When pro ses and lawyers think strategically and proceed unconventionally to join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities, turn clerks into confidential informants, and become We the People’s Champions of Justice

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

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

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

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

This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

You, a pro se or a lawyer, who have had a judge deny you or your client due process and equal protection of the law, can take unconventional action to expose such wrongdoing (*>jur:5§3; ol:154§3) judge, e.g., one who has clerks allege that documents were served on you but who can neither produce copies nor even show a record that they were actually served on you.

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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

A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

  1. There are two basic principles that should guide the actions that pro ses and lawyers take to defend their rights in court:a. The court has all the institutional power. If a court wants to railroad you, there is nothing you can do about it, as shown in the analysis(>ol2:452) of the official statistics of caseloads and their management by judges. Suing the judge before his or her own colleagues, peers, and friends is an exercise in futility foretold and a show of lack of understanding of how and why judges cover for each other, as explained in the article(ol2:461) that discusses the concepts of:

1) dynamics of interpersonal relations based on reciprocally dependent survival; and

2) institutional circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing.

b.  Think strategically! This means think outside the box, putting aside the conventional, in-court ways(*>ol:390§B) in which pro ses and lawyers have tried for centuries(jur:21§1) unsuccessfully to secure the respect of the law by judges and their clerks.

1) Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) consists of the use of knowledge of parties –here: the parties in the judicial and legal systems– and their interrelations to determine through analysis their constantly strengthening and weakening harmonious and conflicting interests underlying and motivating those relations so as to figure out a way to influence those interests to one’s advantage through, e.g.:

a) the forging of strengthening alliances or the driving of weakening wedges between parties, in application of the principles:

(1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will do everything possible to help him prevail in order to help myself;

(2) The friend of my friend is my friend…and I will help him because there is strength in numbers and my grateful friend may help me.

  1. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read as much as you can of my study of judges and their judiciaries*, starting with the (blue text references* ) to it herein. Then you can proceed, not by rote, but rather by strategy crafted against a formidable opposing party: judges and their clerks, who have all the power of their institutions and will use it to crush you. You only have the power of knowledge, which can help you outsmart them. This you can do in the following concrete ways that apply the above principles. They provide for you to use your case only as an element of a strategy: the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>ol2:458§1) for exposing unaccountable (ol:265) judges who consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing coordinated with their clerks.

    B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

  1. Go to the court website(jur:20), surf to, and download the docket of the case and the calendar of the judge for the last year. You must do that immediately to preserve those records as they stand now before they are altered to suit the clerks’ account of the documents in question. If you cannot download them, take screenshots of every screen –Shift + Screen print (the key after F12)–.
  2. Indeed, whenever you visit a webpage for any aspect of this search, download and date it, and add its link to it because it can be moved or deleted. Add all of them to a single searchable pdf(ol:102; 277¶¶18-20) and bookmark each page to facilitate navigation through the pdf.
  3. Go to the courthouse if those records are not online. Many state courthouses are located in the same building as the county clerk’s office, where the judges’ decisions as well as plaintiffs’ complaints and parties’ briefs, motions, and other case papers are filed as public records. It will become apparent below why it is pertinent to note that the county clerk’s office has other departments to keep, file, register, and issue a host of records, licenses, certificates, and applications regarding jury rosters, property, incorporation and sole proprietorships, marriage, birth and death, name changes, identification cards, voting, running in and results of elections, social security, public assistance, etc. County clerks work in close contact with state court clerks. The former know through the latter all the gossip about the judges and what happens in the court.
  4. In a federal court filings are made in the in-take office of the clerk of court, which is not associated with the state county clerk’s office. In-take clerks learn from the law clerks, who are lawyers and ‘clerk for a judge’ (only for a year after law school) or for the court in general as their permanent job, what goes on in chambers, the courtroom, and elsewhere. An in-taker may also learn from a judge who wrongfully orders her to “change that motion’s docket date to today’s”.
  5. These state and federal case filing offices are referred to here as the clerk’s office or office. Go there and quietly, without drawing attention to you more than needed, sit at a public computer terminal and check your case for its docket and the judge calendar. Print them AND take a picture of every frame with your smartphone or tablet, making sure that the picture allows the identification of the computer as that in the clerk’s office. If there is no computer available to the public, ask a clerk for the paper version of those records and make a copy or take a picture.
  6. Likewise, download or print every single document in the docket. You want to determine whether the alleged document was docketed at all so that it is online and, if so, whether it was docketed in the proper numerical order. What you are looking for is:

    a. the date stamp on the first page;

    b. the sequential number of the document, which often is handwritten next to the date stamp;

    c. the initials or name of the clerk who made each docket entry;

    d. whether the document was docketed completely because it has all its internal pages;

    e. markings on pages even if they appear meaningless at this early research stage…or no markings, but a year later the document has markings. Who reloaded it with them? Why?

  7. Examine the judge calendar and look for any entries concerning your case. Are they plausible? Determine whether the judge was in chambers, holding court, or even in town on the date when the document in question was signed or the order for its issuance was allegedly issued; or he or she was at a seminar; teaching a class as an adjunct professor; judging a moot court session at a law school; at the wedding out-of-state of his or her son; on holiday; etc. So check the judge’s:

    a. webpage on the court’s website, paying attention to dates, times, places, names of people, titles, relations, occasions, membership in organizations and clubs, etc.;

    b. social media page, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube; download all pictures of the judge, his family, associates, etc., and accompanying articles for future use(infra, ol2:470¶25).

    c. appearance on a Google search showing that he or she holds an honorary position in an organization that advocates positions that under the code of conduct for judges (jur:68fn123a >Canons 4 and 5) are inconsistent with the obligations of judicial office or involve political activity; or contradict his or her public statements.

    1) This is an example of serendipity: You are looking for one thing but detect another thing of great value because you are proceeding with your eyes wide open and a mind that looks at everything critically and integrates every piece of information into a system. A large percentage of findings are made thanks to serendipity.

  8. Compare your case docket and the calendar entries for your case with those of the judge’s 20 other current cases; compare them with those of other judges. Does a pattern emerge that:

    a. was broken in, or confirmed by, your case and points to the judge’s failure to abide by the injunction in Canon 2 of the judges code to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”?

    b. raises suspicion?: e.g., the judge takes the type of order affecting you on Fridays close to the end of business: Is that a mere caseload dumping(ol:92¶b) measure for a light shoulder feeling that has nothing to do with the merits of the cases?

    c. involves other parties that strangely enough are the same? One of the main rules of wrongdoing is: Involve as few people as possible to avoid leakage, mistakes due to lack of coordination of timing and action, infighting for turf, and reduce the number of ‘slices in which the cake’ of wrongful benefits must be divided among the wrongdoers:

1) the same clerk, the same accountant, auctioneer, warehouser, guardian ad litem, executor, liquidator, evaluator, companies, and other parties with whom the judge and/or the clerk works together in a scheme(ol:85¶2, 91§E), the most complex, profitable, and harmful form of coordinated(jur:88§a) wrongdoing.

  1. Think like a lawyer: What arguments can you make based on each piece of information, such as a marking, in a source, such as a picture, a webpage, an article, and through their integration in, or failure to fit, a system? Arguments do not scream at you to identify themselves. You have to stare at sources critically and imaginatively to craft them; sources only provide a hint in the form of a piece of information. Does it hint at manipulation of dates, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, text replacement, bias, conflict of interests, counterfactual statement, odd behavior, etc.?

2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

  1. Al Capone was convicted, not on his alleged mafia crimes, but rather for tax evasion. Likewise, a judge may not be brought down on account of her wrongful decisions, which peers and clerks may squeeze within her discretion or cover up, but rather on account of financial crimes(ol:250§B); after all, the most insidious motive for wrongdoing is Money, lots of money!(jur:27§2).
  2. The key documents in this respect can be downloaded or examined and copied in the field and subjected to financial analysis to determine whether the judge is liable to the Al Capone approach for illegal benefits sought and/or obtained for herself or others. These documents are:a. the judge’s mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) available for the last seven years(jur:105fn213a); andb. the filings in county clerks’ offices(jur:110fn242-244) concerning the property in the name of the judge, her family, close associates, and even strawmen (fictitious people).
  3. Such financial analysis may produce probable cause to believe that the judge may be:|

    a. filing reports that make no financial sense(104¶¶236-237; jur:72§b; ol:315§6), which may point to off-shore accounts in tax heavens(ol:1, 2), money laundering, and tax evasion;

    b. living above his or her means because on a judges’ salary –a matter of public record–:

1) records in county clerks’ offices show that the judge has a yacht, a condo in Miami, a large investment in a company, in addition to a home in a gated community;

2) based on the information found in huge commercial databases of newspapers and journals, e.g., Nexis(jur:108§d): the judge has three children at expensive private universities, takes vacations at luxurious resorts, is a member of exclusive clubs;

c. taking indirect bribes, e.g., has taken out large loans for which little or no collateral has been posted by mortgaging a property and recording it in the county clerk’s office.

15. The above should have allowed you to realize the strategic thinking that motivates this exercise:

a. You are not looking to establish that the judge abused his or her discretion. That is a losing battle because by definition ‘discretion’ has a wide margin of leeway. Even if appellate judges would have exercised their discretion to do the opposite of what the judge did, they cannot reverse her decision if it was within her margin of discretion(ol2:437).

b. You are looking for wrongdoing, including criminal activity, from which the judge and the clerks benefit(ol:173¶93). Three basic elements are considered to establish wrongdoing: motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). They may reveal a settled way of doing, the modus operandi, which manifests itself in a telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing. You only need to show ‘the appearance of impropriety’(jur:92§d), not prove with evidence.

