§4)

c. then discuss means to detect, punish & prevent exposed wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8)

1) e.g. establishments of citizen boards that publicly receive and investigate complaints against judges and hold them account-able and liable to compensate their victims(jur:158§§6-8)

42. Exposers & advocates recognized as We 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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

NOTE 1: 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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 

or

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or

http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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

 

Advocates of honest judiciaries joining forces to expose judges’ wrongdoing and abusive self-exemption from accountability and liability, by taking advantage of presidential candidates’ need for journalistic attention and voters’ support

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

This open letter 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.

A. Jointly finding out whether Internet Service Providers are intercepting communications at the behest of third parties

  1. If you, the Reader, email me, I will acknowledge receipt promptly. That is very important because I have been informed that people have tried to communicate with me by email but have had their emails returned as undeliverable. In fact, I have sent many emails which ISP Verizon blocked as spam; then I sent them through Yahoo, but did not receive a single reply.
  2. You and all the other advocates of honest judiciaries are likely to find of interest the problem of emails being blocked as spam and not sent, for it may interfere with your own communications. It enables the blocking Internet Service Provider (ISP) to wield the power to censure. Such power is unaccountable, for the ISP gives no indication whatsoever of what constitutes spam. As result, the user does not know how to avoid sending spam: He or she is at the mercy of the ISP, who can block any email by just labeling it spam, whether at its own initiative or at the request or by order of a third party. That amounts to absolute power, which breeds abuse.
  1. The issue of blocking by spam labelling is discussed in my letter to the CEO of Verizon, which is found in my study of judges and their judiciary at * >ol:371. That study 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

In that file, all blue text superscript note and (parenthetical) references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

  1. This is a matter where you, other technically and research savvy advocates, and I can join forces in an effort to find out whether a third party has instructed Verizon and other ISPs to not only block the sending, but also intercept –a much broader concept- the communications of critics of judges and other people disliked by private or government officers. Such interception is a crime under federal law(ol:6fn13).

1. A current $30 million lawsuit by a former CBS reporter alleging government interception of her communications

  1. A current case starkly shows how wrongdoing can take the form of interception of communications undertaken by officers at the top of government:

Former CBS Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $30 million on a claim that it hacked into her work and home computers to find out about investigations of hers that embarrassed the Obama administration, in particular the Department of Justice (DoJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and its Fast and Furious operation. The latter concerned the sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers in the U.S. in an attempt to track the weapons’ journey to druglords in Mexico. This ill-considered and worse executed operation led to the use of one of those weapons in the assassination of an American officer….(ol:346¶131)

2. Determining whether judges are directing ISPs to intercept the communications of their critics

  1. There appears to be interception of my emails to prevent communication between critics of judges’ wrongdoing and hinder the critics’ effort to reach out to third parties, such as presidential candidates. The latter can have an electoral interest in denouncing such wrongdoing to attract journalistic attention and earn the support of the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. In this vein see:a statistical analysis of a large number of communications critical of judges, which gives probable cause to believe that they were intercepted(ol:19§D/fn2); andb. the cancellation of my email and cloud storage accounts by Google, Microsoft, and Dropbox(ggl:1 et seq.).
  2. The revelation that judges have led any ISP to intercept the communications of their critics would outrage the national public by far more intensely than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the blanket collection of metadata by NSA: The latter had the plausible excuse of having acted ‘in the national security interest’. However, the judges are acting only in the crass personal and judicial class interest of covering up their ill-gotten benefits(jur:5§3), including assets(jur:65§§1-4), grabbed by abusing their judicial power and excused by their concoction of the self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d).

B. Judges’ interest in covering up their concealment of assets

  1. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico published a series of articles(jur:65fn107a) suspecting of concealment of assets Then-Judge, Now-Justice, Sotomayor, the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court. Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, evade taxes on them, and launder money so that it can be openly invested or otherwise used as if legally acquired. Therefore, concealment of assets is a crime(ol:5fn10).
  2. The Code of Conduct for Judges requires that they “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” (jur:68fn123a). The appearance that judges, and all the more so Supreme Court justices, are concealing assets would become a key issue of Election 2016 and lead to precedented resignations(jur:92§d). This would follow the revelation that they have been recommended, nominated, and confirmed by politicians, including presidential candidates, who were knowingly indifferent or willfully ignorant or blind(jur:90§§b,c) to the evidence of judicial candidates’ wrongdoing and who now protect them as ‘their judges on the bench’

C. An outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing

  1. The national public can become outraged at the connivance between judges and politicians. Hence, it can force incumbent and challenging politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to take a stand on the issue of judges’ wrongdoing. What is more, the public can demand that politicians, in general, call on Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and, in particular, hold nationally televised hearings thereon and publish the FBI vetting reports on judicial candidates(jur:65§1).
  2. Public outrage and scandal sell copies. They can be powerful commercial incentives for journalists to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and their connivance with politicians.
  3. As proposed(ol:311, 362), politicians can attract the public by inviting it to post its complaints against judges to the politicians websites-cum-clearinghouses so that the complaints may be analyzed by the public for patterns and trends of wrongdoing. Evidence of coordinated wrongdoing among judges and between them and other insiders of the judicial and legal systems is much more persuasive than the claim of a single party that the judge in its case was corrupt.
  4. Presidential candidates as well as other politicians can intentionally advance their own electoral interest while unwittingly advancing the interest of us, advocates of honest judiciaries, in developing the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating conventions, and the presidential campaign. Such issue development we cannot accomplish on our own.
  5. However, we can develop an alliance of harmonious interests(Lsch:14§§2-3; ol:52§C) with presidential candidates and other powerful people and entities. That is the result of strategic thinking(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C). It is indispensable to set in motion the process leading to our ultimate objective: judicial reform.
  6. Indeed, public outrage at judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians must be so intense that it renders judicial reform unavoidable and so far reaching as to include what today is unthinkable, such as the establishment of citizens boards of judges’ accountability and liability to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8).

D. Concrete, realistic, and feasible actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing

  1. Can you imagine how much renown you would win if thanks to your knowledge of computers and skills in Internet and journalistic field research you were instrumental in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, precisely now during Election 2016? Can you imagine the boost to your business provided by all those people who thereafter would want to hire you to work on their cases?

1. Exposing by investigating

  1. You can bring your knowledge and skills to bear on determining whether there has been:a. interception of communications(jur:105§b) of critics of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:195§4), by your participation in the Follow it wirelessly! investigation (ol:192§B); andb. concealment of assets by judges(ol:194§E-3; jur:102§a), by your participation in the Follow the money! investigation(ol:191§A)

2. Exposing by networking and arranging presentations

  1. In addition to sharing with those on your emailing list and posting to websites the letter to presidential candidates(ol:362) as widely as possible, you can:a. use that letter to network with your friends and acquaintances and have them network with theirs until you and they are able to put me in touch with top officers, such as the campaign strategist and policy-maker, and of course, the chief of staff, of any and each of the presidential candidates so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how, as proposed(ol:311, 362), they can denounce judges’ wrongdoing, draw people to their websites, and earn their electoral support; andb. put me in touch with professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how they can apply their respective expertise and knowledge to expose judges’ wrongdoing and thereby make a name for themselves and earn other valuable moral and material rewards(ol:3§F) as they pioneer the academic and business field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:119§1).
  2. I look forward to receiving your email. Meantime, you may share this article widely. To their recipients and the rest of the national public thanks to your strategic thinking and effort to have them join forces to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform, and even lead them to form a We the People, self-assertive, single issue, Tea Party-like movement for honest judiciaries, the People’s Sunrise(ol:201§J), you can become their Champion of Justice(ol:201§K).

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

NOTE 1: 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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf  

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 
or
http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

Read the outline of the presentation at * >ol:350:

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

FACTS AGAINST FEAR: A proposal to presidential candidates to reassuringly place the risk of death by terrorism in perspective by comparing it with other causes of death in America so that one of them who thinks strategically may emerge as the enlightening leader that leads an enlightened People and as the 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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

This open letter 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.

[To each of the presidential candidates]

Dear Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you to emerge as the leader who enlightens and reassures the national public when as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino some presidential candidates have misled the public into thinking that terrorism is the main death risk that it runs. You can put terrorism in perspective by comparing it with other leading causes of death that have mortality rates indisputably and even surprisingly higher, e.g., hospital infections and lightning.

By thinking strategically, you can responsibly use the accompanying comparative statistics table in a novel way: to reassure and attract the public to your website through crowd fact-checking and posting.

To that end, you can reassuringly comment at rallies, debates, and interviews on the need to confront terrorism with a sense of proportion so as not to be unduly impressed by the day to day events or even exploited by demagoguery for political gain at the expense to the public peace of mind. Then you can unfold a paper and read its title aloud: Facts against Fear: a table comparing terrorism with other causes of death in America.

That table will be only the first of many on a wide spectrum of subjects and serves as a template for the presentation of verifiable data.

So you can invite the public to contribute to researching the incomplete entries of the table and submit their findings to your website for verification.

