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

By

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4]  http://www.uscourts.gov/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Donate through this button


    subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Donate through this PayPal and credit card button

    and subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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


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

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dear Chief Judge DiFiore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You can become here and abroad the Champion of Justice.

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

    To donate, use the following button: 

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


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

    Based on the study

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

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    e. the exhibits to each; and

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

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

    a. identify the relevant facts and controlling issues;

    b. research case precedent or statutory law;

    c. consider attenuating and aggravating circumstances;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

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

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

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

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

    3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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


    Proposal to the Russian government to investigate the interception by unaccountable wrongdoing judges of the communications of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries -who invoke Candidate Trump’s request to the Russians to look for Sec. Clinton’s missing emails, equal protection of the law, and the principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”- whose findings can cause national outrage that inserts the issue of politicians’ condonation of judges’ wrongdoing among the key ones of the 2018 mid-term primaries and elections, and for which the Russians can be “rewarded mightily” by the press, by President Trump for discrediting “swamp” politicians and intelligence agencies investigating his presidential campaign, and by an American public much more concerned with establishing a new We the People-government relation than with the Russians’ meddling with the 2016 presidential election or their activity in the rest of the world

    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-DisciplineReform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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

     

    The Hon. Ambassador Anatoly Antonov
    Embassy of the Russian Federation to the U.S.A.
    2650 Wisconsin Ave., NW
    Washington, DC 20007
    http://www.russianembassy.org/
    rusembusa@mid.ru
    tel. (202)298-5700

    The Hon. Consul General Igor L. Golubovskiy
    Consulate General of the Russian Federation in NY
    9 East 91st Street
    New York, NY 10128
    www.newyork.mid.ru
    mainly@mid.ru
    tel. (212)348-0626

    Dear Ambassador Antonov and General Consul Golubovskiy,

    This is a proposal for the Russian government to use its Information Technology (IT) prowess to expose how the most powerful American government officers, the life-tenured unaccountable federal judges, who dispose of people’s property and even suspended President Trump’s Muslim travel ban, risklessly:

    a. engage in financial wrongdoing(*>jur:102§a, OL:154¶3) using their IT network and/or that of intelligence entities dependent on their grant of their secret requests for secret orders of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(*>OL:20fn5); and

    b. silence their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, by committing the federal crime(*>OL:20¶¶11, 12) of intercepting their communications(jur:105§b).

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    * NOTE: This article(>OL2:597) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* >blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

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

    However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write them are not free to me….far from it. Just trying to protect my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org from being shut down is very costly.

    Hence, I encourage you to donate to our common cause of holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any amount of $3 or more is a positive contribution and for it I thank you.

     

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Your government could achieve through this exposure what it failed to through its meddling with our presidential election: create a crisis of confidence of the people in the institutions duty-bound to uphold the law and turn public attention inward and away from Russia.

    The Advocates would achieve what we have failed to for the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, during which period only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed(jur:21§1), as they dismiss 99.8% of complaints against them: to expose the connivance between politicians and their appointed judges.

    Politicians hold judges unaccountable to avoid being retaliated against by them, e.g., judges may declare their laws implementing their legislative agenda unconstitutional, as happened with parts of the President’s Muslim travel ban(>OL2:569¶¶13-16; 541 2nd-3rd¶¶).

    The exposure could set off a process that attains the Advocates’ objective of judicial reform that empowers We the People to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

    Russia would benefit from an America in domestic turmoil where the People demanded greater public accountability, no Judges Above the Law –even compelling a constitutional convention(OL2:517¶11)–, and concentration of attention and resources on improving the People’s lives, away from policing the world.

    By contrast, your government’s ordered reduction of American diplomats in Russia only causes a logistical inconvenience, whereby fewer of them have to do the same or less.

    The probable cause to believe that judges are intercepting Advocates’ communications is laid out at >OL2:476, 425, 405§§B-C, 395; *>OL:19fn2; and shown by the current flagrant manifestation:

    a. After my article with a realistic strategy for turning the issue of unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing into a key one of the 2018 mid-term elections was posted to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, the daily number of new subscribers –not just visitors– to it, who some days had exceeded 110, was blocked in a week to zero on July 29! Up to then, 22,961 visitors had subscribed in less than 2 years.

    The ones most interested in silencing me, judges, can reasonably be suspected of having blocked subscriptions to my website or even access to it.

    Your exposure of judges’ wrongdoing through the type of IT investigation illustrated below would provoke public outrage more intense than that arising from Edward Snowden’s revelations of the National Security Agency (NSA)’s illegal dragnet collection of only the metadata of phone calls between scores of millions of people, but not the contents of their conversations(>OL2:525§H).

    However, committing contents-based interception of communications(OL2:583§3, 526¶56) deprives the People of their birthrights: “freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution(*>jur:22fn12b).

    I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss the details of this proposal.