3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

  1. The search for patterns of wrongdoing is what can allow you to strengthen your case as nothing else can. Right now, you only have yourself, a pro se party or a lawyer for a party, who as such is by definition biased toward his own side of the story. You are alleging with nothing more than words that you are the victim of some form of judicial wrongdoing, e.g., that you did not receive a document or that the record of a document cannot be found. Nobody is going to take your word for it over that of a judge and her clerks, who are her protégés as her accessories in wrongdoing. Forget about people reading the whole record to reach their own conclusion. Thus, you are nothing but a lone whining loser. You need to break away from that damning status.
  2. Strategic thinking and proceeding will allow you to become a member of a class of people victimized by a pattern of wrongdoing of a judge or judges and their clerks. How you form that class, beginning with a small, manageable team of three to seven people who have appeared before the same judge as you have, is described in painstaking detail in the article Auditing Judges (ol:274; and at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero_Auditing_Judges.pdf).

C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

  1. To build the Auditing Judges class, you and your Auditing Judges team need inside informants: Deep Throats(jur:106§c), similar to the classic one in the Watergate Scandal, which brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign on 8aug74(jur:4¶¶10-14).
  2. Clerks know a lot about judges’ wrongdoing, for they may be their willing or coerced assistants in committing it. Yet, most only get the smallest benefit, usually limited to holding on to their jobs: They either do what they are told or they are flung out(jur:30§1). If they are fired arbitrarily, they can hardly count on other clerks testifying on their behalf. If they file a suit, they land in front of the firing judge’s peers, who have an interest in sending a message to all clerks: ‘Don’t you even think of disobeying our orders: You can only jump from the pan to the fire.’ Cowardice and helplessness breed resentment in the clerks. How many female clerks have had to endure sexual abuse by judges, such as J. Samuel Kent(jur:22fn14)? Read about it and turn this subject into a talking point to strike up a conversation with a clerk identified as a potential informant.
  3. This explains why clerks may be the ones most indignant about the judges’ wrongdoing: They may have joined the court expecting to be Workers of Justice, but have been forced to become the judges’ Enforcers of Wrongdoing. They may not feel proud about their behavior.
  4. All this points to the need to:a. identify former clerks: They know a lot about what went on in the court; still have contacts there, and cannot be fired…or were fired for protesting;b. imagine scenarios of how to approach a given clerk based on what you are learning about her that may persuade the clerk to become an Informant for Justice; andc. role play(ol:356) frequently with other team members, even on the phone, or in front of a mirror: Do not wing it! Here are three steps for you and your team to search for informants: identify, learn and choose, and contact:

a. Identify current and former clerks

a. Go to the website; download and print the picture of every judge and clerk; identify each with name and title, and affix all to The Wall of Insiders of your home, where you will build their organizational diagram (organigram) with those pictures and additional information found elsewhere; use 3” x 5” cards for people whose picture have not been found;

b. download the telephone register, which lists the name and title of judges and clerks;

c. check the website’s Contact Us webpage;

d. check the webpage for each judge, which may identify his or her law (chambers) clerks;

e. send a crawler to roam the Web for people who in social media or resumes have listed among their former jobs ‘clerk at court X [=wild card]’ or ‘clerked for Judge X’;

f.  Go to the courthouse; look in the lobby for a directory on a wall listing the name, title, and room of each judge and clerk; take a picture with your smartphone or tablet;

g. go to the county clerk’s office, the in-take office, the court library and other departments:

             1) the personnel headshot gallery, with name and title, may be on a wall; take a picture;

2) ask a clerk for a roster of clerks to help you navigate your way through the maze of departments that you have been told you need to work with. If the clerk has such a roster but not for distribution to the public, ask to be allowed to copy it;

3) inconspicuously take a picture of every clerk and the desktop nameplates;

4) ask for newsletters, brochures, fliers, forms, etc.; some may be downloadable;

h. go to the court library; check the publications that report court decisions, called reporters and advanced sheets, which at the front or the back may have a list of clerks’ names;

i. check the pages posted on the outside wall of the courtroom on the day when a judge holds motion hearings, which may list the name and phone number of the judges’ clerks;

j. walk through the courthouse and pay attention to the shingles outside some doors indicating the names of the several departments and their respective heads;

k. strike up a conversation with any clerk even if you show that you are in the wrong department and have no clue what it does. Use your ignorance to ask for, and receive, the names of current and former clerks in that and other departments with whose requirements you have to comply…to receive child support for a newborn after changing your name after your home was foreclosed and your new address is your car that was stolen. Bad day!

l. if needed, go to the courtrooms and photograph judges on the bench and their clerks.

22. Think, think, think creatively, imagining and rehearsing scenarios in advance, to come up with the opportune questions or comments at the right moment. Think strategically to craft a plan of action and, very importantly, to ‘connect the dots’ represented by each big as well as small, even tiny, piece of information. You are doing field research work: You are a Detective for Justice.

23. Go back home; print and post new pictures and add your field information to that already in the organigram on your Wall of Insiders. Google names and run pictures through face recognition software(jur:146fn271, 272 for a spectacular result of so doing); read the related articles; and add information on 3” x 5” cards. You will be impressed by your own work and so will be others.

24. Reproduce your Wall on your computer using PowerPoint preferably, otherwise Word, and its many collapsible/expandable features for adding information, such as digital sticky notes, call outs and cloud forms, connecting and freeform lines, etc., also available after you save your PP page in, or add it to a, pdf. Save a copy on your mobile device so that you can share your organigram with other team members(ol2:416§A) by email or when you meet them; and compare it with theirs in order to correct, combine, and enlarge it. This is team work, not competition.

b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

  1. After compiling the list of clerks, you and the team must learn about each. Check their social media pages and Google their names, as shown above concerning judges. Learn as much as possible about where and what they studied; what their past jobs were; whether they have family and who their friends are; what school their children go to; where they went for their holidays; what hobbies they have; what associations or church they are members of; where they are likely to be found outside the courthouse; etc. Every piece of information will allow you to relate to them better when you meet them. With insatiable curiosity, imagination, and foresight, hog information.
  2. The determination of what clerk is most likely to become an informant begins with those who are more relatable to you because of age, race, educational level, religious affiliation, marital and family status. However, keep in mind that young people are likely to still be idealistic. They may resent more the injustice that they see in the court and that they are forced to participate in. An unmarried young clerk who still lives at home may still be sensitive to a motherly figure.
  3. Old clerks may have become jaded. They have established links of, not only conspiratorial relations with judges, but also of friendship and loyalty. They may be so deep into wrongdoing schemes that they risk too much if they give you any piece of information that may lead to any aspect of the court being investigated. Their ‘fingerprints’ are in every wrongdoing. They knew or should have known about it. They are not only accessories under duress(ol2:462§1); they have become principals(jur:90§§b,c). They may be close to retirement and cannot envisage losing their pension just because you tell them to think back to the days when Justice mattered to them.

c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

  1. The previous two steps called for members with a bent for research and organization of data and capacity for profiling people(jur:xLvi§H). The third step calls for people’s persons, those with great social skills, talkative, and the ability to touch other people’s soul. They have to go in the field to befriend clerks who have been determined likely to become confidential informants.
  2. Befriend a clerk until you can appeal to his or her moral fiber, the image of themselves as decent persons, who “Treat others the way they would like others to treat them”; as honest public servants who take pride in serving the public; as good parents who want to set the right example for their children; people with a personal and civic conscience who would be outraged upon being informed(ol:236) that you and so many others, their families, employees, suppliers, etc., have been harmed profoundly by the wrongs, committed with the coerced assistance of their clerks, of the judges who have deprived them of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives. The harm is real –injury in fact–; the pain is constant.
  3. Elicit understanding and empathy, positive reactions that generate personal identification with a common cause and commitment to its advancement; not guilt, a negative feeling that drains people of energy and draws them into self-absorbed recrimination that causes degenerative self-worthlessness. Get the clerk to confide in you under the assurance that you will preserve their anonymity. Share only the information with the other team members(ol2:416§A). Invite the clerk to meet and join them.

2. The invisible small men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

  1. There is another class of people that can provide an enormous amount of information about judges and their wrongdoing: They are outsiders: hotel drivers, receptionists, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, room cleaners, and similar ‘small people’ with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts, experience with VIPs, and financial interest in satisfying their every wish– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges full of themselves, and in whose ghostly presence Judges Above the Law uninhibitedly discuss, or engage in competitive boasting about, their wrongdoing(ol:175§2).

    a. Got to the places where, according to your research, the judge went or frequently goes. and show the ‘small people’ the pictures of the judge, her family, associates, etc.;

    b. ask them what they know about the judge and the others. Any apparently insignificant dot of information can become significant once you start ‘connecting the dots based on what makes people tic and the world go around’(ol:279¶25) and a richly detailed figure emerges of the judge, her train of living, property, extra-judicial activities, etc. So, ask about:

1) the occasions on which the judge was there;

2) the other people that were with the judge: spouse, boy- or girlfriend, children, other VIP’s, shady people;

3) who picked up the tab;

4) any bit of the conversation among them that the small people picked up;

5) how the judge treated the small people; etc.

D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

32. Einstein said that “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, because it ignores the fundamental law that governs both the physical and the human world: cause and effect. The secular practice against wrongdoing judges is to sue them in court and lodge complaints against them with a judicial performance commission. If you do that, you will likewise end up frustrated, exhausted, and abused; and with dissatisfied one-time clients.