You can announce that the most prolific submitters of verifiable and enlightening statistics and analysis[1]* will be publicly recognized and invited to become members of the campaign’s virtual teams of enlighters. Their task will be to turn your website into the most trusted and visited source of presidential election information and the most reliable fact-checking entity. Their mission will be to provide the truth-in-fact foundation for your motto: An enlightening leader leads an enlightened people[2].

* All the square bracketed numbers are references to the endnotes below. They and the parenthetical references are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install

 

You can portray the table(s) as your means of running a campaign based on facts, as opposed to fearmongering, that illustrates how you as president would run a transparent, honest administration based on facts verifiable by, and known to, We the People.

Naturally, the public that is attracted to your website to post and check facts will also find there information about your platform and upcoming rallies, and have the opportunity to donate to your campaign.

The above proposal further illustrates the potential of strategic thinking. Indeed, the latter has given rise to another proposal(ol:311):

You can draw electoral support from the huge[3] untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. Their dissatisfaction derives from judges’ self-disciplining authority, their abuse of it by systematically dismissing complaints against them[4], and secretive functioning[5], enabling their disregarding of the facts and the law applicable to cases to gain benefits risklessly.

You can tap the bloc’s support[6] by presenting at a press conference and rallies the evidence[7] thereof contained in my study Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing (see above).

You can invite the public to post on your website its judicial complaints so that it can analyze them for coordinated wrongdoing patterns[8], thus attracting Republicans and Democrats alike; and to join you in calling for nationally televised hearings (to be known as your hearings) on judges’ wrongdoing and journalistic and official investigations even as your teams of enlighters conduct their own(ol:194§E).

Judges who give “even the appearance of impropriety”[9] can be led to resign[10]. As president, you can fill their vacancies to secure your legislative agenda’s constitutionality[11].

By leading We the People’s “petition for a redress of grievances”[12], you can emerge as their Champion of Justice[13].

I offer to make a presentation[14] to you and your officers at a video conference or in person.

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

Sincerely,

s/Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Endnotes

[1]. You can post the accompanying table(ol:365) and ask people to use it as a template when submitting their research findings. The latter will be subject to an initial phase of vetting by the public. Findings that surmount such vetting will be posted as your campaign’s official facts.

[2]. After presenting to your audience the Facts Against Fear table, you can ask it and the rest of the American public poignant rhetorical questions to cause them to perform a balancing test:

a. Given the comparative statistics already presented, would you prefer to take your chances with falling victim to terrorism or becoming a victim of any of the other causes of death in America whose chance of occurrence is 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of time higher?

b. When a member of your family, a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a workmate or fellow American dies in a car accident, a house fire, a drive-by shooting, or by food poisoning, do you say that their deaths do not count because they did not die a victim of terrorism?

c. The federal government spends more than it collects in taxes, which explains why its borrowing limit has to be raised so often; otherwise, it would run out of funds and have to close down. Imagine that the government manages to gather $5 billion to reduce the mortality of one of the causes of death in America. If you could vote on how to allocate that money, would you vote to allocate it to fight terrorism or to combat any of the other causes of death with significantly higher mortality rates, such as cancer or car crashes?

[3]. In the federal and state courts, there are filed 50 million new cases(jur:8fn4, 5) annually. They involve at least 100 million parties, each of which may be constituted of two, ten, a hundred persons or the thousands of members of a class. In addition, every case affects the parties’ relatives, employees, clients, shareholders, similarly situated people, etc. To those cases must be added the scores of millions pending and those deemed by parties to have been wrongfully decided to take their property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives.

[4]. Official statistics cited in my study(jur:21§1) show that:

a. Federal judges dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers and deny up to 100% of petitions to review dismissals(jur:10-14). They cover for each other due to the principle of mutually dependent survival(Lsch:16§1).

b. In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13(jur:22fn13)– impeached and removed is 8! So they not only are appointed for life “during good Behaviour”, but also know based on that historical record that they are in effect irremovable. Impeachment is a useless mechanism for judicial integrity.

c. They rely on the constitutional provision that prohibits diminishing their salary(jur:22fn12).

d. They dispose of around 75% of appeals to the circuit courts with reasonless summary orders, and of up to an additional 15% with decisions so “perfunctory” that they mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”, turning them into arbitrary, ad hoc fiats of raw unaccountable power. They are in practice secret because hardly findable, but if found, they are useless since they do not establish a precedent; hence not worth looking for. They are anathema to a legal system based on precedent as a means of keeping judicial power in check and predictable.

If you were in their position, would you be irresistibly tempted to abuse your power for your benefit and that of your peers, other insiders, and your protectors since to do so was riskless?

[5]. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the most secretive(jur:27§e) branch and public officers, holding all their policy-making, administrative, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors. Wrongdoing festers in secrecy, which makes it infectious. This calls for ‘the best disinfectant, sunlight’, as Justice Brandeis put it(jur:158¶350b).

Today, the sun of information and knowledge shines through the Internet. A presidential candidate can out of principle or opportunism use his or her website, in addition to stump speeches and access to journalists, to shine light on judicial wrongdoing and cause an outraged national public to follow his or her bright lead.

[6]  People feel offended by judges who took advantage of their ignorance of the law, inability to afford lawyers, lack of access to the media, and impotence before judges who abused them because they could get away with it. For them, vindicating their position is a driving personal matter. They make for passionate supporters of one who can help them in their quest for justice.

[7]  Official statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and official reports, and statements from justices and judges are presented and their implication analyzed at jur:21§§1-3. Those sections contain the most compelling general evidence of judges’ wrongdoing. For evidence concerning specific justices, see jur:65§§1-4. For the enabling circumstances of wrongdoing, i.e., unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness, see ol:191¶6.

[8]  Judges can be unfair, partial, and dismissive of the rule of law because doing so does not constitute in practice a breach of their oath of office and dereliction of duty that carry adverse consequences; rather, it is merely an option.

Hence, they do wrong individually, and worse yet, engage in wrongdoing coordinated among themselves(jur:86§§4-c) and with other insiders of the judiciary and legal systems. Among the latter are the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, and co-opted them into their party list, and who protect them as ‘their men and women on the bench’.

Coordination renders their wrongdoing more secure, routine, capable of extension into more areas, able to develop the complexity of schemes, e.g., a bankruptcy fraud scheme and concealment of assets(jur:65§§1-3), and thus more profitable.

[9]  Their Code of Conduct enjoins them to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123).

[10]  Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas failed to meet this standard and was led to resign on May 14, 1969, even though he had been nominated to the chief justiceship by Pres. Johnson(jur:92§d).

[11]   Packing the courts due to vacancies is different from what P. Roosevelt tried to do(jur:23fn17a).

[12]  Only a national figure with ample access to journalists can lead an enlightened and outraged(ol: 333§G) national public in successfully exercising its 1st Amendment right to “assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130¶b) against judges who self-exempt from any responsibility, e.g., by invoking their unconstitutional doctrine of judicial immunity.

[13]  This requires strategic thinking: being perceptive, nimble, and astute to quickly detect even slight developments, such as the above proposals, and react promptly to change one’s plan of action as required to turn those developments into opportunities to advance one’s interests.

[14]  I offer to present also to groups interested in a multidisciplinary academic(jur:128§4) and business(jur:119§1) venture to research the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and expose it to outrage the national public and cause it to assert its status as We the People, the masters of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, where none of their public servants, such as judges, is above the law, so that all are accountable to the People and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. This calls for judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

White paper on common principles for the video conference of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

A. Who we are and what we stand for

  1. We are a group of advocates of honest judiciaries committed to the single issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform.
  2. We welcome to the group all people committed to our single issue and who are prudent and disciplined enough to keep all their other personal and public issues and agendas to themselves.
  3. We are non-denominational and non-confessional. We do not involve either any god or religion in this effort.
  4. We are apolitical. We neither campaign in favor or against any party or candidate.
  5. We are neither indifferent to, nor ignorant of, the key role that politicians play in allowing judges to engage in wrongdoing with impunity and the key role that politicians must be maneuvered into playing to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform.

B.  The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing

  1. We recognize that Republicans and Democrats alike have connivingly recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, candidates to judgeships. Thereafter, they have protected judges as “their men and women on the bench”.
  2. Politicians have disregarded for decades the annual report under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) that shows how federal judges exonerate themselves from any accountability by systematically dismissing 99.82%* of complaints against them.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:10-14

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8 >jur:10-14

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf >jur:10-14

 

  1. Politicians have also provided judges with wrongdoing-breeding and –concealing secrecy by authorizing them to hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors.
  2. These are the enabling circumstances of judges’ wrongdoing: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness. They are the focus of our exposure of judges’ wrongdoing.
  3. Legislative efforts to bring about judicial reform are doomed to failure because politicians will not voluntarily act against their own interest by exposing the wrongdoing of those whom they put on the bench. Nor will they divest themselves of the power to keep putting their own men and women on the bench.
  4. Politicians will only reluctantly expose judges’ wrongdoing if forced to choose between appearing to come to the defense of a public outraged at judges’ wrongdoing and being voted out of, or not into, office.