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

    Two unique national stories
    whose leads provided by the Russians
    can launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation
    that ends up toppling, not a president this time,
    but rather the Federal Judiciary and
    the current form of People-government relation,
    for which the Russians can be “rewarded mightily”
    by the press,
    by P. Trump for discrediting “swamp” politicians and intelligence agencies
    investigating his presidential campaign, and
    by an American People concerned much more with themselves
    than with the Russians’ activity in the rest of the world

    By

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

    1. These stories illustrate the type of IT investigation proposed by Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to the Russian government in application of the strategic thinking(>OL2:445§B) principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”; and the statement by Presidential Nominee Donald Trump on July 27, 2016, at a press conference in Florida: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”.
    2. As President, he has repeatedly defended that statement, which he made in the sole self-interest of embarrassing his opponent, Sec. Clinton. He has not faced any charge of treason for having made it.
    3. We invoke the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution(*>jur:22fn12b) as the justification for our statement to the Russians. We make it in the hope that they will initiate the investigation of these two unique national stories, whose findings can set off a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with the politicians that put them on the bench and hold them there unaccountable. Thereby this issue can get inserted in the 2018 mid-term elections.
    4. The adaptation of these stories to current events can be discussed at a meeting with Russian government representatives, where the underlying strategic thinking(>OL2:445§B) outlined next can be developed.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    * NOTE: This article(>OL2:598) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* >blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus::

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

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

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

    However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write them are not free to me….far from it. Just trying to protect my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org from being shut down is very costly.

    Hence, I encourage you to donate to our common cause of holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any amount of $3 or more is a positive contribution and for it I thank you.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

    1. President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee was Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor. She was suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(>jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets(>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), which entails the crimes(*>OL:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering.
    2. What did President Obama(jur:77§5), Senator Schumer and Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and judges(jur:105fn213b) know about it but covered it up and lied(*>OL:64§C) about it to the American public by vouching for her honesty because P. Obama 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 wrongs of hers(jur:65§§1-3)?

    1. Exposing the participation of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand in a conspiracy of silence about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets

      7. Sen. Schumer (D-NY) is the current Senate Minority Leader; Sen. Gillibrand is the junior Democratic senator for New York. Both recommended that J. Souter be succeeded by Hispanic Sotomayor, who at the time was sitting as a U.S. circuit judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals located in NY City, which has a very large Hispanic population, as does the rest of this solidly Democratic state.

      8. After P. Obama nominated her to the opening justiceship, he appointed these two senators to guide her through the confirmation process in the Senate. Both had access to the FBI vetting report and were duty-bound to ascertain her honesty before passing her off to the People as a justice nominee who would honestly say the law and shape its rule nationwide for the next 20, 30, or more years on the Supreme Court.

      2. The consequences of the People learning that they were defrauded by politicians and abused by judges

      9. If now the People were made aware of probable cause to believe that Sen. Schumer and Gillibrand knew about Then-Judge Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107c), but hid that material information so as to vouch for her honesty because they wanted to advance their personal electoral and partisan interest in catering to Hispanic voters and feminist ones asking for another female justice:

      a. national outrage by a defrauded People would break out;

      b. a clamor would burst for the Senate to censure them and for them to resign;

      c. a battle for the minority leadership would upset the Senate Democrats;

    d. an outcry for J. Sotomayor to be investigated and to resign even if only for her “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a, 44fn69) would erupt, just at Justice Abe Fortas had to on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

    e. the creeping of her investigation upon the other justices and her former district and circuit court peers, whether as principal wrongdoers or as accessories before or after the fact(>jur:88§§a-c), who created or tolerated the circumstances(>OL:190¶¶1-7) enabling(*>jur:69fn128) her and other judges’ wrongdoing, would become unstoppable;

    f. a flood of motions for recusal, disqualification, annulment, new trial, etc., would sweep through the Federal Judiciary, rushing functional disruption into it;

    g. Democrats’ payback refusal to even hold a hearing for P. Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Sotomayor until after the 2020 presidential election would further embitter an already dysfunctional, achieve-nothing Congress -imagine the scenario where Republican Senators John McCain is too ill to vote and Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins refuse to give the vacant justiceship to Trump’s male nominee-;

    h. the insertion of the issue of judges’ wrongdoing among the key ones of the 2018 mid-term primaries and elections would be all but assured, especially if new candidates for the Senate, who never took part in a judicial confirmation, opportunistically portrayed themselves as leaders of those outraged at judges’ wrongdoing; and

    i. widespread dissatisfaction with government would create the opportunity for Trump to survive his own chaos and the investigations of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Senate, and the House that target his presidential campaign, by him running for reelection as:

    1) a traditional leader of the People, who exercise their right to amend their form of government and demand that Congress hold the constitutional convention that the required 2/3 of the states have applied for Congress to convene after Michigan became on April 2, 2014, the 34th state to do so(*>jur:139fn270 >Ln:309), but that politicians ward off as a threat to their privileges within the Establishment; or

    2) a maverick, unprecedented leader of the sovereign source of all political power, We the People, whom he leads to convene in order to adopt a new form of government, regardless of Congress, politicians, and the dead hand of the all-male white wealthy delegates who 228 years ago wrote constitutional rules for a world long gone and unrelated(>OL2:516¶8) to the world of the people living today and demanding to command their present and future.