33. Strategic thinking leads to a radical departure: inside knowledge and rational analysis of people’s interests. It detects patterns of wrongdoing and devises an out-of-court/commission plan of action that imaginatively fosters or hinders such interests to expose wrongdoing and hold wrongdoers accountable. This calls for hard work, but it is reasonably calculated to have positive results: objective, verifiable, and convincing wrongdoing patterns that you and your team can take to:

a. journalists, who do not pay attention to the self-serving allegations of a single party;

b. politicians(ol2:416) who are looking for a novel issue on which to run for office, set themselves apart from their challengers, and develop a personal, reliable constituency;

c. documentarists looking for a story that can make them the next Michael Moore, with the equivalent of a hugely successful Fahrenheit 9/11(ol2:461), or Laura Poitras(ol:35, 36);

d. to other parties before the same judge or other judges in the same court, in other courts in the same city, in other cities, and beyond to build a class and develop a precedented, Tea Party-like movement(jur:164§9) of victims of wrongdoing judges and the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who are members of the dominant segment of the population: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment;

e. even the judge on a motion for recusal; an appeals court for disqualification or remand and new trial; and a judicial performance commission to support a fact-based complaint;

34. You are not alone. There are many like you out there. The above is a plan of action for you to become their rallying point. It all begins in your mind, by strategically thinking, then taking imaginative action(ol2:431). Strengthen your mind by reading in my study* because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read and reread the Auditing Judges article(ol:274) to learn how to form a small team of people who have appeared before your wrongdoing judge. They share your experience and frustration. They understand you. They are on your side. Your success is their success. You can become the leader of many pro ses and even lawyers by starting with a few just like you.

35. Take heart from the people who never dreamed of becoming leaders until they were hit by an event that knocked them to the ground. But they would not stay down and take it: They stood up and fought back. They became reluctant heroes(ol:142§B).You never know what you can do until you decide that enough is enough and take the risk: To do your most. That is how you become recognized by We the People as one who asserted our right to Equal Justice Under Law and to hold all our public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing because Nobody is Above the Law.

36. Thus, I offer to make a presentation at a video conference(ol:350) or in person on how you can become one of the People’s Champions of Justice.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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

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

Proposal for attracting the attention of the huge untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems by setting in motion the investigation of a unique national case of judicial wrongdoing

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

To subscribe to this series of articles on this website
Go to the menu bar above >+New >User

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

This 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.

The pragmatic intention, not partisan character, of the letter below

The letter below is a manifestation of pragmatism, not partisanship. It applies the principle of strategic thinking: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, it appeals to the person in the best position, as an Establishment outsider who never nominated or confirmed any judge and need not protect any, to achieve, even if only in his own electoral interest, our objective of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform(†>ol2:445).

What do you prefer?

A flawed presidential candidate, perhaps even a president for four, at the most eight years, though subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the Judiciary, the media, public opinion, and the constraints of other world leaders and international treaties;

or

2,293 federal judges, as of 30sep15, who enjoy actual or effective life-appointment without being accountable to anybody: In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! They dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers(*>jur:21§1). As a result of such historic and self-insured impunity, federal judges engage in wrongdoing risklessly, depriving you of your property, your liberty, and all your rights without due process or equal protection of the law. They are the models for state judges.

*All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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

 

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

Your campaign is in trouble and the number of days to recover is worryingly small.

So I ask you as you did when you invited Blacks to vote for you:

“What the @#%! do you have to lose”
by taking a close look at this proposal and implementing it?

Indeed, this is a proposal for shifting attention from slipping poll numbers to your theme ‘Not a third term for Barak Obama through Crooked Hillary Clinton’ by bringing up at a press conference a story rooted in articles(*>jur:65fn107a) in The New York Times (NYT), The Washington Post (WP), and Politico that suspected P. Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets.

In the documents that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations she failed to account for $3.6 million(jur:65fn107b,c).

Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, e.g., in a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by bankruptcy judges(jur:65§§1-3). They are appointed for a 14-year term by circuit judges, such as J. Sotomayor was(jur:xxxv-xxxviii), and are removed by them and district judges, not by Congress.

On average, 75% of all cases enter the Federal Judiciary through the bankruptcy courts, where the money is: In 2010, bankruptcy judges ruled on $373 billion in controversy in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). A large majority of such bankruptcies is filed by the most vulnerable people: bankrupts who cannot afford a lawyer and have to appear pro se. They are easy prey of the judges and their cliques(jur:81fn169).

How they were appointed suggests a variation on the “Pay to Play” notion that you used to depict Sec. Clinton’s sale of access to the State Department against a donation to the Clinton Foundation: “Share and share generously”(>ol2:440§B).

The J. Sotomayor asset concealment story will allow you to charge “the sleazy media” with partiality now that NYT is running a story about your former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, having received payments under the table from the former pro-Russia Ukrainian government: Did NYT enter into a quid pro quo with the Obama administration to kill its J. Sotomayor story in exchange for a benefit, a hefty one?:

Obama nominated her, another woman and the first Latina, to the Court in order to ingratiate himself with the people and entities that had requested such a nominee from him to replace Retiring J. Souter and from whom Obama expected in return support for the passage in Congress of what was to become his signature legislation: Obamacare.

NYT could have expected to win a Pulitzer Prize if it had pursued the story until it had caused J. Sotomayor or even P. Obama to withdraw her name or resign as a judge or a justice. NYT could not dismiss that prospect lightly after it failed to act on a tip(jur:102fn198f) that the Watergate scandal reached into the White House, thus leaving to WP the historic journalistic feat of bringing down a president, Nixon, who resigned on 8aug74.

WP and Politico, which killed the story contemporaneously with NYT, would not have risked letting the glory go to it. Did they too enter a quid pro quo?

To find out, you can make a masterful move:

Demand that Obama, J. Sotomayor, Sen. Schumer(ol2:422¶3), and the FBI release the secret FBI vetting reports on her as a district, circuit, and supreme court nominee.

Challenge Sec. Clinton to join you in calling for such release, lest she show that, if elected, she will not only cover up all wrongdoing by Obama, but also engage in more of her own when nominating the successor to Late J. Scalia(ol2:437 5th).

I respectfully request a meeting to present to you and your officers this proposal.

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
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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 addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

NOTE 2: This letter, previous ones, and their supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

To subscribe to the series of articles on this website
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
go to the menu bar above >+New>User

Resorting to Donald Trump out of pragmatism, not partisanship, to expose unaccountable judges, who engage risklessly in wrongdoing for their benefit while disregarding the constraints of due process of law and abusing you and We the People

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris 

Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

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

This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

A.  A study about judges and their judiciaries identifies the circumstances that enable their wrongdoing

1.  I have researched, analyzed, and written a study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable as follows:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

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

2.  KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Hence, I invite you to read in my study as much as you can about the circumstances of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness(*>ol:190¶¶1-7) that enable judges to engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3; ol:265) for their material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93) while disregarding due process of law(jur:5§3) and abusing their power to dispose of all our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives…and get away with it.

a.  Federal judges engage in wrongdoing because they:

1)  are life-tenured;

2)  can retaliate against politicians who investigate them by declaring their legislative agenda unconstitutional(jur:23fn17a);

3)  instead, are protected by the politicians, who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them, as “our men and women on the bench”; so they

4)  are allowed to dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of the complaints against them, which must be filed with their chief circuit judges(jur:24§§b-d); and

5)  are the only ones to whom you can appeal to review their own decisions, so they review them in their own interest(jur:28§§a-b) or deny review at will(jur:47§c).

b.  As a result, federal judges are in practice irremovable: While on 30sep15 the number of federal judicial officers was 2,293(jur:22fn13), in the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:22fn14)

c.  If your bosses could neither be removed from their life-appointment positions nor have their salary reduced(jur:22fn12) and had all the power to decide over all your money(jur:27§2) as an employee and a person, would you be afraid that they would abuse that power for their benefit, regardless of the harm to you? Those are the positions and power that federal judges have; they abuse them in reliance on the fact that no adverse consequences will come to them therefrom. Is that outrageous in ‘government, not by men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6)?

B.  Advancing the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by applying a principle of strategic thinking

3.  The exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and advocacy of judicial reform are guided by the strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C) principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him prevail so as to help myself”. It leads to alliances forged between people with harmonious interests even if with different motives who can converge on the same result.

4.  This effort has currently found expression in my letter(>ol2:437) to Mr. Donald Trump, who publicly and repeatedly criticized the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. In that letter, I propose that he denounce judges’ wrongdoing, as opposed to judges’ exercise of discretionary power and reap significant electoral benefits therefrom.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

a.  Proving abuse of such power is most difficult since discretion is a matter of opinion involving a wide leeway. Wrongdoing is indefensible. One only need show, rather than prove, that a judge has failed to abide by his or her duty to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). That can force a judge to resign(jur:92§d).

C.  Giving priority to the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform and choosing a candidate that can advance it

5.  There is never a perfect candidate. But there is always one cause that outrages and energizes us the most. It is not productive to do nothing until we can advance all our causes simultaneously.

6.  Therefore, we all have to decide which cause is most important to us and who can contribute the most to advancing it the way we advocate. Then we must work with that person accordingly, in spite of what we may think about that person’s position on other issues.

7.  If judges’ wrongdoing exposure and judicial reform is that cause for you, I encourage you to share my letter widely so that many informed and outraged people may demand that Trump denounce such wrongdoing and the media investigate two unique national stories of it(ol2:439).