C. The need to inform and outrage the national public

  1. Only an outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing and undertake judicial reform.
  2. The public of New York or Florida are not interested in the wrongdoing of the judges of California or Alaska, and vice versa; this holds true for the public of each state with respect to the other states’ judicial wrongdoing.
  3. The national public can only be outraged at the wrongdoing of the judges of the only national jurisdiction, the Federal Judiciary. That jurisdiction is our initial target. Since it is the model for its state counterparts, what happens to it will have a decisive impact on the state judiciaries.

D. The need for advocates with professional skills and attitude

  1. Federal judges are the most power public officers in our country since they are the only ones with a life-appointment and power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine people’s lives.
  2. Exposing the wrongdoing of powerful federal judges requires that we have professional skills in crafting arguments, devising and implementing strategy, advocating our single issue in public, lobbying, and fundraising.
  3. We need professional skills and attitude to cause the public to take us seriously, join our effort, and make the donations that we need to pay for ads, travel, meetings, etc. Our professionalism will earn us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.
  4. Neither judges nor the public will take us seriously, much less give us money or volunteer work, if we appear as mere “disgruntled losers in court”; given to whining; using unprofessional, foul language; making claims and accusations that we cannot prove but that can get us tied up in ruinous and time-consuming retaliatory defamation suits; espousing conspiracy theories that will brand us as a bunch of freaks. Unprofessionalism will lose us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.

E. The need for prudence and discipline focused on the single issue

  1. Being a victim of judicial wrongdoing does not mean that one automatically has the skills or the attitude necessary to expose the wrongdoing of judges, never mind federal judges. .
  2. Being a participant in this group does not turn one’s story of judicial victimization into a factual, accurate, and complete presentation of a case, deserving of the uncritical acceptance by all the other participants, for a party to a case is by definition biased toward his or her story and can only present one side of the story.
  3. A competition among us for the title of victim of the most egregious case of judicial wrongdoing is divisive of the group and useless to advance our common issue.
  4. We do not discuss our personal, local cases, for they are similar to thousands or even scores of thousands of other state and out-of-state cases and hold no interest but to the person who is a party to it each respectively.

F. More than money, we need powerful allies

  1. Money is not indispensable initially to expose judges’ wrongdoing. The Tea Party did not form thanks to receiving grants from any government or private entity. It was organized precisely by people who did not want to give out any more of their money to either the government or anybody else. More important than receiving money is gaining powerful allies and rallying the power of victims of wrongdoing judges.

1. Journalists and politicians as potential powerful allies

  1. The most powerful potential allies are journalists and politicians even if they are interested only in their own professional and political advancement and have no interest whatsoever in honest judiciaries. We think and act strategically by applying the principles “he who benefits me by working for himself is my friend” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
  2. Journalists are indispensable because they control the means of disseminating our information about judges’ wrongdoing and have enough credibility for their information to be believed and outrage the national public.
  3. Politicians are very important because they can use our information to attack their opponents and thereby attract journalistic coverage for our single issue. Presidential candidates are the politicians who can best satisfy both conditions.
  4. The expectation of drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems can induce politicians to consider making of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a central issue of their campaign and thereby appear as national Champions of Justice.
  5. How to approach presidential candidates by networking with people that can put us in touch with officers of their campaigns, especially with their chiefs of staff, so that we can make a presentation of how they can benefit from tapping that huge voting bloc is described in the article at * >ol:311.
  6. Politicians can also score points against their opponents by revealing two unique national cases of wrongdoing judges in connivance with other officers at the top of government. That can induce them to denounce judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or in an interview with a national media outlet and thereby launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.
  7. The content of those two unique national cases and the plan for investigating them is described at * >ol:191§§A,B, E.

2. The power of victims of wrongdoing judges can be developed methodically

  1. Each advocate can organize victims of wrongdoing judges at the local, court level and continue developing a core of victims through the courts in his or her city, in adjacent cites, and throughout the state. Eventually they can join into a national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
  2. Each advocate can identify other victims of the same wrongdoing judge; bring them together to search for that judge’s patterns of wrongdoing; and on the strength of statistically significant pattern-based evidence affecting many people, rather than a personal, subjective, partiality-suspect anecdotic story, move to recuse or disqualify a judge, or persuade journalists that there is a story of judicial wrongdoing worth investigating because it can give journalists what all those who are ambitious want: a career-advancing scoop on widespread wrongdoing coordinated among judges and between them and other insiders.
  3. The method for identifying other victims of the same wrongdoing judge and searching for patterns of wrongdoing has been set forth in the article at * >ol:274.

G. The strategy: to inform and outrage the public and place our issue at the center of the presidential campaign

  1. The national televised hearings and the investigations conducted by journalists and presidential candidates into the nature, extent, and gravity of wrongdoing should expose judges’ wrongdoing as their and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi.
  2. The institutional pervasiveness of wrongdoing in the judiciary and the circumstances enabling wrongdoing between conniving politicians and judges will cause the national public to realize the far-reaching reform necessary to detect, punish, and deter it, and scare politicians away from opposing reform and induce them to opportunistically support it.
  3. Only after full exposure of wrongdoing will it make sense for us to advocate in earnest our proposals for reform.
  4. Our initial strategy has two steps and for taking them we need journalists and politicians:

a. to inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing; and

b. to outrage the national public to the point where it forces politicians to take a stand in favor of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform or risk being voted out of, or not into, office.

  1. The strategy’s intermediate objective is to turn our single issue into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating convention, and the presidential campaign and election; and cause politicians to call for nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform similar to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee.
  2. The strategy’s long term objective is judicial reform that includes such measures as the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability empowered to publicly receive and investigate judicial complaints, and hold judges and their judiciaries liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing; and if the constitutional convention petitioned by 34 states is held, a key role in drafting the article on the judiciary.

H. The expected outcome of the video conference

  1. We want to hold:

a business conference on the single issue of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy;

b. among people with skills and professional attitude;
c. on a concrete proposal studied by all, consisting of this white paper of common principles and the articles enlarging upon them at ol:190, 274, and 311; and

d. discussed constructively with the aim of agreeing on realistic action that recognizes that time is of the essence: We must not miss the special opportunity that the presidential campaign offers to advance our single issue.

  1. The objective of the conference is to start the process of identifying a nucleus of people who can work together harmoniously and cost-effectively as the steering committee of a group dedicated to advancing our single issue with a view to developing a Tea Party-like national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
  2. If thanks to our recognition of the imperative need to join forces and our self-discipline to work prudently and in the common interest we succeed, we all can become We the People’s Champions of Justice.
  3. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
  4. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

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

 

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Continue reading White paper on common principles for the video conference of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Principles for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to hold a video conference on becoming an effective group that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform and gives rise to a national movement for judicial accountability and reform

A. The stages of dealing with a problem such as judges’ wrongdoing

  1. In dealing with a problem, there are several stages. In principle, they can be identified as follows:
    a. recognizing a situation as a problem;

b. examining the problem to understand its nature, extent, and gravity;

c. devising a strategy to solve the problem (a proposed solution without a strategy is only wishful thinking);

d. implementing the strategy while ascertaining its effect to modify it as needed to solve the problem;

e. managing the situation resulting from a problem-solving strategy so as to maximize its benefit, prevent the recurrence of the problem, and forestall the emergence of new ones.

B. Judges’ wrongdoing analyzed in a study based on official statistics

  1. As far as judicial wrongdoing goes, we have empirical knowledge of the nature, extent, and gravity of the problem. Many of us have experienced it first-hand. Some of us have paid a very high price for trying to expose it. All of us are victims of wrongdoing judges.
  2. In addition, there is scholarly knowledge of the problem. It has been analyzed in my study of the judiciary and its judges, 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

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 780 pages and is more than 52 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

  1. I gathered official statistics from the judiciaries themselves and analyzed them. While you are unlikely to read the hundreds of pages of my study, you can read its executive summary at page ol:190.
  2. Upon the basis of such factual and self-incriminating foundation, the problem of judge’s wrongdoing can be traced back to four enabling circumstances: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination (among judges and between them and politicians as well as other insiders of the judicial and legal systems, including attorneys), and risklessness.

    C. At the stage of finding a solution through the process of strategizing
  3. We are past the first two stages of identifying and examining the problem. More cases involving, or articles about, judge’s wrongdoing will only amount to cumulative evidence with no additional probative value.
  4. We are at the third stage: Devising a solution and strategizing its implementation.
  5. Many solutions have been proposed. However, a solution that does not come with a strategy to implement it is only an address in Fairy Land without directions for getting there. Laying down those directions must take into account the obstacles along the path.
  6. “The devil is in the detail” applies here: Strategizing can show whether a solution is realistically attainable taking account of the interests and means against and in favor of any change in the current situation.
  7. I have proposed two solutions accompanied with the details of their implementing strategy. They are mentioned below and laid out in detail at * >ol:274 and 311.