    1. The Follow the money! investigation and its demand for reports that can shatter the People’s trust in a government of conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges

      10. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; OL:194§1). It envisages a call on President Trump to order the release unredacted of all FBI vetting reports on Sotomayor as nominee to the district, circuit, and supreme courts; and on her to request that she ask him to release them.

      11. Such call can set a precedent for requesting the release of the reports on the other justices and judges, and for an outraged public to demand their resignation.

    2. The strategic benefit for the Russians

      12. What amount of political and popular attention would be left in America to care about what Russia did or was doing in the rest of the world? The People could “reward mightily” the Russians with indifference or gratitude.

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

      13. The Federal Judiciary is the only national jurisdiction. It has vast IT expertise and a computer network that handles the filing and retrieval of hundreds of millions of case documents(Lsch:11¶ 9b.ii). The judges of its secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(OL:20fn5) rubberstamp (OL:5fn7) up to 100% of the NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance.

      14. To what extent do federal judges, either alone or with the NSA’s quid pro quo assistance:

      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; jur:72§b, 105fn213b); and

      b. intercept the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(OL:20¶¶11-12)– of their critics to prevent them from joining forces and growing their ranks enough to expose the judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and compel their compensatory “redress for their victims’ grievances”?

      1. The Follow it wirelessly! investigation and its current model

      15. This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(OL:194§2). A statistical analysis(OL:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of email oddities(OL2:395, 405, 425), point to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.

      16. Law enforcement authorities’ contempt for the law is illustrated by the Department of Justice (DoJ) hacking the computers of Former Reporter Sharyl Attkisson of CBS, the national media network(OL:345§1). She had embarrassed DoJ with her reports on its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Fast and Furious program for selling even assault weapons and tracking their delivery to Mexican druglords, one of which was used to kill an American border patrol; and the killing at Benghazi, Libya, of the American ambassador and three of his aides.

      17. After noticing odd behavior of her work and office computers, Rep. Attkisson and CBS had three independent IT experts inspect them. They found that her computers had been roamed without authorization, even if no file was damaged or stolen. She is suing DoJ for $35 million.

      2. Starting the investigation with an IT inspection of Dr. Cordero’s computers and website

      18. Similarly, the herein proposed exposure of judges’ wrongdoing can be started by having independent IT experts inspect Dr. Cordero’s computers and website to ascertain whether they have been interfered with and his communications with others intercepted and, if so, who is the likely interferer and interceptor.

    C. Letting the Russians know your support for this proposal

    1. Write to the Russians in support of this proposal.
    2. If you share with them your complaint about judges, do not, do not, do not send them tens of pages of briefs and case documents for them to read in a foreign language, which not even the clerks of judges, let alone judges, read in English. Be reasonable and do your homework: summarize your complaint on one side of one page. The Russians cannot intervene in your case.

    3. The purpose is only to encourage them to undertake the proposed investigation of the two unique national stories. If they do and bring their findings to national attention so that judges’ wrongdoing becomes a key issue of the 2018 mid-term elections, you together with we all, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, will benefit from it more than from any other effort of ours. By showing your support for this proposal, you too can become one of the People’s nationally recognized Champions of Justice.


    August 4, 2017

    Director Christopher Wray
    FBI Headquarters
    35 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

    Mr. William F. Sweeney, Jr.
    Assistant Director in Charge
    FBI, 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
    New York, NY 10278-0004

    Dear Director Wray and Assistant Director Sweeney,

    Kindly find attached hereto a copy of my letter to the Russian ambassador to the United States, currently represented by Mr. Denis V. Gonchar, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim, proposing that his government apply its Information Technology (IT) prowess to ascertain and expose federal judges’ financial wrongdoing1 and their interception of the communications of their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, to disrupt the latter’s efforts to expose the judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:154¶3) and their connivance with the politicians that hold them unaccountable.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    * NOTE: This article(>OL2:602) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* >blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus::

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

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

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

    However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write them are not free to me….far from it. Just trying to protect my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org from being shut down is very costly.

    Hence, I encourage you to donate to our common cause of holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any amount of $3 or more is a positive contribution and for it I thank you.



    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the Russians heed our proposal, they can reap some of the benefits that they sought by meddling with the 2016 presidential election.

    We are not colluding. We are giving notice to an authority empowered to investigate judges’ wrongdoing, for in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law, nobody is above the law’(*>OL:5fn6), not even judges.

    Indeed, we have resorted to making that proposal to the Russians because our efforts to cause American authorities to investigate the evidence of judges’ financial wrongdoing –which is quite different from allegations of abuse of discretion or error in applying the law– have met with the authorities’ culpable indifference and condonation. Among those authorities are:

    1. the FBI at its D.C. headquarters and district offices;
    2. the U.S. Attorney General;
    3. the Public Integrity Bureau of the Department of Justice;
    4. the leadership of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives;
    5. their committees on the judiciary and on oversight and government reform;
    6. the senator and representative for our respective district;
    7. the Office of the U.S. [Bankruptcy] Trustee;
    8. Presidential Candidate and President Donald Trump, members of his top campaign and White House staff, and Running Mate Mike Pence;
    9. the Supreme Court chief and associate justices;
    10. the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts;
    11. the Judicial Conference of the U.S.;
    12. its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability;
    13. federal circuits’ judicial councils;
    14. the chief circuit judges with whom complaints against federal judges must necessarily be filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §351(*>jur:24fn18a); etc.