D. Choosing between a 1-2 term Trump presidency subject to checks and balances v. 2,293 life-tenured judges subject to no accountability

8. Trump is not expected to be interested in an honest judiciary at all. He is only assumed to be interested in winning the election and becoming president.

9.  That does not diminish the importance of the fact that he has what we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, sorely lack, which explains why we have made no progress in our common cause at all: He is avidly covered by the national media. We do not have access even to the local media.

10.  Thus, Trump can solely in his electoral interest denounce judges’ wrongdoing as proposed(ol2:437). Nevertheless, he can thereby set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing(ol2:439). By exposing its nature, extent, and gravity(jur:5§3, 65§§1-3), that investigation will provoke such outrage as to stir up the national public to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing. Their findings will so deeply aggravate public outrage that they will render judicial reform inevitable, regardless of who is president at that time.

1. What do you prefer?

a.  A flawed presidential candidate, perhaps even a president for four, at the most eight years, though subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the Judiciary, the media, public opinion, and the constraints of other world leaders and international treaties;

or

b.  2,293 federal judges who are in effect irremovable and not subject to any checks and balances. Consequently, they risklessly engage in wrongdoing. Federal judges are not only human beings and as such flawed; they are also unaccountable wrongdoers(jur:88§§a-c).

11.  Hence the strategy of informing and outraging the public concerning judges’ wrongdoing. It is born of pragmatic, strategic thinking, not of partisanship. You too can think strategically and contribute to its implementation.

E. The need to take action to advance our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

12.  Merely making a statement of fact about wrongdoing and abusive judges, never mind simply whining to commiserate with one another about our suffering, will not accomplish anything. It is necessary to think strategically and take action accordingly(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C).

13  We all should contribute to advancing our common interest by taking advantage of the opportunity that Mr. Trump presents.

14.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to:

a.  share the below letter(>ol2:437) to Mr. Trump as widely as possible by emailing it to all your friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances, and your emailing list, and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blogs;

1) See a list of yahoogroups at >ol2:433.

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

b.  subscribe to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, and encourage them to do likewise so that you all can Gain Power Through Knowledge;

c.  network(ol:231) with friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems;

1)  Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort

2)  General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.

3)  VP Nominee Gov. Mike Pence

4)  Ms. Ivanka Trump

5)  Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.

6)  Mr. Eric Trump

d.  download and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

e.  organize presentations to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them the letter, evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B), and the way for them to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting  through a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture.

15.  I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances.

16.  Let’s not miss this window of opportunity for turning judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of a presidential election, which is the ocassion when politicians are most vulnerable and responsive(ol2:422) to We the People.

17.  Time is of the essence.

18.  It is by taking action that you too can become one the nationally recognized Champions of Justice of a grateful We the People.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

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

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

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

See the article:

How Donald Trump
can turn his criticism of a federal judge
into an opportunity to
denounce federal judges’ unaccountability,
which gives rise to the mindset of impunity
that induces judges to engage risklessly in
wrongdoing, including illegal, criminal activity,
thus providing probable cause to believe that
judges, fearing no adverse consequences,
also abuse their discretionary power

Filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court is an exercise in rigged gambling and waste

A realistic alternative that takes advantage of presidential politics to inform the national public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing and cause the public to demand nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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. Barriers to access to the Supreme Court: the booklet format, the preference given to a few lawyers, the 1 in 100 review chance, and the cost of representation

1. The problem begins with the format of the brief and the record to be filed. It can cost $100,000 or more just to pay a specialized company to transcribe and print the record on appeal in the booklet format required by Rule 33(*>jur:47fn77) of the Rules of the Supreme Court because if you do not qualify as indigent to file in forma pauperis, you cannot file them on regular 8.5” x 11” paper.(jur:47§1)

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

2. Even so, since in the last few years some 7,250 cases were filed per year in the Court, but it disposed of an average of only 78 cases, your chances of having your case taken for review are roughly 1 in 100(cf. jur:47fn81a). In the casinos of Las Vegas, your odds of winning are better.

3. Your odds of having your case reviewed by the Court are substantially worse if you are not represented by one of the “superlawyers”, whose cases are decidedly preferred by the Supreme Court: 8 superlawyers argued 20% of cases in the nine years between 2004-2012. They command whatever attorney’s fee the law of offer and demand allows, which only a few, mostly corporate parties, can afford.

4. In fact, taking a case all the way to final adjudication in the Supreme Court can cost more than $1,000,000(jur:48fn83). If it remands to the trial court for a new trial, you start all over again.

a. The Echo Chamber…At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket; Reporters Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts, and John Shiffman, Reuters Investigates, Thomson Reuters; 8dec14; http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus/

b. Elite circle of lawyers finds repeat success getting cases to the Supreme Court; Gwen Ifill interviews Joan Biskupic, Legal Affairs Editor in Charge, Reuters; PBS NewsHour; 9dec14; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elite-circle-lawyers-finds-repeat-success-getting-cases-supreme-court/

5. Judicial review in the Supreme Court is not only discretionary with the justices, it is also illusory(jur:48§2; cf. 46§3).

6. If you cannot download the Rules of the Court(jur:47fn77b) and pay attention to, and comply with, their hundreds of minute details, you cannot reasonably expect the Court to take your case for review. The clerk will not accept your case for filing.

7. Nor can you expect the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices of the august Supreme Court of the United States, sitting on the high bench to hear oral argument before the national press and a select audience of guests, let a pro se babble, ramble, and rant about the facts of the case and his heartfelt pain at so much injustice visited upon him by the adverse party.

8. That scenario is simply not possible, an idea born of ignorance of, or reckless disregard for, the applicable standards of performance and court decorum.

9. Rather, the justices expect knowledgeable and authoritative arguments based on legal precedent and firmly established or proposed principles of law. They want clarification about any points discussed in the briefs that raised questions in their minds, asking the kind of questions that are the most difficult to answer as they demand a firm command of the law: What are the legal implications of that point? The law is a system. Points of law have to fit together for the law to make sense. A pro se cannot wing it when answering those questions.

10. Therefore, do you have the money to retain a member of the Supreme Court bar to argue your case? If you do not have money to even pay a lawyer to review your papers before filing them, you don’t.

B. A case filed by a pro se in a federal court is weighted as a third of a case

11. When you file a case in a federal district court, you have to file a Case Information Sheet. It asks, among other things, whether you are represented or pro se. You are appearing pro se. The consequences thereof at the brief in-take office of the clerk of court are funereal without the solemnity: Your case was dead on arrival and is sent right away to potter’s field.

12. In the Federal Judiciary, pro se cases are weighted as a third of a case(jur:43fn65a >page 40). By comparison, “a death-penalty habeas corpus case is assigned a weight of 12.89”(jur:43¶81). As a result of such weighting, a pro se case is given some 39 times less attention than a death penalty case regardless of the pro se case’s nature, what is at stake in it, and whether the complaint was written by joe the plumber or a law professor.

13. Your brief is likely not to be read at all…that is the whole purpose of the Case Information Sheet: to tell the court on half of one side of one page what the case is all about and what relief the party is requesting so that if the court does not want to grant it, why bother reading the brief?

C. Justice is blind, but the judge sees the incompetence of pro se pleadings

14. A federal district judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship”(jur36fn57).

15. Hence, the judge is expected not to waste her time with a pro se case, which is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if it did, without any notion of the elements of the action that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he must introduce to prove each of them.

16. Indeed, the pro se, ignoring how to state a case, is likely to plunge in his opening paragraph into a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better? She knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say and do not lay out arguments of law, but instead intone articles of faith and cries of pain caused by an intuitive sense of justice denied.

17. As a result, your pro se brief reaches the judge tainted by the presumption of irrelevancy, inadmissibility, and incompetence. The judge will give it the perfunctory attention that the official weighting of the case enables her to give it. The weighting works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because upon your filing of your case in the in-take office it was considered already not worth a case, not even half a case, but merely a third of it, the judge will do a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.

18. Just because paper holds everything one writes on it, the writing on it by a pro se does not produce a brief of law. He is likely to have stated a case so inadequately that it will be considered incapable of surviving a motion for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” by a court, that is, a Rule12(b)(6) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(FRCivP; ol:5b/fn15e).

19. It follows that as a pro se, you do not stand a chance at getting a due process fair hearing or reading. You are DoA.

D. A pro se is likely not to have a clue of what subject matter jurisdiction is and how its absence can doom his case

20. Worse yet, you have to show something of which you, as a pro se and a lay person at that, are presumed not to have the faintest idea: subject matter jurisdiction(FRCivP 12(b)(1); ol:5b/fn15e). This means that you have to show that the federal court has the authority conferred upon it by statute as interpreted by case law to entertain your type of case and use its judicial power to adjudicate the controversy that opposes you to the defendant.

21. You cannot run to federal court and ask it to intervene in a purely state law matter, such as family, probate, and zoning law are. It is simply not enough for you to allege that the state judge and a host of other state officials engaged in what you, in your law-untrained opinion and your emotional state of mind as a party, a parent, an heir, or a resident in the neighborhood consider to be corruption.

22. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be waived: The defendant cannot confer upon the court authority to hear and decide your type of case by merely failing to raise an objection to it in its answer or by motion to dismiss. At any time, even in the middle of trial, the defendant can move to dismiss the case, thus terminating it, due to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is more, the court can do so on its own motion upon realizing that it does not have authority to deal with the type of matter presented to it.