    D. A business-like conference based on a white paper on common principles
  8. Those proposed solutions can be discussed at a video conference of advocates of honest judiciaries who are willing and ready to transition from talking about the problem to taking concrete, realistic, and feasible action to solve it.
  9. This video conference should be conducted business-like. In the professional world, meetings are held based on a white paper distributed in advanced, studied individually with due diligence, and orderly discussed in the group to achieve consensus for joint action that encompasses agreement on division of labor.
  10. A meeting that has no concrete proposal as the basis of discussion is doomed to degenerate into a free-for-all, brainstorming session for dishing out half-baked ideas and jockeying for position. It leads to a frustrating waste of time, hurt feelings, and no action. Such fiasco would be the kind of meeting that only wrongdoing judges would applaud.
  11. Advocates that make the effort and spend the time preparing for a business-like meeting give each other the first sign that they are serious about taking action and are reliable in their statements of the action that they commit themselves to undertaking.
  12. For advocates to take joint action and for it to be effective, they must hold in common some principles that express their unity-building understanding of the problem, of a concrete, realistic solution, and of a feasible strategy to journey together from the former to the latter. The white paper below proposes those common principles.

    E. A conference aiming to build a movement for judicial accountability
  13. We can prepare ourselves both intellectually and emotionally so well that we come to the conference determined to contribute our most to make it a success:

An inspiring, forward-looking meeting that elicits the best in each other so that we are willing to work hard jointly to turn it into the first of a series that leads to the building of a steering committee of a national movement for judicial accountability and reform. This is a realistic ambition whose precedent and model is the Tea Party. We can join forces and help each other become nationally recognized Champions of Justice.

  1. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
  2. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

Continue reading Principles for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to hold a video conference on becoming an effective group that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform and gives rise to a national movement for judicial accountability and reform

Proposal for developing the auditing of judges’ decisions using the database of Harvard Law Library and Ravel Law

Messrs. Daniel Lewis, CEO; Nik Reed, CEE;
Adam Pingel, VP of Engineering; and Cory Bray, Director of Sales
Ravel Law
San Francisco, CA

Dear Ravel Law Management Team,

I read with great interest the article “Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age”[1] and reviewed your website[2], which was referred to therein. The article quotes you as saying that you hope to make analytical tools available that will allow “a lawyer to see how a particular judge has responded to certain kinds of motions in the past” and that you and Harvard will “share the entire underlying database with scholars that wish to develop specialized applications”. It also states that the rationale of your partner, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Winow, for opening HLL’s trove to the public is that “Improving access to justice is a priority”.

I am a scholar and my study of judges and their judiciaries is titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting[3].

If the official statistics collected and analyzed there(id. jur:65§§1-3) give you probable cause to believe that regardless of whether lawyers or pro ses[4] access judicial decisions for free or for a fee judges do not read their briefs,

  1. will you continue to be “passionate about delivering ground-breaking new products to the industry”, thus offering a product not fit to attain the intended purpose of enhancing ‘access to justice’ through better researched briefs; or
  2. will you use your product in a different way reasonably calculated first to expose judges’ pervasive failure to read briefs and then to lead to profound judicial reform that ensures that access to a law database is added to several new steps(jur:158§§6-8) toward enhancing the chances of ‘accessing justice’?

This alternative confronts you with the choice between being a salesman of an ineffective product and a national Champion of Justice.

Indeed, the federal circuit courts –the model for their state counterparts– dispose of circa 75% of all appeals by reasonless summary orders66a and up to 16% more by decisions so “perfunctory”68 that the judges themselves mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”70, thus turning them into arbitrary, secret, and ad hoc fiats of raw judicial power.

They risklessly issue such decisions because their chief circuit22a judges dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints18a against them; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b). So in the 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were on the bench on 30sep1313– impeached and removed is 814!

If judges strained to read every brief and write excellent decisions in every case, they would not be rewarded with a salary increase or promoted by their chief judges, for those decisions are made by politicians and on other grounds.

Having no deterrence from deciding cases without reading their briefs or incentive to read them, judges skip briefs to work less and make decisions to grab material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93).

If you held your job for life with a salary that could not be diminished12 and power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives, would you too abuse it for your own and your peers’ gain?

I wish to develop judicial decisions auditing. I have worked out several proposals in detail, from:

  1. collecting even the unpublished 9 out of 10 decisions and using their analysis in litigation(ol:274); to
  2. conducting academic research on them(ol:60, 115);
  3. subjecting them to advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis to develop a high end commercial IT product(ol:42; jur:131§b); and on to
  4. showing the need(jur:5§3) for judicial reform in the People’s interest in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law'(ol:201§§J-K).

I can make a presentation thereon at a video conference or in person. So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

__________________________________

[1] http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2015/10/harvard-law-library-readies-trove-of.html 

[2] https://www.ravellaw.com/

[3] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

This letter with all its footnote and (parenthetical) references as active links to their supporting or additional materials is found in the study at page ol:327. Just click on any such reference to jump to its corresponding material.

[4] In the Federal Judiciary, 52% of all appellants are pro ses; see footnotes 35, 38, 64 in the study. That percentage has been trending upward for years and is likely to find a parallel in the percentage of parties that appear pro se at all levels of the federal and state judiciaries because counseled representation has continuously become less affordable.

Moreover, it is highly more realistic to expect the users of your database to be pro ses rather than lawyers because the latter were trained at law school to use Westlaw and LexisNexis and realize the significant advantage of conducting research and writing with the guidance of their editorial enhancements, such as key numbers, headnotes, digests, synopses, encyclopedic overviews, analytical commentaries on points of law, etc. Lawyers can access those commercial databases, not only by a law firm or solo practitioner subscription, but also through their law schools and, on a reciprocity basis between schools, at other schools; court and public libraries; bar associations; etc.

However, at issue here is not which law database is more helpful, but rather whether the use of any database helps lawyers and pro ses in any way whatsoever to ‘force’ judges to read the briefs filed with them and make their decisions based on the statements of facts and legal arguments contained therein.

Business proposal for turning a profit with a team of professionals that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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.

A. Unaccountability makes power absolute and corruptive, which leads to wrongdoing

  1. Can you imagine what would happen to you if all police officers, doctors, and priests:

a. held their jobs for life(* >jur:21§a) together with self-disciplining authority*>18a that enabled them to assure their impunity by systematically and without any investigation(jur:25§c) dismissing 99.82%(jur:24§b) of your complaints(jur:10-15) against them;

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8|
or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome:  https://www.google.com/chrome/  or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

All (blue text)references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:324). _________________________

b. were in fact beyond investigation by law enforcement authorities, never mind prosecution, and thus had no fear of suffering any adverse consequences from their wrongdoing, not even losing their jobs(jur:54§d) or having their salaries docked12, let alone having to compensate their victims; but instead

c. ruled on $100s of billions annually(jur:27§2)…

d. in the secrecy of closed-door meetings(jur:27§e); and

e. by disposing of 75% of their cases through summary order forms(jur:43§1) with no reasoning and only one operative word, overwhelmingly “Denied”; and of up to another 11% of cases by decisions so perfunctory that they marked them “Not for publication” and “Not precedential”(jur:43§1), allowing those decisions to be inconsistent, arbitrary, in principle unfindable and in effect unreviewable(jur:45§§2-3, 48§2) but capable of depriving you of your property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determined your life and that of everybody you dealt with?(ol:190¶¶1-7)

 

  1. Would those police officers, doctors, and priests be likely to abuse such absolute and corruptive power28 risklessly for their own benefit(ol:173¶93)?

 

  1. The life-tenured, unaccountable judges of the Federal Judiciary, the models for their state counterparts, wield that kind of power(jur:65§§1-3).

 

B. Recruiting a team for the business venture of exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing

 

  1. My study of judges and their judiciaries analyzes(jur:21§§1-3) official judicial statistics, reports, and statements(jur:iii/fn.ii) that reveal that judges are unaccountable. Consequently, they risklessly grab benefits through wrongdoing(jur:3§5; ol:154¶3) even as they harm millions of parties and the rest of the public, from lowly pro ses to the largest companies in business(jur:29¶46).

 

  1. Knowledge is Power…and stronger if used with discretion: One need not accuse any judge of wrongdoing to be able to use the knowledge of judges’ wrongdoing to protect oneself from those judges and gain a competitive advantage over opposing parties that know less or nothing about it.

 

  1. My study contains a business proposal that appeals to recruiters of lawyers and journalists, particularly those involved in investigative journalism, as well as other professionals(jur:128§4), such as accountants, statisticians, and Information Technology experts(jur:130§b). This is so because a recruiter can put together a team that can make money(jur:156§f) as well as a nationally recognized name for himself or herself by:

a. “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:119§E); and

b. providing legal advice and representation to the many parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”123a, will want to retain lawyers celebrated(ol:258¶18) for having exposed such impropriety, to recuse such judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused those parties. Other people and entities that were foreseeably harmed by wrongdoing judges will also prefer to hire such lawyers because of their expertise in the issue.