    Since that Act, statistics on complaints against federal judges must under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(>jur:26fn23). be submitted annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to Congress. Their analysis show that chief circuit judges dismiss 99.8% of them(>jur:10-14, 21§1; >OL2:546). Judges have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect an act of Congress intended to end their secular impunity.

    So judges still hold themselves and are held by politicians unaccountable and consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing.

    They do wrong for the convenience of disregarding the strictures of due process and equal protection of the laws(OL2:453-462d).

    Worse yet, they commit financial wrongdoing in their crass personal and class interest(jur:24§2, 65§§1-3, 105fn213b), which has nothing to do with “the national security interest”.

    After all, who is there to hold life-tenured federal judges in check, who wield more power than the President, let alone the FBI director, over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives? Nobody. As a result, judges have turned the Federal Judiciary into the safe haven for their wrongdoing(*>jur:49§4).

    If the Russians, pursuing their own interest, bring their findings of federal judges’ wrongdoing to public attention, an outraged public will give the media a commercial interest in launching their own investigation. That could insert the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into the 2018 mid-term elections.

    That will not follow from you acting on your pious words upon becoming director that you want “to work…for the good of the country and the cause of justice”2, given that you will not for a nanosecond consider investigating judges, their harm to country and justice notwithstanding.

    We can only hope that you will not instead take the easy way out of investigating us.

    But it is not unreasonable to suggest that you at least order the inspection by independent IT experts of my computers and website to determine who, after my posting to my website3 an article with a realistic strategy for exposing judges, has caused the daily number of new subscribers -not merely visitors- to it, who some days had exceeded 110, to drop off in a week to zero on July 29! In less than 2 years, 22,961 visitors had subscribed to my website.

    So I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss that suggestion.

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

    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
    http://www.JudicialDiscipline-Reform.org

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

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

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


    ENDNOTES

    1. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCorderoHonest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:27fn30:a) “I will reiterate what I have said many times over the years about the need to compensate judges fairly. In 1989, in testimony before Congress, I described the inadequacy of judicial salaries as “the single greatest problem facing the Judicial Branch today.” Eleven years later, in my 2000 Year-End Report, I said that the need to increase judicial salaries had again become the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 2002 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, p.2. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2002year-endreport.html; and http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Chief_Justice_yearend_reports.pdf >CJr:79b) “[Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts] Director Mecham’s June 14 letter to you makes clear that judges who have been leaving the bench in the last several years believe they were treated unfairly… [due to] Congress’s failure to provide regular COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments]…That sense of inequity erodes the morale of our judges.” Statement on Judicial Compensation by William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, Before the National Commission on the Public Service, July 15, 2002. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_07-15-02.html; and http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/CJ_Rehnquist_morale_erosion_15jul2.pdf.c) “Congress’s inaction this year vividly illustrates why judges’ salaries have declined in real terms over the past twenty years…I must renew the Judiciary’s modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied!” U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., 2008 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, p. 8-9. http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx >2008.

    Money!, “the root of all evils”(jur:28fn32), that is “the single greatest problem” in the minds of judges, not access to justice, respect for the rule of law, or their rendering honest services, let alone their avoidance of even the “appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123b).

    The ‘erosion of their morale’ also washes away their moral inhibitions about doing wrong in the absence of fear of losing by so doing their life-appointment or suffering any other adverse consequence whatsoever.

    For federal judges, they are simply going after the money that has been kept from them ‘unfairly’. To correct the cause of their “sense of inequity”, they resort to self-help to get ‘their money’, wielding as their means their unaccountable, ‘absolute power, the kind that corrupts absolutely’(jur:27fn28). Those circumstances enable their financial wrongdoing(jur:190¶¶1-7), which becomes inevitable.

    Having engaged(jur:88§§a-c) in criminal activity, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:65§§1-3), denying parties due process and equal protection of the laws is merely part of their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4). For “he who does the most, can do the lesser”.

    If you had their job security and unaccountable power to allocate money in controversy, would you too abuse it to grab some of that money? If so, what else would you dare do?(jur:3§5)

    1. https://www.fbi.gov/ news
    2. http://www.JudicialDiscipline-Reform.org

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    * NOTE: This article(>OL2:597) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* >blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

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

    However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write them are not free to me….far from it. Just trying to protect my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org from being shut down is very costly.

    Hence, I encourage you to donate to our common cause of holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any amount of $3 or more is a positive contribution and for it I thank you.



    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The development of a commercial software product to audit the statements of a judge in search of pattern evidence of bias by performing statistical, linguistic, and literary analyses and establish the probability of the outcome of the case at bar so as to give the product user an objective, verifiable basis on which to devise litigation strategy and gain a competitive advantage over the opposing party

    By

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

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

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

    A. The development of a judicial auditing software product

    1. This is a proposal for developing a judicial auditing software product to estimate prospectively the likelihood of fairness and impartiality or rather the risk of bias and abuse of power of a judge so as to devise litigation strategy accordingly.