23. In fact, when judges do not feel like dealing with a case, they take the easy way out by simply claiming that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s only remedy is to go up on appeal to argue a highly technical issue of law. Do you have any idea how to argue that the court has subject matter jurisdiction based on common law, a statutory provision, notions of federalism, and the equal protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment after analogizing your type of case to another type that was held to fall within the court’s jurisdiction?

24. You may hate lawyers because many are deceitful, uncaring, money grabbing fraudsters. Yet, it is logically sound to assume that people who went to law school for three years know something about the law that people who did not go there ignore. The same applies to those who successfully conducted doctoral research, analysis, and writing. How do you think the judge will react if you tell her that you consider the above statement arrogant and elitist?

E. A more realistic strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform that takes advantage of presidential politics and the mood of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, including the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

25. Presidential politics offers the opportunity to reach out to Establishment-outsider Donald Trump, who has already dare criticize a federal judge, and through him the national media that cover him so that we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, may implement a realistic judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform strategy.

26. That strategy rests firmly on two foundations:

a. the strategic thinking principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and by helping him I help myself”; and

b. the first law of interaction between two or more persons, i.e., horsetrading!…because social life is a give and take:

27. The strategy is concrete, reasonable, and feasible:

a. Mr. Trump and the media, each acting in their own electoral or commercial interest(>ol2:416§B), can inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing and so outrage the public at it as to stir it up to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing as the first step toward judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

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

  1. You can contribute to implementing that strategy. To that end, I respectfully invite you to:

a. share the below letter to Mr. Trump(>ol2:437) as widely as possible by sending it to your emailing list and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blog.

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

1) See a list of yahoogroups(>ol2:433);

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

b. network(ol:231) with colleagues, friends, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries;

1) Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort,

2) General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.,

3) Mrs. Ivanka Trump,

4) Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.,

5) Mr. Eric Trump, and

6) Running Mate Gov. Mike Pence,

c. download and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

d. organize a presentation to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them:

1) the give and take letter to Mr. Trump;

2) the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B); and

3) the way for them to participate in a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting and judicial reform advocacy.

  1. So that you may feel confident in networking me with others, I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.
  2. Let’s not miss this window of opportunity to make of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a decisive issue of the presidential campaign(ol2:422). Time is of the essence.

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
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

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

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

How Trump can turn his website into the platform where the public can voice their complaints against unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and search for, and expose, judges’ patterns of wrongdoing as the first step for We the People to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate their victims

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, Dr.Cordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,

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

This 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.

___________________________________________

Dr. Cordero and Judicial Discipline Reform are non-partisan and non-denominational in their pursuit of one single issue: the exposure of the unaccountability of federal and state judges, who consequently engage in wrongdoing risklessly despite the harm to parties and the rest of the public.

Their plan of action is based on strategic thinking: Informing the national public of unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing so that the public may become so outraged as to demand of all politicians, whether running for, or in, office, that they call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing.

Therefore, members of the public who support any issue as well as those who oppose it are all welcome here as long as they believe in, and want to contribute to advancing, this common issue:

We the People are the sovereign source of all political power and as such the masters of all our public servants, including judicial public servants. We have the right to hold all judges accountable for honestly serving us Equal Justice Under Law, and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Achieving judicial reform that enables us to exercise that right is our ultimate objective, for judicial power is at the center of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’. In that government, we want to assert the supremacy of our role as We the People.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has access to the national media, hence to the national public; is the only outsider of the Establishment, which recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, and appointed judges; and is the only one who has dare criticize judges. Thus, the letter below is an application of the strategic thinking principle: The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him help me.

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

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to apply a principle that you stated in an interview some 25 years ago to the effect that ‘you always think how things can go wrong, because if they go right, they take care of themselves, but if they go wrong, you want to know that you anticipated that event and did everything possible to prevent it and now are better prepared to make things right’.

Things can go wrong for your campaign due to lack of money and the dwindling support shown by polls. To run a campaign you may need $1 billion, of which you only collected $1.3 million in June. Since neither your party nor big donors are opening their pockets, you can either pay the difference from yours or implement this proposal for innovatively addressing both problems:

At the end of a long primary season, people are weary of stretched-out hands requesting money. So you can offer them your ears and invite them at rallies and in emails to voice their complaints on your website.

Complainants form that part of the electorate that you have identified and are your base: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

The most dissatisfied are those who, like you recently, feel they were treated unfairly by judges, not to mention those who feel that  they had their property,  liberty  as  well  as  the  rights  and  duties that  determine their lives mishandled: the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form a huge untapped voting bloc:

More than 100 million people are parties to over 50 million cases filed in the federal and state courts annually(*>jur:8fn4,5); to them must be added the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases and cases deemed wrongly or wrongfully decided; plus the millions of closely related people who have also become just as dissatisfied: family, friends, peers, supporters, employees, etc. All are passionate in their quest for vindication and justice.

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study, which has two  volumes: …/OL/… and …/OL2/….

The dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems will be receptive to your invitation to go to your website both to fill out a standardized case description form(*>ol:281) and to post their court papers so that anybody may search them for the most probative evidence, i.e., a pattern of wrongdoing(ol:274), unlike a claim of abuse in only one’s case, which is suspect of being self-serving and biased.

Thereby you would apply the marketing psychology principle that when people feel they have been given to, e.g., attention and hope of help, they feel grateful and prone to give back, e.g., money, volunteered work, and word of mouth support.

While the dissatisfied are on your website, they will be more responsive to your donation pitch. They may donate small amounts, similar to those that The Hopeful Young gave Sen. Sanders, which added up to scores of millions, even surpassing the big donations to Sec. Clinton.

You can thus grow your support, for those who post  their  complaints  to your site will identify themselves and those closely  related  to  them  as  potential voters for you, whom you can enter in your database, keep giving to(ol:362), and mobilize on Election Day.

Although you sue often, you are not afraid of criticizing judges. You can cause them to resign(jur:92§d) or be removed by denouncing(ol2:437) their unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing(ol:311).

Thereby you can launch media and official investigations of two unique national cases of judges’ wrongdoing(see infra) and provoke an institutional crisis that leads to judicial reform entailing  a reconfiguration of checks and balances among the branches and between them and the people.

Indeed, that can become your legacy even if you lose the election: a new American governance system(ol2:423¶¶g,h) where We the People assert our  supremacy in “government of, by, and for the People”.

If you win, you can also nominate replacement judges supportive of your legislative agenda(ol2:422).

To detail this proposal and explain how you can investigate(ol:194§E) the two unique national cases, I respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers.

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
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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 addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

NOTE 2: This letter to Mr. Trump together with previous ones to him and supporting materials is found at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf.

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

The Two Unique National Cases
of Judicial Wrongdoing

A. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor case and the Follow the money! investigation

  1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer  and Sen.  Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal judges(jur:105fn213b) know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets, which entails the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– but covered up and lied(ol:64§C) about to the public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it as  well as any  other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)
  2. This case  can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for vetting judges and other candidates for office; and open the door for ‘packing’ the Federal Judiciary after judges resign for ‘appearance of impropriety’.

B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA case and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

  1. To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the National Security Agency (NSA)  –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act– to:

a. conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1); and

b. cover up their interception of the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges?, which constitutes a contents-based interception, thus a deprivation of 1st Amendment rights, that would provoke a graver scandal than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications.

  1. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425) in  those  communications pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.
  2. This case can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).
    ***************************************************

How Donald Trump can turn his criticism of a federal judge into an opportunity to denounce federal judges’ unaccountability, which gives rise to the mindset of impunity that induces judges to engage risklessly in wrongdoing, including illegal, criminal activity, thus providing probable cause to believe that judges, fearing no adverse consequences, also abuse their discretion

An opportunity for Trump to emerge as
The Voice of
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment
,
The Champion of Justice of
the victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges, and
The Architect of the New American Judicial System
by causing the investigation of
two unique national stories
of judicial wrongdoing

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

This 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.

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

On May 23, I delivered at the reception of Trump Tower a letter(>ol2:422) for you with materials proposing that you denounce federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, and reap benefits from so doing, i.e., attracting the attention and support of the huge(*>ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people who are dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form part of the dominant sector of the electorate to whom you have given a voice and who represent your key constituency: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such 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.

A. Federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing raises probable cause for criticism of abuse of discretion

1. Your criticism of the exercise of discretionary power by Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presides over the Trump University case, offers you the opportunity to denounce judges’ unaccountability that enables wrongdoing and abuse of discretion(*>jur:5§3):

2. You can argue that judges have granted themselves absolute immunity from prosecution, thus elevating themselves above the law; and are held unaccountable in practice by the Establishment politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them to the Federal Judiciary and protect them there as ‘their men and women on the bench’. So the judges are in practice irremovable:

3. In the last 227 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, the number of impeached and removed federal judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13– is 8!(jur:22fn13, 14) As a consequence, they do wrong risklessly(jur:65§§1-3) and even exercise their discretion abusively: Those who can do the most –impeachable wrongdoing– can do the lesser –reversible discretion-abusing decisions–.

B. Distinguishing between abuse of discretion and a charge of wrongdoing

4. You need not prove that Judge Curiel himself has engaged in wrongdoing, not even that he has abused his discretionary power, for which you would have to meet the exacting requirement of proving that his decisions were grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence.

5. Convincing appellate judges in any case that a peer in the court below and friend of theirs for years, who knows of their own wrongdoing and abuse, abused his discretion is an uphill battle; it is rendered in this case all but impossible because the appellate judges as well as all the other judges have closed ranks as a class behind one of their own under attack.