 

C. There is money in holding people with a duty of care accountable

 

  1. Judging from the flood of motions provoked by cases of judicial wrongdoing and police corruption, the high damages awarded in medical malpractice cases, and the well over $2 billion already paid by the Catholic Church due to its cover-up of pedophilic priests, the market for holding also judges accountable is likely to be huge and very profitable. This is especially so if it implicates judges who have been on the bench for a long time, are sitting on the highest court of their jurisdiction, and have operated in coordination with other judges; their appointed officials, such as trustees, guardians, and receivers; lawyers who appear before them; and parties that are rich, influential, or related to them; all of whom form a deep pocket.

a. Cf. The Youth Law Center helped expose the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges in Pennsylvania committed juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and which gave the judges a kickback per committed juvenile. The Center reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against those jails.

 

D. The accountability of other professionals is precedent for treating judges equally accountable

 

  1. Police officers, doctors, priests, and their respective institutions can be held accountable and liable to compensate their victims. They are precedent for the proposition that judges must hold their wrongdoing peers and judiciaries likewise liable, lest they violate the due process and equal protection clauses(ol:297:Excerpt) by exonerating themselves from any accountability and liability, thereby arrogating(jur:26§d) to themselves the status of Judges Above the Law.

 

  1. Judges’ wrongdoing can outrage(ol:135) and attract the attention of everybody who believes to be entitled to Equal Justice Under Law as part of the American birthright and that has at least an intuitive notion of ‘fair play and substantial justice’.

 

E. Taking advantage of the need of each of the all-too many presidential candidates to stand out and win over a huge untapped voting bloc

 

  1. There are 20 presidential candidates and counting. Each one needs to stand out of the pack. A recruiter can take advantage of that need by offering to any and each chief of staff of a presidential candidate to hold an individualized presentation(ol:197§G) to the candidate, the chief, and their aides on:

a. the already available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B);

b. the proposal for them to voice in their own electoral interest the complaints of those dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges, for they constitute a huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc in search of their Champion of Justice, whom they would reward with significant donations, volunteer campaign workers, and so many attendees at rallies as to warrant journalistic coverage; as well as

c. the proposal for the candidate to turn the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing into his or her hallmark by pursuing with the recruiter’s team and the candidate’s own opposition research team two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B) apt to starkly illustrate the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.

 

  1. To that end, a recruiter can put together a team of lawyers, journalists(jur:xlv§§G,H), and other professionals(jur:128§4) to investigate(ol:194§E) as discreetly as wanted those two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B), which makes for a pinpointed and hence cost-efficient investigation.

 

  1. Those stories can most effectively grab national attention if first broken by one or more presidential candidates(ol:311). Indeed, by making the initial, Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(jur:98§2) denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or national network interview, a candidate can provoke such national outrage as to stir up the public to demand of every candidate that he or she call for nationally televised hearings –similar to those held by the Watergate Senate Committee(jur:4¶¶10-14) and the 9/11 Commission– on judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform. A candidate who refused to do so could be identified as a wrongdoing politician(jur:22§31) protecting wrongdoing judges. This could cause the candidate to lose so much popular support as to be forced to drop out of the race.

 

  1. As a result, the outrage can set off a scandal(ol:64§C) that would generate:

a. insatiable demand for updating news and analysis;

b. a flood of motions to revisit every decision and ruling made by judges who have failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:92§d); and

c. an issue so important to the integrity of our ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’ol:5fn6, as to make judges’ wrongdoing dominate the campaign and be decisive of the presidential election.

 

F. Recruiting and working with journalists and lawyers can prove very profitable

 

  1. Ever more journalists covering presidential candidates will jump on the investigative bandwagon to further investigate and expose judges’ wrongdoing because ‘scandal sells copy’. It follows that journalists could not afford not to cover the scandal since that would drive their audience away from them and to the competitors who offered the coverage that the audience demanded.

 

  1. In addition, ambitious journalists will see the judicial wrongdoing scandal as an opportunity to make a scoop or provide the most insightful analysis and thereby win a Pulitzer Prize.

 

  1. Moreover, journalists’ cumulative findings that will by drip-drip reveal judges’ wrongdoing as the judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4), will keep the scandal on the front pages and the top of newscasts for years to come, as was the case with the Watergate scandal, which caused the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides3.

 

  1. Those findings will provoke new motions to join the flood of motions and give rise to class actions to revisit the rulings and decisions of judges who failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” and obtain compensation from the judiciary that enabled(jur:88§§a-c) judges to abuse their power at the expense of parties and other people. Moreover, it will give rise to a demand from many different parties for legal advice on, and lobbying for, judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) that advances their respective interests.

 

  1. Such steady work for the team can keep a strong revenue stream flowing for a long time even after Election 2016 is over. It supports the projection of a high return on the investment in forming the team and making the effort to present the proposal to presidential candidates(ol:331).

 

G. Offer to make a presentation on this proposal to you and your clients

 

  1. I offer to present this business proposal to you and your colleagues and clients at a video conference or in person. Therefore, you may share this proposal with them.

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

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Auditing Judges Exposing judges’ wrongdoing by finding commonalities in their disregard of the facts and the law that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that denies due process and equal protection of the law

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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.

 A. Anecdotic allegations v. pattern evidence of judges’ wrongdoing

  1. A party to a lawsuit cannot merely allege in court that the judge is biased or is engaged in other wrongdoing and thereby cause a judge to recuse herself or have her disqualified. The party must provide evidence of his allegations; otherwise, the allegation will be dismissed as impressionistic and anecdotic, and the party will be disparaged by being labeled ‘a disgruntled loser’.

 

  1. The most convincing way of making such allegations is by identifying in one’s case an instance of conduct, an event, statement, position, person, name, address, date, number, quantity, etc., that is the same as, or similar to, another in the same case or in several of them, or better yet, in a statistically representative sample of related cases, e.g., those presided over by the same judge or in the same court or jurisdiction: These are commonalities.

 

  1. When connected, they form a pattern of wrongdoing(* >ol:154¶3). It is like finding in a judge’s conduct and written or oral statements dots with a common color or shade that when connected reveal a figure: the face of a wrongdoing judge(* >jur:10:Nature of…).

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8
or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/ or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

All (blue text)references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:274). _________________________

4. Pattern evidence is the picture in, “A picture is worth a thousand words” of mere allegations of parties, never mind pro ses. That is what auditing a judge means.

 

  1. So a party can either: 

    a. whine about allegations without evidence, which are unconvincing and self-defeating; or

    b. think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3;   ol:52§C; ol:8§E;  jur:xliv¶C) to expose the judge’s disregard of facts and the law, bias, conflict of interests, etc.; obtain relief now; and for the wrong done to the party by the judge as well as by the judiciary that failed to supervise and discipline her obtain perhaps even compensation from both in future.

 

  1. A party that chooses the latter, strategic course of action can:

a. gather raw data, e.g., judges’ calendars, rulings, and decisions or even the whole record of cases to glean her statements from transcripts, dockets, party contact information; and

b. examine them and compare notes with other parties in search of commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that deny parties due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the state and the U.S. constitutions, the laws thereunder, court rules, etc.;

c. use such pattern evidence in an appeal to the highest state court and thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it hardly ever reaches because most pro ses do not know how and cannot afford to appeal, so that a case that does make it there can become a test case; and

d. additionally produce concrete, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing(jur:5§3) reasonably calculated to attract the attention of journalists(ol:197§1) in search of a scoop(ol:199§H) and so outrage the public(ol:193§D) as to stir it up to force politicians to call for judges to be held accountable and investigated at nationally televised hearings (ol:273¶¶5-7).

 

  1. Exposing judges in court with convincing evidence does not mean obtaining relief from the presiding judges. Relief can come through its publicity effect on outsiders(ol:271):

 

  1. The all-too many presidential candidates that have entered the 2016 Campaign are in dire need to be among the limited number of them who will be invited to the candidates’ debates, and survive the early primaries. Whether honestly or opportunistically, they can choose to become the champions of the huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the legal system, especially those among them most passionately committed to exposing wrongdoing judges: their victims.

 

  1. Patterns can be expressed in percentages of all cases of a given type, e.g., how many times a commonality pointing to bias was detected, such as how many times a judge dismissed a case brought by a pro as compared to similar cases brought by a represented party where she denied a motion to dismiss. Patterns can be represented in charts(jur:9); tables(jur:10,11,15,16); and classic graphs of X,Y coordinates(jur:12-14).

 

  1. There are many forms for visually representing sets of values, e.g., side by side columns to compare percentages; bell curves for normal distributions; pie charts for shares of a whole, time lines that indicate fluctuations over time as well as trends; intersecting circles for shared characteristics, etc. These are statistical concepts that go from the very simple, which parties may be using without knowing it to represent the ups and downs of their income and their home budget, to the more sophisticated.