      1. The target: judges rather than the juries subject to their instructions

    2. While there are many companies that advise their clients on the composition and behavior of juries, the proposed product will provide information on what steers juries in myriad overt and subtle ways to reach a desire outcome: the mind of a judge, as revealed by the record of his or her statements and comparable types of recorded conduct. Where the case is tried to the judge only, information on what influence his or her way of thinking and making decisions is all the more important.

      2. The auditable material: judicial statements

    3. The auditing product will apply artificial intelligence and resulting algorithms to perform on judicial statements, e.g., decisions, transcripts, articles, recorded speeches, three types of analyses: statistical and linguistic analyses as well as a new and more sophisticated type, namely, literary analysis(*>jur:131§b).
    4. Judges’ statements can be downloaded from the websites of individual courts and their judiciaries, e.g., the Federal Judiciary’s Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts website, as well as services such as PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and commercial databases, such as Lexis Nexis’ Accurint.

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

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

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

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

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

    3. The aim: to reveal patterns of thinking with predictive value

    1. The product will reveal a judge’s patterns of thinking and decision-making that have predictive value for the case at hand.
    1. Patterns are formed by the frequency of the audited judge’s:a. types of rulings and jury instructions in favor or against certain categories of parties and subject matters; and
      b. use of specific or kinds of words and phrases that reveal biases.
    2. The value of the audited judge’s frequency is plotted against the bell curve of the normal distribution for all the judges of his or her court or judiciary. This makes it possible to calculate that judge’s deviation from the norm concerning that category and therefore, to determine whether the judge exhibits an objectionable bias that justifies recusal for reversal of his or her ruling or decision.a. The hump of the bell can be so distorted toward one end of the curve as to reveal the judges’ generalized bias in favor or against a category, e.g., the judges’ dismissal rate of cases where pro ses are parties(>OL2:455§§B,C).

      4. Categories where patterns of abnormal frequencies reveal biases

    3. Among the most significant categories are:a. plaintiffs v. defendants;
      b. represented v. unrepresented parties;
      c. clients of big law firms v. of solo practitioners;
      d. wealthy v. poor parties;
      e. parties associated with judicial appointers;
      f. members of bar association leadership v. common lawyers;
      g. authorities, such as the IRS, the police, and the city council;
      h. families v. Child Protective Services or appointed elderly guardians;
      i.  borrowers v. financial institutions;
      j. employees v. their employing companies;
      k. class actions;
      l. privacy rights v. community or national security;
      m. private ownership rights and owners v. eminent domain laws and developers;
      n. susceptibility to scientific data v. emotional appeals; etc.
    4. Every case falls within several categories. The auditing product determines the audited judge’s patterns of frequency within or outside the range of normality of each category as well as the frequency of his or her use of bias-revealing words and phrases. Based on all these frequencies, the product can quantify reliably and verifiably on the foundation of data one overall prospective value, to wit, the statistical probability of a given outcome of the whole or a part of the instant case assigned to that judge.

      5. Competitive advantage gained from using the product

    5. An audited judge, like most of us, may not be aware of his or her biases. Data analysis performed by the auditing product may produce results pointing to bias that can shock that judge as much as they may shock the auditors and third parties informed about those results; e.g., the judge was unaware of how much more often than the average of her colleagues she disregarded the testimony of minors, especially boys.
    6. A mere allegation of bias is likely only to offend, antagonize, and provoke retaliation. Would you rather build your litigation strategy and make a motion based on your impression of the judge in your case or the result of analysis of data gathered from the hundreds of his cases?
    7. It follows that the knowledge about the audited judge’s patterns of thinking that reveal her biases is very valuable in the hands of a party who realizes that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. It furnishes the party who acquires such pattern knowledge based on the broad and more representative foundation of data a competitive advantage over a party that lacks it.
    8. That knowledge can prove valuable in deciding whether to sue or settle, move for recusal, disqualification, or new trial, oppose the introduction of evidence, etc.; and in devising litigation strategy concerning the calling of expert witnesses v. friends, relatives, and workmates, the introduction of scientific data and its amount v. anecdotal evidence, the letter of the law v. a sense of justice, priority given to precedent v. the requirements of an evolving society, etc.
    9. Note how some of these categories are subjective as opposed to the objective category of a white or black plaintiff; a defendant of a given religious denomination; a case to protect the environment v. jobs. A mere counting of decisions for or against, which is at the root of statistical analysis, will not be helpful with respect to subjective categories. To detect whether they appear in a case and, if so, assign a value to their frequency, call for linguistic and literary analyses. Accordingly, they require sophisticated software to determine where the audited judge’s frequency concerning those categories.

      6. Knowledge worth paying for

    10. If you are a party or a lawyer, would you raise a motion based on your personal or anecdotal allegation that the judge is biased or rather on the quantifiable and verifiable basis of IT analysis of his or her publicly available statements?
    11. Which basis is more likely to convince a judge asked to recuse himself or an appeals panel composed of three of his or her friends and colleagues asked to disqualify him for bias and abuse of discretion?
    12. Knowledge that affords a competitive advantage and a more convincing basis for requesting others to take a particular action is worth money. The product that gains that knowledge for its user will attract people to either buy it or pay to use it on a one-off basis or on subscription or for the service of a specialist who runs it on their behalf on the judge to be audited.