6. Instead, you only need to show the appearance(jur:68fn123a), rather than prove based on evidence, that the Federal Judiciary and its judges, of whom J. Curiel is one, engage in wrongdoing involving illegal activity so routinely, extensively, and in such coordinated fashion that they have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi. Abuse of discretion is only part of the mindset that develops in people who know that they can get away with anything they want.

C. The mindset of impunity: the policy established by the Supreme Court and its manifestation in judges’ conduct

7. The wrongdoers’ mindset has been fostered by policy established by the Supreme Court itself. In Pierson v. Ray(jur:26fn25), it stated that judges’immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”. In Stump v. Sparkman(26fn26), the Court even assured judges that A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”.

8. Such assurance has created the mindset of impunity. Once on the bench, forever there no matter what. Self-restraint is superfluous because anything and everything is condoned. Self-indulgence has but contempt for discretion.

9. Unaccountable judges exercise abusively, not merely discretion, but even power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives. They wield absolute power, the kind that ‘corrupts absolutely’(27fn28). Abuse of discretion is an institutional uninhibited mental reflex.

10. As a result, federal judges abuse discretion for their own benefit. Indeed(*>Lsch:21§A):

a. Chief circuit judges abuse judges’ statutory self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(jur:24§b). By judges immunizing themselves from liability for their wrongdoing they deny complainants their 1st Amendment right to “redress of grievances”, making them victims with no effective right to complain.

b. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders(jur:44fn66) or opinions so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) that the judges who wrote them mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43§1). In their own estimation, they are raw fiats of star-chamber power. They are as difficult to find as if they were secret; and if found, meaningless to litigants and the public, for most frequently their only operative word is the one that betrays the expediency that motivates them: ‘affirmed!’ They are blatant abuse of discretion.

c. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In Calendar Year 2010, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). Money! lots of money! the most insidious corrupter. About 95% of those bankruptcies are filed by individuals; bankrupt, the great majority of them appear pro se and, ignorant of the law, they fall prey to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:42fn60).

d. That scheme was covered up by Then-Judge Sotomayor, e.g., DeLano(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), which she presided over. Whether it is one of the sources of assets that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) suspected her of concealing (65§§1-3) is a query that you can raise at a press conference(jur:xvii) to launch(jur:98§2) a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(ol:194§E) of her and the Judiciary through two unique national stories (see infra).

D. Wrongdoers and their accessories: What did they do or know and when did they do or know it?

11. Not all judges are wrongdoers; but they need not be such to be participants in illegal activity that requires their resignation(jur:92§d) or impeachment. When they keep silent about the wrongs done by their peers, they become accessories after the fact; when they let their peers know that they will look away when the peers do wrong again, they become accessories before the fact(jur:88§§a-c).

12. In both cases, they breach their oath of office(ol:162§§5-6), show dereliction of their collective duty to safeguard institutional integrity, and contribute to denying due process and equal protection of the law to all parties.

13. Thus, the question is properly asked of every judge: What did he or she know about their peers’ wrongdoing and when did he or she know it?

E. Actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing and become the Champion of Justice of victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges

14. Republican Establishment Sen. McConnell has called your criticism of the judge in the Trump University case “your worst mistake”; and Republican Sen. Collins has asked for you to apologize to the judge.

15. You can defend your criticism by showing that unaccountable judges engage in institutionalized wrongdoing as part of their history, policy, and mindset of impunity, which provides probable cause to believe that they abuse their discretion as part of their way of doing business.

16. What is more, you can turn your own defense into that of the national public, for ‘if judges can treat me unfairly, though I am a presumptive nominee, represented by the best lawyers, and able to appeal to the Supreme Court, how much more abuse do they heap on you?’ So to become the voice of the Dissatisfied With The Establishment and its judicial and legal systems, you can:

a) denounce(jur:98§2) judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference and ask the media to conduct a pinpointed, cost-effective investigation of two unique national stories, stated below, that can expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judicial wrongdoing;

b) invite the public to:

1) upload their complaints about judges to your site(cf. infra 362), search them for patterns of wrongdoing supportive of motions for disqualification, remand, new trial, etc., and

2) demand nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform;

c) propose to the deans of Columbia and NYU law schools a course to research(ol:60, 112-118; jur:131§b) judicial unaccountability and reform as an independent third party(jur:128§4) working to the highest academic standards(infra 3647) to produce the Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America and the Required Reform; and

d) pioneer judicial unaccountability reporting as a business venture(jur:119§1).

15. By so doing, you can turn your criticism of a judge into a master strategic thinker’s move to:

a. pack(ol2:422) the Judiciary with your nominees to replace justices and judges forced to resign or removed;

b. reform(jur:158§§6-8; ol:129§3) the Judiciary to detect, prevent, and punish wrongdoing as warranted by(ol:135§A) the wrongdoing exposed; and

c. become thereby the Architect of the New American Judicial System.

16. I respectfully request an opportunity to present this strategy to you and your officers.

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

Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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 addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

NOTE 2: This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf ************************************

The Two Unique National Stories

A. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer & Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal judges(jur:105fn213b) know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets, which entails the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– but covered up and lied(ol:64§C) about to the public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it and other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)

2. This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for vetting judges and other candidates for office; and open the door for ‘packing’ the Federal Judiciary after judges resign for ‘appearance of impropriety’.

B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

3. To w hat extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii) either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to:

a. conceal assets a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1); and

b. cover up their interception of the communications also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12) of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges?, which constitutes a contents-based interception, thus a deprivation of 1st Amendment rights, that would provoke a graver scandal than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications.

4. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425), pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.

5. This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation (jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).

Application of the strategic thinking principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, to propose that Presidential Candidate Donald Trump denounce judges’ wrongdoing and consequent riskless wrongdoing in order to draw support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who form part of the electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, and draw other substantial benefits, which can in turn lead to profound 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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

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

This 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.

www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Trump Tower
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to nominate to the Supreme Court, not just one of your 11 candidates, but rather many justices and judges, thus packing(*>jur:23fn17) the Federal Judiciary with jurists handpicked to uphold your legislative agenda’s constitutionality for a generation. To that end, you can appeal to the electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such 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.

Among The Dissatisfied is a huge(infra ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems because judges are held unaccountable(jur:21) by the politicians who nominated and confirmed them, so they risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3).

This is illustrated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c), which suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets(65§§1-3).

She was President Obama’s first justiceship nominee, shepherded through the confirmation process by both Sen. Chuck Schumer, whom Sen. Harry Reid has named to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York(77§§5-6).

Your denunciation(98§2) of judges’ wrongdoing –as opposed to wrongdoing judges- at a major press conference or speech would be a masterstroke, allowing you to:

1. attract dissatisfied Democrats and Independents, and Hispanics, Muslims, women, and Blacks;

2. tarnish P. Obama, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic brand itself, and embarrass them, J. Sotomayor, and her current(71§4) and former peers by requesting that they release the secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor for the district, circuit, and supreme courts and those of the other justices and peers(jur:105fn213); and call their bluff by offering to publish your IRS returns if they release those reports;

3. take on judges safely, for they not only have no constitutional claim to immunity(ol:158) in ‘government by the rule of law’ where Nobody Is Above the Law, but also are the most vulnerable public officers to news pointing to their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct(jur:68fn123a) “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, a standard of showing that journalists can easily meet and that forced Justice Abe Fortas, nominated by President Johnson for the chief justiceship, to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

4. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, akin to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee; just as the latter led to the unthinkable, the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(jur:4¶¶10-14), these judicial wrongdoing hearings can lead to the unimaginable, the resignation of all the justices for participating in, or condoning their peers’, wrongdoing; your demand can taint with suspicion of a cover-up all the presidential candidates and other politicians of the Establishment who oppose these hearings, which can become known as ‘the Trump hearings’ on the Judiciary;

5. earn $100s of millions’ worth of free media coverage as the media conducts its, and reports on your, investigation(*>ol:194§E) of J. Sotomayor as a Trojan horse into the circumstances of secrecy, unaccountability, coordination, and risklessness enabling(ol:190¶¶1-7) judges’ wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and grave as to be the judges’ and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4);

6. emerge as the untarnished leader if the investigation exposes judges nominated, confirmed, and protected by conniving Republicans and tarnishes their Establishment, whereby you, as the reformer in chief of our political and judicial systems, can do without their and its endorsement or force them, including Speaker Ryan, to choose between going down with their party or joining you;

7. burnish your credentials as the only candidate who, as the only Establishment outsider, could have taken on federal judges, and who can take on any domestic lobby and even foreign entities so as to bring relief to, as Mr. Lewandowski put it, the people “tired of the way things are”;

8. develop your website so that it becomes:

a. the place for people to submit and analyze for patterns of wrongdoing their complaints against judges(311) and their conniving and compelled helpers(395); and

b. the center with innovative, interactive, and competitive features for people to give and receive vital information about your campaign, their lives, terrorism, etc., (362), and to gratefully donate to your campaign, which desperately needs every dollar it can get; and

9. use your denunciation to inform the national public about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in a country supposed to be founded on the rule of law and create such national outrage as to:

a. set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation that stirs up news-dominating controversy;

b. announce the presentation of the findings of your own investigation at the Republican Convention so that you

c. turn the Convention into a reality show that irresistibly attracts every Republican, Democrat, Independent, and all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, whereby you

d. become their Champion of Justice;

e. set once again the subject of the public debate because you are the one who senses and can ‘treat’ the pulse of We the People; and

10. pave the way for historic, profound judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), which can be his most important and enduring legacy regardless of whether he wins the presidency.