 

  1. The above describes how the pursuit of an unconventional, strategic course of action in court by go-getters can provide support for, and lead to, an out-of-court strategy(ol:236) for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform at a politically favorable juncture.

 

  1. The use of statistics in court was introduced by Then-Attorney Brandeis

 

  1. Statistics have been used in courts for a very long time since the first time, one which provides an illustrious precedent: Before Louis Brandeis became a justice of the Supreme Court in 1916, he was an effective litigator advocating progressive causes. He won his cases, not only by arguing the law, but also by writing briefs where he presented socio-economic data and treated it with as much rigor as if it were legal evidence.

 

  1. The best known of such briefs of his was filed in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S.Ct. 324 (1908). There Then-Attorney Brandeis used social and economic studies to argue successfully to the Supreme Court that it should uphold statutes limiting workdays for women to a maximum of 10 hours. His briefs were so innovative and persuasive that they gave rise to a new type of brief: the Brandeis brief. They contributed to ushering in a more just society and thus, to making history. In time, Brandeis became a justice.

 

  1. Programs such as Excel and PowerPoint turn massive amounts of numeric data into color graphs that Brandeis could not dream of and that substantially enhance their understanding(cf. dcc:11).

 

B. Parties joining forces to audit judges so as to advance their common cause

  1. Each party need not work alone to examine the data concerning the judge in his or her case in search of pattern evidence of wrongdoing. Parties who have appeared before the same judge or have an ongoing case before her can join forces to do so. These similarly situated parties can form a group of strategic thinkers and doers, rather than remain as isolated whiners and losers.

 

  1. Parties will not be joining forces to search for pattern evidence so as to form a class that brings an action in court against judges. That is a futile exercise, doomed to fail at the hands of the defendant judges’ peers, colleagues, and friends, who will preside over their trials and any appeals, and protect their own and themselves(ol:158).

 

  1. Rather, it is an exercise in gathering evidence in support of the two-pronged approach(supra ¶4c,d; ol:248) to exposing judges’ wrongdoing.

 

  1. The parties must join forces to advance a common cause rather than each one work alongside others only to benefit his or her own personal case. They should realize that it is useless for each of them to take on coordinated(jur:88§§a-c) judges in their turf, the courts, where they arbitrarily handle and make rules as they go, and their staff, who must execute their wrongdoing orders lest they be fired without recourse(jur:30§1).

 

  1. It is foolhardy to take all of them on with the arms of a pro se: ignorance of the law, TV notions of court procedure, lots of self-defeating, disruptive, blinding emotions, and wishful thinking that is no substitute at all for strategic thinking.

 

C. How a party can go about locating others wronged by the same judge

  1. A party looks up the list of cases on the calendars of the judge in its case, which are:

a. posted on the court’s website or the judge’s webpages on that site; or

b. affixed on the wall outside the judge’s courtroom every motion hearing and trial day and of which a picture can be taken with a smartphone or tablet.

 

  1. The party extracts from the calendars party names and case docket numbers to find:

a. briefs

1) on the court’s website to download them;

2) in the court’s research room or law library, where they are in paper form;

3) through computer research in the legal databases of:

a) PACER (Public Access to Courts Electronic Records), https://www.pacer.gov/, accessible through any computer;

b) Westlaw, http://web2.westlaw.com/signon/default.wl?vr=2.0&fn=_top&__lrguid=i1eb21045275b4acf89cde9be245fb745&rs=WLW15.04&bhcp=1, and

c) Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/legal-solutions/default.page,

which are accessible through computers and WIFI at the court and public and law school libraries or a subscription later on bought by a group of parties.

4) Those briefs have the contact information of similarly situated parties. Most likely they will be persons, not companies. Ordinary cases brought by persons, even if represented, neither hold as much interest for judges nor command as much of their respect for due process as those filed by the likes of Pacific Coast Docks against NY Association of Importers, represented by big law firms and top lawyers ready to appeal and embarrass sloppy and wrongdoing judges(jur:45¶86).

5) Pro ses are trampled. Their cases can be identified by the absence next to their names of an attorney’s name. Person cases and pro ses are easy prey for wrongdoing judges; and

b. their phone numbers.

1) The phone numbers of parties are not on calendars, but should be on the cover page of their briefs; otherwise, the party names found in the calendars can be used to look up their phone numbers in the phone book or the Internet white pages.

 

  1. The party uses a well-rehearsed brief message to contact those similarly situated parties, e.g.:

a. I have a case before Judge Z and found out that you do too. She has disregarded the facts and the law in my case. If you feel that way as to your case, you, I, and others like us can join forces to expose her by detecting common points of her wrongdoing that reveal a pattern of wrongdoing. That is convincing evidence to be used in a test case to go before our highest state court and as an incentive for journalists and politicians to expose her.

b. You and I can find other parties using the method I used to find you. When there are five of us, we can meet at a party’s home to search for common points. I can share with you an article explaining this search(ol:274) and templates(ol:280,282) for organizing our work.

D. Meetings of parties are sessions for division of labor and getting work done

  1. Meetings are not social occasions where people who do not want to be alone come together to commiserate. They are not for chatting, so wasteful of time and effort. Sobbing together as they pass the box of Kleenex is not the same as professionally gathering the data, detecting their commonalities, and using them to establish patterns of judges’ wrongdoing.

 

  1. Meetings are occasions for working. Everybody should come to the meetings with a laptop, a tablet, or a yellow pad and a smartphone. The best meeting place is where there is a large table where people can sit at in business-like fashion. There should also be power strips to plug in all the electronic devices so that nobody need stop working because their device ran out of battery power.

 

  1. It should be a quiet place. A pool table in the back of a bar on a Saturday night is not conducive to working. The box of Kleenex is for the group members’ profuse sweating, but not because the place is hot and stuffy.

 

  1. The invitation to the meeting must set forth the preliminary work that each party should have done in preparation for the meeting; and the agenda of the meeting; at the end of it, the agenda will provide the measure of what the group accomplished.

 

  1. Everybody must bring their documents organized chronologically in a binder or on a pdf, not thrown together in a supermarket plastic bag.

 

  1. Documents yield the most information when they have been scanned into a searchable pdf. Then when a group member proposes key terms to search for a possible point of commonality, such as a name of a lawyer or a clerk or a date, all group members can open the pdf’s binocular icon and enter those key terms in the search box to look for that term in all their documents.

 

  1. Rummaging a hundred or hundreds of pages manually and visually every time a term must be searched is time-consuming, exhaustive, and unreliable.

 

  1. Moreover, pdf’s can be annotated with electronic sticky notes that do not deface the document and can be searched with the search function. Ideas can be committed to writing, not to memory.

 

  1. The parties should bring their documents preceded by a table listing each one’s title, sender, addressee(s), date, and page number, and bearing a note on whatever makes that document relevant; cf. the summarizing title of this article(ol:274).

 

  1. A well-prepared table of documents serves as a summary of a party’s case. It can be shared with the group by email in advance so that as the members read it, they can spot a possible point of commonality to search.

 

  1. See the table of documents template(* >ol:280); see also the table of documents of the main file(* >ToC:i) and its bookmarks.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:280

 

  1. Meetings are also opportunities for the parties to realize that they eventually will have to contribute financially to the effort to find commonality points; establish patterns; bring them to the attention of journalists(* >ol:250) and politicians; appeal to the highest state court and the U.S. Supreme Court; publicize their effort through intense mass-emailing and social media use.

 

  1. The parties who agree to join forces must proceed methodically. They can elect a meeting leader. The latter can organize group work by applying the fundamental principle of any organization, i.e., division of labor in accordance with each person’s skills and preferences and the organization’s needs and objectives.

 

  1. Some members may be more adept at searching for parties’ contact information; if so, they may pass on that information to those members who are more articulate and can communicating with others on the phone or in person.

 

  1. Every effort should be made to contact and attract the attorneys of represented parties. Their knowledge of the law is priceless.

 

  1. Tasks of the group of searchers of judicial wrongdoing pattern evidence 

 

  1. The initial task of the group is to:a. identify each instance of apparently disregarded or falsely alleged facts, and the law, court rules or any ethical or professional123a provision deemed to have been violated by the judge, clerks, and other insiders169; and apparently relevant characteristics of people, which may later on prove to be correlated, e.g., dismissals and form denials are signed on Fridays when the judge leaves early to play golf at his country club with some lawyers;

b. tabulate the data in a table:

1) with a top horizontal row of labels for classifying facts and provisions:

a) facts, e.g., deadline alleged missed, affidavit missing; date manipulated by clerk; ex parte meeting with opposing counsel; unadvertised auction of assets; prevented or cut short examination or cross-examination of witnesses; and

b) provisions and their citations: e.g., judge appointing spouse, Rules of the NY Chief Judge, 22 NYCRR Part 36.2(c)(3); and

2) in the vertical column on the left are listed the characteristics of people, e.g.:

PARTIES

a) pro se

b) represented by counsel

(1) a solo practitioner

(2) law firm with between 2-10, 11-50, 51+ lawyers

c) parties income range

d) parties educational level

e) area of residence

f) plaintiff or defendant

g) male or female and age

h) kind of party: creditor, debtor, driver, pedestrian, banker, professional, etc.