      7. Product development financing

    13. In turn, that pool of potential purchasers creates a market opportunity. The latter can attract investors who will finance the development of the product, which can be expected to be very expensive. The development of software, not to mention such requiring the current frontiers of artificial intelligence to be pushed forward, relies on talented coders and programmers, who command high salaries.
    14. Without the prospect of profit, there will be no financing and no product. Without a clear plan for product development financing, wishing for that product is only that: wishful thinking.
    15. Pro ses, who cannot afford a lawyer, and who mostly have a low level of education and even less understanding of Information Technology research and development, are not the ones who will provide the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars needed to develop this product. Nor will pro ses wait perhaps years to derive a benefit from their investment, long after their cases will have been decided…did this realistic long-term prospect dampen your own enthusiasm for the development of this product?
    16. This means that the request for financing must be addressed to venture capitalists who invest in high technology and have the patience necessary for it to become marketable and produce any profit.

      B. References for further reading because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

    17. See a more detailed proposal for this advanced and innovative legal IT product and its commercial application and potential at *>jur:131§b; OL:42, 60.
    18. On how to audit judges without using auditing software, see *>OL:274, 284, 304.

      C. The more pressing objective of turning judicial wrongdoing into a key issue of the mid-term elections and national public hearings

    19. The problem of unaccountable wrongdoing judges cannot be solved by merely replacing an allegedly lone rogue judge on a folly of his or her own with another judicial candidate of the same ilk, whom the same politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, confirm or appoint to a judgeship and thereafter hold unaccountable as another one of ‘our men and women on the bench’.
    20. By analyzing the statements of the judges of a court and a judiciary, the product will provide results evidencing the nature, routineness, and gravity(*>jur:21§§1-3) of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>OL:154¶3). This will show that the judiciaries themselves have become wrongdoing institutions.
    21. However, effectively preventing, detecting, and punishing institutionalized judicial wrongdoing requires far-reaching judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). Such reform is today unrealistic because it would require upsetting fundamentally the established power game between judges and politicians.
    22. The needed judicial reform can only become indispensable and inevitable by first exposing judiciaries as safe havens for wrongdoers(*>jur:149§4) so that a national public informed thereof becomes so outraged as to turn that issue into a key one of the 2018 primaries and mid-term election campaigns and compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to hold nationally televised public hearings on the issue.
    23. The judicial auditing software product is not a strategy for bringing about such judicial reform. Rather, it is a valuable tool for gaining a competitive advantage in one’s own case(>OL2:578).
    24. By contrast, the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy and attainment of its concrete, realistic, and feasible intermediate objectives are reasonably calculated means for judicial reform. Hence, it is they who should constitute the focus of attention and effort of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries.
    25. Through that strategy and objectives, the Advocates can create the circumstances necessary for an informed and outraged We the People to render far-reaching, transformative judicial reform unavoidable by politicians. Only the People, as the sovereign source of political power and master of all public servants, have enough power to achieve judicial reform of that kind and degree(>OL2:581).
    26. By joining forces to implement that strategy and attain its objectives, Advocates can become nationally recognized as a grateful People’s Champions of Justice.

      D. An offer to present the proposals for a judicial auditing software product and judicial reform

    27. I offer to present for free this auditing product and judicial reform proposals either at a video conference or here in New York City.
    28. If the presentation venue is outside NYC, the organizer must cover the cost of finding and using an adequate venue, promoting the event to attract an audience, and providing presentation equipment as well as paying in advance my transportation, room and board, and presentation materials, and making a commitment to covering my incidental expenses.
    29. It is the organizer’s investment in the presentation that will ensure its interest in its success; otherwise, the aphorism applies: What is received for free and can be dropped at no cost is not appreciated. I do not want to travel to make a presentation only to find out that nothing has been prepared at all or appropriately and that I am left out in the open holding the bag of expenses.
    30. Let the organizer rely on the quality of this article and my study of judges and their judiciaries* to gauge the expected quality of my presentation and my interest in ensuring that it surpasses expectations.

    So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

     

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

    By

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

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,

    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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

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

    A. Pervasive secrecy infects the Federal Judiciary with wrongdoing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    a.  only landed white men could vote;

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

    c.  only the wealthy had access to medical treatment;

    d.  women could neither vote nor hold office;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1.  Nationally televised hearings on judicial’ wrongdoing

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

     a. Congressional hearings

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

    b.  Media hearings

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

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

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

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

    c. Hearing findings as the basis for judicial reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                1.  From Advocates, to The Dissatisfied, to the mid-term election, and to We the People

    9. The implementation of the strategy requires that we inform thereof the Advocates so that they join the effort to inform The Dissatisfied, and all contribute to turning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a decisive national issue of the mid-term elections and thereby inform most cost-effectively the rest of We the People.

    10. The People are the only constituency numerous and strong enough to compel politicians to hold the indispensable national congressional public hearings on the wrongdoing by ‘their men and women on the bench’ and thereafter undertake judicial reform that recognizes the right of the People to hold all their servants, including judicial public servants, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing (see the article below and at >OL2:567).