I respectfully request an opportunity to present this and supporting strategies to you and your staff. Time is of the essence.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net;  Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

Do you suspect that communications from and to you have been intercepted? If you have had experiences similar to those described below, this is a call to join forces to exercise our First Amendment right to “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

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

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.

A. Probable cause to believe that communications about exposing judges’ wrongdoing have been intercepted

  1. I am a lawyer, a doctor of law, and a researcher of court statistics, reports, statements, etc.(*>jur: iii/fn.ii), which I have cited hundreds of times in my 880+-page study of federal judges and the Federal Judiciary –the models for their state counterparts– titled and downloadable as follows:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

* http://www.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

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

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., 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 850 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.

  1. I have proposed the pinpoint, profit-making(*>ol:326§F) investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through a unique national query(ol:191§A) based, among other things(ol:194§E), on the articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) that suspected the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets. Such concealment is undertaken to evade taxes and keep the illegal origin of taxable assets hidden; it is a crime(ol:5fn10).

 

  1. The evidence(jur:65§§1-3) shows that her asset concealment is enabled by, and only part of, wrongdoing coordinated among federal judges and between them and insiders of the judicial and legal systems(jur:81fn169). Thus, her investigation would be a Trojan horse that would reveal wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinated as to constitute the judges’ and the Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190¶¶1-7).

 

  1. I have sent that proposal to over ten thousand people, yahoogroups, and pertinent websites. Given the evidence in the study of how widespread dissatisfaction with the judicial and legal systems is, and a current public mood dominated by the Dissatisfied with the Establishment, one could reasonably expect many recipients to contact me to express interest in my proposal. Yet, only a handful has done so. Neither under the circumstances, statistical analysis, nor related events is this a normal reaction.

 

  1. This article argues that under those three considerations, there is probable cause to believe that the communications that I sent or that were sent to me were intercepted and their delivery was prevented. It calls on victims of judges’ wrongdoing and on advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces to expose such wrongdoing by implementing a strategy that takes advantage of the public mood and the presidential campaign that feeds off it.

B. Interception and secrecy as the government’s modus operandi

  1. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and the intentional access to a protected computer without authorization are acts prohibited as federal crimes and punishable with up to 20 years in prison under Title 18 U.S. Code §§1030 and 2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14).
        1. NSA and judges can issue companies secret orders of interception
  1. The documents of the National Security Agency (NSA) leaked by Edward Snowden(ol:17) have revealed that the NSA, which reports to the President daily, broke the law to intercept the communications of private and public parties, including 35 heads of state and government, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazil President Dilma Rousseff among them as well as U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

 

  1. This supports probable cause to believe that the government is once more intercepting communications, such as mine, to safeguard its own interests.

 

  1. The NSA has an interest in intercepting communications calling for the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing: It depends on judges, such as those of the secret federal court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(ol:20fn5 >50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811), to have its secret requests for secret orders of surveillance rubberstamped, up to 100% in a year(ol:5afn7).
         2. Microsoft sued the government over its orders’ permanent secrecy
  1. In mid-April 2016, Microsoft sued the federal government over secret requests, such as those by the NSA, for secret orders of surveillance that those who must execute them, such as Microsoft and other Internet Service Providers, must keep secret forever. It is arguing that such permanent secrecy even after the abatement of the emergency that warrants the order’s request and execution without due process notice and opportunity to defend to the surveillance target defendant prevents any control on the government and, as a result, leads to government abuse of power.

 

  1. Secrecy is the petri dish for corruption(jur:49§4), for it places wrongdoing beyond public condemnation, rendering it private, blameless, acceptable to those in on it, whom it renders unaccountable and whose wrongdoing it turns into riskless acts to gain irresistible, wrongful benefits, inevitably leading to their performance through abuse of power(jur:88§§a-c). “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Justice Brandeis put it: information is needed to rid the government of corruption.
        3. Unauthorized access to CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computers
  1. CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed the fiasco of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the Department of Justice (DoJ), which sold weapons, including military assault rifles, intended to be followed all the way to druglords in Mexico. But the Bureau lost track of them; one was used to murder an American border patrol.

 

  1. DoJ Attorney General Eric Holder tried to cover up Fast and Furious by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents, submitting them with whole pages redacted so that they no longer made sense. As a result, he became the first sitting member of the cabinet in American history to be held in contempt of Congress. Having lost the trust of Congress, he had to resign.

 

  1. Likewise and much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, Reporter Attkisson reported on the Benghazi attacks, where the American ambassador to Libya and three other American officers were killed by Islamic militants while the Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton.

 

  1. Rep. Attkisson(ol:215) had three independent computer experts examine her home and work computers. They attested to their having been hacked and roamed through. She, represented by Judicial Watch, has sued DoJ for information concerning the hacking of her computers (ol:216fn2); and reportedly has demanded $35,000,000 in compensation.
          4. The government sued Apple to get backdoor access to an iPhone
  1. In order to gain access to the messages on the phone of one of the terrorists that committed the massacre at San Bernardino, California, the federal government sued Apple to force it to crack on its behalf the encryption system that protects the privacy of messages on its iPhones. Apple refused to comply, arguing that the public interest in the privacy of emails trumped the interest of the government in particular cases and that cracking the encryption would set a dangerous precedent, give the American government as well as foreign ones a backdoor access to all messages on all iPhones, and lead to abuse of power.

 

  1. After the government managed to crack the encryption with the help of another company, it withdrew its suit.

 

  1. Instead of just after a crime, how far ahead of any crime or even suspicion of it will the government enter through that backdoor to read all contents of iPhones…and eventually of all phones and computers?

 

  1. Power is by nature expansive; it will only stop its advance if opposed by an equal power or is pushed back by a stronger one(jur:81¶174). Such can be the power of We the People, the sovereign source of all public power, when informed by the free flow of communications.

B. Statistical considerations: the normal distribution of a series of values and the abnormal number and contents of replies

  1. Probable cause to believe that there has been interception of my communications derives from the statistical abnormality(ol:19fn2 >ws:46§V) of my non-receipt of replies from the thousands of people to whom I wrote(cf. *>Lsch:1), except for some five replies, and the statistical oddity that all those replies were negative, expressing the repliers’ lack of interest in my proposal.

 

  1. Normally, the reactions of the subjects to whom an attitudinal questionnaire is submitted –like the people to whom I sent my proposal– line up on a continuum from an extreme of very few ‘not liked any bit of it’ rising toward the most numerous ‘balanced bunch’ and descending toward the other extreme of very few ‘liked every bit of it’. When the series of values measuring the intensity of their reaction and the number of those so reacting are plotted on an X,Y graph, they produce the bell-shaped curve called a normal distribution of values(ol:19fn2 >ws:59¶124).

 

  1. Instead, the replies that I received produced a flat floor line with a hiccup at the end. But there is neither a logical nor a psychological cause to believe that normally only people who disliked a proposal would be motivated enough to bother to write to let the proponent know that they disliked and rejected it rather than outright delete the email or shred the letter of proposal.

 

  1. Only the interception by an outside agent who managed to gain access to all the replies, examined them, and prevented the delivery of those that liked and accepted the proposal can explain that abnormal one-sided delivery to me of only replies that disliked and rejected my proposal.

C. Interception by companies’ suspending email and cloud storage accounts

  1. Probable cause to believe in interception is found in the sudden, unexplained, arbitrary suspension between October and December 2014 of my email and cloud storage accounts by Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft.

 

  1. It is utterly improbable that these three, at the time independent, companies acted independently and only coincidentally to suspend my accounts. Their doing so was contrary to their commercial interest in advertising themselves through the accounts that people open with them, which bear the companies’ names in the domains of the accounts, e.g.,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf?dl=0,

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com, and

Ric.Cordero@hotmail.com(*>ggl:1 et al.).

          1. One of the 5% most viewed Linkedin profiles loses most of its contents
  1. A company’s commercial interest in encouraging Internet traffic with its name attached to it is shown by Linkedin’s congratulating me for my profile being among the 5% most viewed among its more than 200 million profiles(*>a&p:25-27). So how is it possible that last week, I checked my profile and noticed that my photo and most of its information about me were not there? I had to repost them. Do you see them at www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/?
          2. Microsoft prevents again the signing in to an email account
  1. After Microsoft suspended my Hotmail account, I created this other Microsoft account: Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com. But since last week, my attempts to sign in have been met with the following notice, which you will likely receive if you go to www.microsoft.com and try to sign in as RicCordero@verizon.net. So I can neither access the emails sent to my Outlook account nor upload to my Microsoft DriveOne cloud storage account the updated versions of my study of judges and their judiciaries.

Sign in
Something went wrong and we can’t sign you in
right now. Please try again later.
Microsoft

         3. The dramatic drop in the number of daily subscribers to my blog
  1. I built a new website using WordPress in September 2015 and started to post my articles there; www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Although I did not advertise it, readers found it and I began receiving at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net automatically generated email notices of their having subscribed to it.

 

  1. At the beginning, it was only a handful a day. But the phenomenon of referential chain reaction increments that occurs throughout cyberspace must also have occurred with respect to my blog-like website: One reader who liked my articles referred them to two or more other readers, who did the same, thus giving rise to an exponential growth rate.

 

  1. As a result, by Monday, April 11, there was a daily average of 53 new subscribers with an upward trend. But thereafter the daily average plummeted. In fact, only 8 readers subscribed last Sunday, April 17, although normally the highest number of readers subscribe on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

  1. One cannot reasonably assume that for the third(ol:19fn2; ggl:1) time and only coincidentally companies, this time Microsoft and Verizon, have caused a negative flow of emails to me, whether in their content or number, concerning my proposal for exposing judges’ wrongdoing.