JUDGES

a) size of law firm where the judge worked before coming to the bench

b) work experience the judge had before coming to the bench:

(1) prosecutor

(2) lawyer at a government agency or legislative branch

(3) lawyer for a company or a public interest entity; etc.

c) gender, age, and years on the bench

d) party affiliation of judge or of appointing officer; etc.

3) square of intersection between the row of headings and the column of characteristics:

a) name of case with docket number and date

b) case decided or pending; etc.

Other people

a) law/court clerks, lawyers, auctioneers, accountants, real estate developers, etc.

E. From groping for sense in a fog of data to becoming Champions of Justice

  1. Auditing a judge’s decision is an investigative exercise. At the beginning, the group will not know what is a commonality point or, if so, whether it has any evidentiary value. Patterns are not even suspected until much later, when sense starts to emerge from the points’ relatedness.

 

  1. To perceive meaningful commonalities, the group must apply the two key elements of social intelligence to understand the dynamics between parties, judges, clerks, lawyers, etc.: what makes people tic –power, money, love, hate, safety, fear, job insecurity, etc.– and what makes the world turn around –interpersonal relations, clan mentality, tradition, values, ideals, the economy, politics–.

 

  1. This will allow identifying harmonious and conflicting interests between parties so as to recognize who is an ally and who is a foe(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11).

 

  1. The effort to find commonalities in cases, parties, and judges can reveal a pattern of bias, conflict of interests, dysfunctionality in the court, turf fighting, schemes among connected people, prejudice, etc.

 

  1. The tabulation is a data organizing exercise. In its initial stage, the group will not know what is statistically relevant: what happens so frequently or infrequently for that judge, other judges, or people generally that it can only have happened intentionally. So it is a commonality point that forms part of a pattern of some form of wrongdoing(Lsch:17§C).

 

  1. This requires that at the outset everything be listed. Later on the data will be sorted out into what is or is not a commonality point showing wrongdoing; see the table of commonalities and patterns template(ol:282).

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

 

  1. At the end of each meeting, the agenda for what the members should do at home and what they will do at the next meeting should be set. That includes growing the group; getting documents; and networking to be able to present at the right time any incriminating audit results to journalists and presidential candidates(ol:269§2).

 

  1. The meeting will have been a success if the consensus is, not ‘that guy is a lot of fun. I wish him well’, but rather, ‘Our group leader is a slavemaster… but we got a lot done. We’re gonna get that judge! I’m coming to the next meeting with my friend’.

 

  1. Working together breeds enthusiasm and optimism. It can coalesce ineffective single parties into a team of achievers with valuable skills that they can teach others in their own and the public interest.

 

  1. The members will be asked to invest effort, time, and resources to grow the group of parties before their and other judges; and to spot insiders who can be persuaded to become confidential informants(jur:106§c). That is how they can become the organizers of their court’s questers for justice. As such, they will organize other courts in their city, in other state cities, and in other states.

 

  1. A group that first met in an apartment garage and had to put their computers on a door resting over two trash cans can grow to become a Tea Party-like entity: a national civic movement of people who pursue strategically and with determination their conviction that We the People are the masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, and are entitled to hold them accountable and liable to their victims.

 

  1. We can become the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:235§C).

This article and its templates are at

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:274

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

NOTE 1: 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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

Business proposal for drawing business opportunities from the untapped news, publishing, and legal assistance market and the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and the victims of wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

 

Dear Lawyers, Journalists, and Recruiters,

 

  1. 1. This is a business proposal for developing the business opportunities available in the untapped market of judicial unaccountability reporting and the voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and victims of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the 2016 Campaign. It is based on my study of the judiciary and its judges:

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
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8
or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

.

  1. I submit that it is in your business interest to read jur:21§§1-3, which discuss official statistics, reports, and statements revealing how unaccountability entices judges to grab benefits through wrongdoing that is riskless for them but harmful to millions of parties and other people.

.

  1. My study contains a business proposal that will appeal to you and your journalist- and lawyer-clients. It concerns the money to be made:

.

  1. a) “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:119§E); and

.

  1. b) advising and representing the many parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of improprieties”123a, will want to retain your lawyer-clients celebrated(ol:258¶18) for having exposed such improprieties, to recuse the judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused those parties; other people and entities who were foreseeably harmed by those judges will also prefer to hire your clients because of their expertise in the issue.

.

  1. Judging from the flood of motions provoked by cases of judicial wrongdoing and police corruption, this market is likely to be huge1. This is especially so if it implicates judges who have been on the bench for a long time, are sitting on the highest court of their jurisdiction, and have operated in coordination with other judges and parties, e.g., trustees(jur:32§§2-5), guardians, and others whom they appointed, and lawyers who appeared before them, all of whom form a deep pocket.

.

  1. Cf. The Youth Law Center helped expose the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges in PA sent juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and gave the judges kickbacks. It reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against the jails.

.

  1. Doctors, police officers, priests, and their respective institutions can be held accountable and liable. They are precedent for treating judges and judiciaries likewise. Judges’ wrongdoing can be the outrageous issue that each of the all-too many presidential candidates needs to stand out of the pack. One can become the Champion of the millions of Judicial Victims, who constitute a huge untapped voting bloc. Journalists covering such candidate as they keep exposing judges’ wrongdoing can benefit from ‘scandal sells copy’ for years to come and win a Pulitzer Prize.

.

  1. 7. Your team of journalists and lawyers can expose the “appearance”(ol:265) of unaccountable judges running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:xxxv); audit judges’ decisions in search for connections, patterns, and trends of wrongdoing(jur:132§§3-6); probe the NSA for involvement in the electronic concealment of funds(ol:190§§A,B); and publish a report(jur:122§§2-3) at a multimedia public conference(jur:97§1) to which all presidential candidates are invited(ol:253), causing a scandal that changes our government and politics.

.

  1. The below statement elaborates on exposing judges’ wrongdoing as a business venture that takes promotional advantage of the 2016 Election.

.

  1. 9. I offer to present this proposal to you and your clients at a video conference or in person. Thus, I look forward to hearing from you.

.

This letter is at

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:271

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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

Business proposal

for drawing business opportunities from the untapped

news, publishing, and legal assistance market and

the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

and the victims of wrongdoing judges

by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign

.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:272

.

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.

.

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, RicCordero@verizon.net

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

.

  1. The market of dissatisfied users of our judicial system, in general, and victims of wrongdoing judges, in particular, is huge. Judges are unaccountable(ol:190¶¶1-7) so they risklessly disregard the facts and the law applicable to cases and grab benefits by abusing their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives: In the last 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed(jur:21§a).

.

  1. Compare14 this to the 2,217 federal judges, including justices and magistrates, in office13 on September 30, 2013; and to all the members of Congress, which only has 535 of them, who have been on the news, censured, or imprisoned for wrongdoing15.

.

  1. Once politicians recommend, nominate, and confirm a person to a federal judgeship, they hold him or her unaccountable for fear of retaliation17a. If you enjoyed life-tenure and could treat the people you did business with however you wanted, would you be tempted to abuse your power for your benefit?

.

  1. The analysis of this untapped market is part of my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the only ones who affect the national public and who are the models for their state counterparts:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

.

  1. The proposed business has two aspects, each of which is a profit center(jur:119§1):

.

  1. “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:81§1), from your journalist-clients investigating and disseminating related news to the creation of a research, publishing, educational, advocacy, and for-profit institute(jur:130§5)

.

  1. advising and representing the countless parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of improprieties”123a, will retain your lawyer-clients celebrated(ol:271¶5) for having exposed such improprieties, to recuse those judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused the parties; other people and entities who were foreseeably harmed by those judges will also seek out your lawyers because of their expertise in the issue(ol:256§§1,2).

.

  1. To estimate the size of this untapped market of dissatisfied users of the judicial system, including those who have fallen victim to wrongdoing judges, consider the following:

.

  1. more than 100 million people are parties to the more than 50 million suits filed every year4,5 in state and federal courts; each party may have more than one person;

.

  1. scores of millions of people are parties to cases pending in court; e.g., the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 has affected millions of people on the coastal as well as inland states, many of whom are still battling it out in the courts;

 

.

  1. even more millions of parties deem that their cases were decided wrongly or wrongfully; e.g., the Walmart class action involved two million plaintiffs, all of them disappointed when the Supreme Court decided against them(ol:85§3); even more millions of people are critical of the Supreme Court for having become politicized, deciding the 2000 Gore v. Bush election, and protective of big business at the expense of small business, employees, consumers, and even our democracy, especially after its decision in Citizens United; and

.

  1. the even greater number of people connected with those parties and who have suffered injury in fact as a result of judges’ wrongdoing, e.g., friends and family, employees and employers, creditors and debtors, service providers, such as restaurants, hotels, car rentals, etc.