    11. Pressure on politicians to hold those hearings in Congress may have to be built up. This is the rationale for calling for unprecedented nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform organized by the national media in the public interest and held by a pioneering, potentially trend-setting board of prominent investigative journalists, court reporters, newscast anchors, and schools of journalism, law, business, and information technology.

    a. Media executives will only organize such hearings if they realize that there is an audience large enough to justify both taking the risk involved in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and expecting a commercial reward by attracting advertisers interested in reaching the largest audience possible to whom to offer their goods and services.

    b. The media have the technical means and reach necessary to become the largest disseminator of The Dissatisfied’s complaints about judges; their capacity to multiply our judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform effort is unmatched. They are indispensable to our success. Thinking strategically, we can turn the media into our ally by our pursuit of an objective that is harmonious with theirs: the largest possible audience.

    D.  Joining forces and focusing them on implementing the inform and outrage strategy

    12. Therefore, I respectfully invite you to organize a presentation on the inform and outrage strategy and its implementation to your group by me in person and, if here in New York City, free, or if elsewhere, then at your group’s expense; otherwise, at a video conference.

    13. The article below provides a preview of the presentation. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read it and have your group read and discuss it.

    14. To attract others to the presentation organized by you, you may share and post the article as widely as possible.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

    An invitation to take advantage of the opportunity that President Trump’s “drama” offers to participate in a for-profit business to lead The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to turn judicial wrongdoing and reform into a national issue and a decisive one of the 2018 mid-term election: Thinking strategically and becoming Champions of Justice

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

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

    A. Why you are invited to join forces to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. President Trump’s presidency is pervaded by what Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell charitably called “drama” when he  said, “We could do well with less drama from the White House”. Since Trump was only a presidential candidate, many commentators have used a more poignant term to describe the product of his personal conduct and managerial style: chaos(*>OL2:488¶1).

    2.  Last year, I took a different approach when, thinking strategically(>OL2:416), I described Trump’s chaos, not as a destructive force, but rather as an opportunity to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) and advocate judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). I wrote(>OL2:488¶8):

    Chaos Candidate Trump has added; more he will cause. But if he can harness his chaos and that of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, he can use chaos as the force that unrelentingly and unmitigatedly exposes the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(*>jur:65§B). Trump’s chaos can subject judicial public servants to accountability to their masters, We the People.

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

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

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

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

    1. Knowledge prompts duty

    3.  People like you, who read this website, are likely to, and many who contact me definitely, have superior knowledge about the judiciary and its judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to its prescription in theory. That knowledge imposes on you a higher duty of care of judicial integrity: Knowledge commands action for the common good; otherwise, the knower is liable to the charge ‘you knew about that harm to us but did nothing to warn us’. Thereby the knower becomes an accessory after the harm done and before the next harm encouraged and facilitated by his or her silence(*>jur:88§§a-c).

    B. The facts and tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. The facts

    4.  Judges cannot hold other judges accountable who have been their peers, colleagues, and friends for years and will continue to be for more. They know about each other’s wrongdoing and implicitly shout at each other, “If you take me down, I’ll bring you with me!”, e.g., by ‘trading up to a higher fish’ in plea bargain(*>jur:69¶9). For holding them unaccountable today, they expect to be similarly treated by them in future. Their conduct is determined by the principle of reciprocally assured unaccountability required by mutually dependent survival(>OL2:466¶11; 468§A).

    5.  Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm for judgeships people of their ilk, who know how the power game is played. Thereafter they cannot turn against the very people whom they vetted and for whose honesty and competence they vouched by investigating them for being dishonest and incompetent, never mind find that they engaged in wrongdoing(*>OL:191¶¶3,4; OL:265§2). The appointer cannot indict his appointee without indicting himself.

    6.  They also hold judges unaccountable for fear of their awesome power to retaliate by, among other things, declaring even the key pieces of politicians’ legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17). Such declaration prevents the fulfilment of their key electoral promises and diminishes the accomplishments on which to run for reelection(*>jur:22¶31).

    7.  Judges,  held unaccountable by themselves and politicians, are irresistibly attracted to the material, professional, and social benefits(*>OL:173¶93) that they can grab risklessly by abusing their powers(>OL2:267§4, 505). In the absence of any adverse consequence, wrongdoing thrives rampant. Theirs is shown in detail by the facts and statistical analysis discussed at *>jur:§§1-3.

    2. The tenet

    8.  The tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform is implicit in the principle of “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172):

    a. We the People are the sovereign source of political power. We are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom we hire to serve us. We are entitled to hold all of them accountable.

    b. In particular, We are entitled to hold judges:

    1) accountable for discharging their duty to ensure due process and equal protection of the law, and exercising in our interest the enormous power entrusted to them over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives; and

    2) liable for abusing that power for their own material, professional, and social benefit(*>OL:173¶93); and for compensating the victims of their breach of duty and abuse of power.