 

  1. Rather, such flow is probably caused by interception of emails to and from me. But since such interception only hurts those companies’ commercial interest in self-advertisement, it occurs either without their participation or by them upon orders of a third party. The latter can reasonably be assumed to be those who have the most to lose from judicial wrongdoing exposure:

a. judges (cf. jur:71§4);

b. the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them(cf. jur:77§§5-6) and now protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’; and

c. others who benefit from maintaining a good relation with judges in exchange for favorable rulings.

E. Another query for investigation during Election 2016 of judges’ wrongdoing

  1. Based on these and other instances of actual, attempted, and probable government interception and access, I have posed the following query(ol:192§4) for professional investigation:

To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii) through PACER, Public Access to Court Electronic Records– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA to:

1) conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1; ¶2 supra),

2) cover up judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by intercepting the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of their exposers; and

3) prevent exposers from communicating to join forces, thus infringing upon their rights “to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:22fn12b; ol:371)?

          1. From collection of metadata to unconstitutional interception based on contents and undertaken in the interest of covering up wrongdoing
  1. The findings of the investigators of that query can have a farther-reaching impact than Snowden’s revelations. His leaked documents pointed only to illegal dragnet collection of communications metadata of scores of millions of people, such as their telephone numbers, call duration, date, etc., but not the contents of the intercepted communications. Even so the public was out-raged by the breach without warrants of communications privacy, its scope, abuse potential, etc.

 

  1. The public would be more intensely outraged if verifiable findings pointed to the government committing communications interception based on their contents, which constitutes breach of privacy as well as abridgement of freedom of speech and the press”(jur:130fn268).

 

  1. Public outrage would reach its paroxysm if the interception were spurred by the unjustifiable motive, not to protect any alleged ‘national security interest’, but rather to advance judges’ crass interest in covering up their wrongdoing and the government’s in avoiding judges’ retaliation by executing their im-plicit threat “If you let them take any of us down, we bring you with us!”(jur:22§31; ol:266¶13).

 

  1. Such findings can lead to a test case representative of many other cases of government content-based interception of the communications of advocates of honest judiciaries, victims of wrong-doing judges, and journalists critical of public officers.

 

  1. The findings can support discovery through a suit under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, 552a, to ascertain the identity of those who sought and those who implemented interception orders, the latter’s text, target, justification, objective, etc.

 

  1. Moreover, an outraged public could impact the elections significantly.
         2. Strategy for launching the investigation and informing the public
  1. To launch the investigation, I offer to make presentations(ol:197§G) at video conferences and in person, generally, to IT experts, journalists, lawyers, students and their professors, business people, and other potential members of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture (jur:128 §4) and advocates and victims, and, particularly, to any or all presidential candidates.

 

  1. They and their top officers, e.g., their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, can be interested in drawing support(ol:311, 362) from the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, part of the Dissatisfied with the Establishment(¶4 supra).

 

  1. Since the candidates are covered by the national media and the public pays attention to them, they are in the best position to denounce(jur:98§2) contents-based interception and judges’ wrongdoing. They can cause their campaign research teams, and encourage the media, to conduct pinpoint, profit-making investigations of the unique national queries of Justice Sotomayor(¶¶2-3) and the Federal Judiciary-NSA.

 

  1. After exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the wrongdoing, informed discussion and adoption of judicial reform measures(jur:158§§6-8) can begin.

 

  1. If you have had an experience similar to those described above, please email me to all my addresses. Kindly use the headings of this article as those of a template, providing information under applicable ones. If necessary, add headings.

 

  1. If you want a presentation for you and others, let me know.

 

  1. You can also network with your acquaintances so that they may network me with campaign officers for me to make a presentation on how their candidate can attract that huge untapped voting bloc and eventually nominate replacements for wrongdoing judges(ol:312¶10).

 

  1. If we think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E), we can earn material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), including the highest one: to be nationally recognized as We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§§J,K).

 

  1. But time is of the essence.

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,

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 addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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:

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

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

How Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and Victims of Wrongdoing Judges can expose judges’ wrongdoing and start a process leading to judicial reform by organizing presentations intended to implement an out-of-court strategy that takes advantage of presidential politics and a justiceship nominee confirmation to insert judges’ wrongdoing into the national debate

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
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

A. Making presentations to each presidential candidate on how to benefit from denouncing unaccountable judges and their riskless wrongdoing

  1. I have offered to make a presentation either at a video conference or in person to you, advocates of honest judiciaries and victims of wrongdoing judges, so that you would network me with top officers of the presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, in order for me to present also to them, and eventually to the candidate, how the latter’s denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing (> *jur:5§3) can reasonably be expected to resonate with an electorate dominated by ‘The Dissatisfied with the Establishment’.
  2. Consequently, the candidate can become the standard-bearer of, and draw support from, the huge(> *ol:131¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

NOTE: All (blue references) and superscripts are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows*:

* Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting

* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:311

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8 >ol:311

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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf >ol:311

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., 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 850 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.

  1. What is more, if the denouncing candidate also outlines two unique national stories involving wrongdoing by Justice Sotomayor, President Obama, and the NSA(ol:191§§A,B), the dissatisfied electorate as well as the rest of the public will be outraged.
  2. The media will investigate those stories because ‘scandal sells copy’ and because the stories will be undoubtedly pertinent to the confrontation between the President and Republican senators over the confirmation of his nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes of that confrontation are so high, namely, the voting balance between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning justices, that the Republican senators have refused even to meet with the nominee, never mind hold confirmation hearings.
  3. Those two unique stories will show that regardless of the justices’ splitting along political lines when voting on cases before them, they are united in participating in, and condoning their peers’, wrongdoing. It will also show that presidents and senators who have connivingly nominated and confirmed judges and thereafter held them unaccountable. They have done so, not in ‘the national security interest’, but rather in their crass judicial class and personal and political interest.
  4. The dissatisfied public will be so profoundly outraged at Establishment judges and politicians and so avidly demand news thereon as to generate the commercial incentive for ever more media outlets to offer such news by climbing on the investigative bandwagons running toward the deepest webs of politico-judicial wrongdoing.
  5. The outraged public will also demand that politicians open, and those campaigning for office call for, official investigations, lest they receive no more donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth endorsement, and be defeated at the polls. It is because the presidential candidates so desperately need such public support and votes that they will see it in their interest to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and outline the two unique national stories.
  6. This concrete, realistic, and feasible out-of-court strategy can through presidential candidates and the media insert into the national debate the issue of unaccountable judges’ and their judiciaries’ riskless wrongdoing that has become their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4).
  7. The public can compel reform that not merely touches up judiciaries to assuage its outrage, but rather transforms them into a We the People’s system of public servants held by the People accountable for administering justice according to law and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:160§8).

    B. The need to abandon failed ways of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and join forces in support of a novel, out-of-court strategy

  8. We must join forces to take advantage of the turmoil generated by the presidential campaign and the justiceship nomination. If we fail to, we will miss a unique opportunity to make some progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and setting in motion a process of judicial reform. The fact is that up to now, we have worked in isolation and made by rote the same kind of traditional, failed efforts.
  9. We continue to sue wrongdoing judges in court, their turf, where they are protected by trial and appellate judges who are their peers and friends, who disregard the facts and the applicable law and make up rules as they go, such as the doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d), which is contrary to the Constitution(ol:158).
  10. We keep approaching legislators to ask them to pass laws to restrain judges, even though those legislators are the very ones who recommended, endorsed,
    nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, those judges, so that the legislators have no interest at all in incriminating or reining in those whom they now protect as ‘our men and women on the bench’. The dissension over the justiceship nomination proves how important it is for politicians to have and keep their own people in a judiciary: the balance of voting that sustains or denies the constitutionality of their legislative agenda is at stake17a.
  11. We fail to realize the inherent contradiction, inconsistency, and absurdity of complaining about law-disregard judges while assuming that if the laws that we advocate were passed, they for some strange reason would not disregard them too, although the evidence indicates the opposite: Federal judges’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers under the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24§§b,c) amounts to their abrogation of it in effect. They will disregard the new laws too with the conniving toleration of the legislators who passed them pro forma, thus making all our effort a fool’s errand.
  12. As a result, we have made no progress whatsoever in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone curbing it. For proof, there is the official statistic that although 2,217 judges were on the federal bench on 30sep1313(jur:22fn13), in the past 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!14(jur:22fn14)
  13. Such historical record of irremovability in practice has assured federal judges that they can engage in any individual and even coordinated wrongdoing without risking either their jobs or even their salary, which cannot be reduced while in office(Const. Art. III, Sec. 112a). Federal judges, like most of their state counter-parts, are unaccountable: Officers of a Sovereign State Above the Law of the Appointing State.
  14. We will remain whining losers as long as we unreflectively continue to pursue failed ways of judicial wrongdoing exposure. By so doing, we have attracted the application upon us of Einstein’s aphorism: Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality. This is so because such conduct reveals ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and human worlds: cause and effect.
  15. By contrast, we can join forces to implement that out-of-court strategy that realistically aims to appeal to the presidential candidates’ own electoral interests to gain what they have and we sorely lack but desperately need: access to the media, and the national media at that.
  16. The media is the only entity that can take the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing to the national public, outrage it, and thus turn that issue into a decisive one of the rest of the primaries, the nominating conventions, the presidential campaign, and even American politics thereafter.
  17. Therefore, the offered presentation(¶1 supra; ol:311, 362) is a first step toward implementing that strategy.

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