.

  1. This is the optimal time(ol:196§F) for the proposed business because it can attract the support of people who are at the top of politics and getting extensive media coverage: presidential candidates(ol:261§§C,D).

.

  1. They are in an unprecedentedly crowded field: 15 and counting. Each of them needs to stand out of the pack and become the recognized champion of a popular cause, lest he or she not survive the early primaries, after which donations to those in the bottom tier will dry up; disillusioned volunteers will go elsewhere; and the media will stop covering them.

.

  1. Each presidential candidate can turn the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) into a central issue of his or her platform and thereby draw support from that huge untapped voting bloc: dissatisfied users and victims of the legal system.

.

  1. The latter have been abused by the judges who disregarded the facts and the law in their cases. They are passionate about exposing their abusers, vindicating their rights, and obtaining compensation. For them it is personal, a quest for justice. They have three key demands for the candidates:

.

  1. take a public, unequivocal stance on judges’ unaccountability in defiance of the democratic tenet in ‘government, not of men, but by the rule of law’ol:5fn6: Nobody Is Above the Law;

.

  1. expose those candidates and politicians(ol:231§3) who recommended, nominated, and confirmed(jur:77§§5,6) judicial candidates and have held them unaccountable as ‘our men and women on the bench’; candidates, such as the governors who have never been members of Congress, will gain the most from impugning the honesty of candidates who have connived (jur:88§§a-c) with wrongdoing justices(71§4) and judges213 against the public interest; and

.

  1. 1) ask his or her staff to investigate judges’ wrongdoing;

.

2) encourage journalists to join a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation that turns the issue into a scandal(ol:199§§H,I) and keeps the candidate on the news as accuser-in-chief; and

.

3) call for nationally televised hearings(ol:201§J), similar to those of the Senate Watergate Committee –which led to President Nixon’s resignation on August 8, 1974– and the 9/11 Commission.

.

  1. The candidate who meets those demands will become the victims’ Champion of Justice(ol:201§ K) and receive their most vocal, practical, and financial support. The more intense the national outrage at judges’ wrongdoing, the more dissatisfied users/victims will rally behind the Champion.

.

  1. That outrage will validate the work of a new(jur:2§2) media breed: judicial unaccountability reporters(ol:146). They can expect to win a Pulitzer Prize and other rewards(ol:3§F) for causing a scandalous, politically charged version of what already happened once:

.

  1. Life magazine revealed the financial improprieties of Justice Abe Fortas, and although they did not amount even to wrongdoing, he had to resign on 14May69(jur:92§d). These reporters can pick up where The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico left off their series of articles107a suspecting Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets107c, and pursue the leads(ol:194§E) of her case as a Trojan horse into the circumstances(ol:191¶6) enabling wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary.

.

  1. Recruiters who think and proceed strategically can earn money and national recognition by forming a team of journalists(jur:xlvi§H) and lawyers who further investigate the J. Sotomayor case and either persuade one or more candidates to make a denunciation like Emile Zola’s I accuse! (jur:98§2) or make it themselves at a conference(ol:253) to which they invite all candidates.

.

  1. Recruiters will thus make an investment that will produce dividends throughout the 2016 Campaign and thereafter. It will become their niche market.

.

  1. So I offer to present(ol:197§G) this business proposal to you and all of them.

..

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

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

 

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

.

NOTE 1: 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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

.

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

 

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

 

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

 

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

 

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

 

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

 

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

 

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

 

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

Proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

Dear Users of the legal and judicial systems,

I would like to submit to you and friends, relatives, and colleagues of yours who have been harmed by wrongdoing members of the legal and judicial systems the proposal below as a means to expose wrongdoing and set in motion a process of legal and judicial reform that takes advantage of the electoral needs of presidential candidates.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest that you and they read the proposal and contact me to discuss ways in which we can work together in behalf of you, us, and We the People.

I offer to make a presentation of this proposal to all of you at a video conference or in person.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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

Proposal
for Presidential Candidates
to raise the issue of
unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong
in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from
the huge untapped voting bloc of 
dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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.

 Dear Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you, as presidential candidate, to raise an issue that can make you stand out in an overcrowded field of presidential candidates and draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc:

a. unaccountable judges who consequently engage in riskless wrongdoing(* >ol:224§A) for their own and their class’s benefit(ol:173¶93); and

b. the consequent dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems; they are among the 100 million parties to the 50 million cases(jur:8fn4,5) filed in the federal and state courts every year, plus the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases as well as cases deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided.

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8|
or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/ or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

All (blue text)references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:311). _________________________

A. In practice irremovable, they are Judges Above the Law…and abusers too

In the last 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13(jur:22fn13)– impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§1). Without fearing for their job or salary(jur:22fn12), judges wield enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives.

If you were in their position, would you abuse your power for your and your colleagues’ benefit?

Judges do so individually and, worse yet, in coordination among themselves(jur:86§§4-c). Hence, the dissatisfied users are so numerous and yearn for a champion.

B. Tapping on the dissatisfied and abused by asking for their complaints

There are no more resentful people than those dissatisfied users who feel abused and betrayed by judges, the very ones duty-bound to administer Equal Justice Under Law. For them, it is personal. They will be the most passionately committed supporters of a presidential candidate who raises the issue of judges’ wrongdoing and credibly promises to do them justice and hold judges accountable(jur:2fn1).

You can tap their voting bloc by asking them to submit to your website for the public to compare and search for patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:274) their complaints on a template(ol:306) or those that they filed with federal chief circuit judges, who dismiss 99.82% of them(jur:10,11; 24§§b-d), and with state judicial performance commissions.

C. Giving the media two stories to ensure the reciprocal reinforcement of your and their covering of your judges’ wrongdoing issue

You can also attract sustained media coverage, especially by journalists in quest of the scoop of a lifetime(jur:4¶¶10-14): At the root of judges’ wrongdoing lies connivance between the president who nominates people to the Judiciary, and the senators –including some candidates– who confirm them, who thereafter protect ‘their men and women on the bench’ by allowing them:

a. to hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors;

b. to keep complaints secret; and

c. never to appear at a press conference to explain their conduct so that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(jur:44fn71).

Secrecy is one of the circumstances enabling wrongdoing(ol:190¶¶1-7) in the Judiciary. The media will keep investigating them, thereby drawing attention to you and helping you stay on the stump with your judges’ wrongdoing issue, if you break two Trojan horse-like unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B):

a. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story was first pursued by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a), which suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets.

b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story will provoke a scandal graver than that caused by E. Snowden’s disclosure of NSA’s illegal surveillance because it points, not to a national security interest, but rather to a crass class interest: Federal judges approve up to 100%(ol:5fn7) of NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance; and the NSA uses its IT expertise and/or infrastructure both to transfer assets between illegal sources(jur:65§§1-3) and money laundering accounts(ol:1,2); and to intercept communications among critics(ol:227§A, ol:19fn2 >ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C) of wrongdoing judges(ggl:1 et seq.).

1. Ensuing question and request to redirect Campaign 2016 and American governance toward public accountability and transparency

Based on these stories and updating a historic devastating question, you can ask one capable of dominating Campaign 2016 and tarnishing presidential opponents as well as the other party and its top officers:

What did the President(jur:77§5),
Sen. Schumer(jur:78§6), and the justices(jur:26fn23b) and judges know(jur:71§4)
about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107a) and
tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and
other judges’(jur:105fn213) coordinated wrongdoing and
when(jur:75§d) did they know it?

You can follow up that question with an embarrassing request for transparency: that they support their denial of wrongdoing or explain their silence by releasing the three FBI vetting reports(jur:102¶231a.4-6) on Justice Sotomayor.

Although judges wield enormous power, they cannot retaliate simultaneously against all journalists and candidates critical of them without revealing their abuse of power to implement their unlawful motive of preserving their status and benefits, their duty to uphold the law notwithstanding.

On the contrary, they are the most vulnerable officers to the public exposure of their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).

Their resulting resignations, even of justices(jur:92§d), and impeachments will open vacancies that will allow the next president to “pack”(jur:23fn17a) the Supreme and lower courts.

D. Offer to present the judges’ wrongdoing issue in your political survival and the public interest

Your survival entails being invited to the next prime time presidential debates and not being demoted to the afternoon ones thanks to your courage in addressing an issue that threatens the wrongdoing powerful as it defends We the People’s birthright to ‘government by the rule of Law that ensures Equal Justice’.

Your courage can be rewarded with donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, particularly by the scores of millions of the untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the legal and judicial systems.

Therefore, I respectfully request you too the opportunity to present to you and your aides at a video conference or in person this proposal for using the judges’ wrongdoing issue as a means to survive in an overcrowded presidential field.

Indeed, the judges’ wrongdoing issue can make of a candidate like you the Champion of the Dissatisfied as well as of all the People who demand a new America of public accountability and transparency.

So, I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

NOTE 1: 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 accounts 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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.