    3) After exposing the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing, We will be in a position to determine how and how far to exercise our right to detect, prevent, and punish it by reforming judges’ conduct in practice and in theory(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    C.  The thesis: Trump’s chaos opens a realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform because it will suck in judges and enable The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to become a constituency

    9.  A realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform results from Trump’s chaos. In brief, every disputed issue in our country ends up before judges, whether it is the ban on Muslim immigration, Obamacare, abortion, gun ownership, same sex marriage, voter identification and voting districting, campaign financing, etc. The more this is the case and stirs up national debate, the more we can highlight the political importance and grievances of the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Trump will need and appeal to them; and we will advocate for them and help them become a self-aware and assertive constituency.

    10.  Accordingly, Trump’s conduct and policies will end up in court and even in the Supreme Court, in connection with, for instance:

    a. the revised ban on Muslim immigration;

    b. deportation of immigrants;

    c. the probe into the interference of Russia in the past presidential election;

    d. the invocation of presidential privilege to quash subpoenas for Trump’s tapes of conversations in the White House and to prevent production of White House staff to testify before congressional committees and the special counsel;

    e. obstruction of justice;

    f. Trump’s removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution on a declaration essentially of his mental disability;

    g. conflict of official and personal business interests;

    h. the emoluments clause of the Constitution;

    I. timing and corrupt purpose of a presidential pardon;

    j. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s refusal to produce subpoenaed documents and Congress’s potentially holding him in contempt;

    k. the scope of the Russia probe and the powers of Former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct it as special counsel;

    l. Mueller’s eventual firing just as Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Preet Bharara; and

    m. the expected White House shake-up by Trump, which may provoke ‘spit and tell’ retaliation by those fired, with him countering by ordering the Department of Justice to prosecute them for having leaked information;

    n. etc., etc., etc.

    11.  No doubt, Trump’s chaos will spin a whirlwind of lawsuits. Through them, Trump will not only focus national attention on judges through media reporting, but also heighten tension with them by doing what he has already done, thus causing again Democrats as well as Republicans to react either in support of him or of judges’ independence: He will disparage “so-called judges” who in his view treat him “very unfairly” because for one reason or another they are biased against him; and he will feel justified in diminishing them because, as his Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller stated critically and he approved:

    “We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government”(>OL2:527).

    12.  Subsequently, Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, revealed a concurrent sentiment when he stated, thus outraging many:

    “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific [U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson for the District of Honolulu, Hawaii] can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power [to issue his revised ban on Muslim immigration].”

    13.  That judiciary and its judges Trump is bound to attack in an effort to survive his own chaos. Thereby he will cause the judges to react by applying the judges’ unwritten ‘canon’ of conduct that Then-Judge, Now-Justice Neil J. Gorsuch enunciated when he, though nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court, commented on his “so-called judge” derogatory remark about District Judge James Robart for having suspended nationwide his ban on Muslim immigration: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:527).

    14.  That ‘canon’ describes conduct that is not determined by reflection upon principles based on the law, professional duty, or social norms grounded in ethical consideration. It expresses the judges’ gang mentality. That is the way the gang survives in the hood. From the point of view of ‘we against the rest of the world’, every act of every non-gang member is a potential deadly threat to every member, their turf, and their material privileges and ‘respect’ in the hood, earned through sheer abuse of power and brutal retaliation. When the act is done by none other than the president of the enemy gang, the gang’s reaction reverts to its tribal, primitive, atavistic origin: ‘Us against the savage animal at the entrance of the cave’. The gang versus tyrannosaurus rex. Their fight to the death is preprogrammed by the survival instinct. It is in the nature of savages, gangs, and judges.

    15.  By Trump picking a fight with the judges, he will render realistic the opportunity for us to make him and his top officers aware of the significant moral and electoral support and donations that he can receive by appealing to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Simultaneously, we can appeal to The Dissatisfied as their advocates and organize them strategically to assert their First Amendment right “to petition for a redress of their grievances”(*>jur:130fn268) against unaccountable judges and their consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    16.  That is how we seize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform: by applying the principle of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    17.  hat calls on us to identify our main enemy: It is the one that has abusively taken our property, liberty, and rights, and can still wreck our lives by bullying us at will: the gang. T-Rex will be gone sooner or later. Before he does, we need his jaws to chase the gang out of the cave so that we can hold it liable for what it took from us and subject it to us: We the People.

    D. The need to join forces to realize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    18.  We can ever more effectively take advantage of the opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy if we join forces by engaging in harmonious activities aimed thereat and even coordinating them. Concrete examples of how each of us and all of us can do so given our respective status are provided in the next section.

    19.  However, to take full advantage of this opportunity we must join forces in a more organic framework that allows and at once requires us to think and proceed strategically. For such junction, I have developed a for-profit business plan. It is available upon request and discussed in an earlier article hereunder (also at >OL2:560), which is followed by its Table of Contents to provide an overview of it(>OL2:563).

    20.  In synthesis, the plan calls for raising the investment capital necessary to set up an office and form a multidisciplinary academic and business team of highly competent and responsible professionals capable of rendering an ambitious array of judicial wrongdoing and reform advocacy services(jur:128§4) to paying clients(jur:119§1) -e.g., representation, litigation, investigation, seminars and courses, advanced information technology research and development of software for auditing judicial decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing- and in the public interest –e.g., submission and access to databases of complaints against judges and research materials, analysis of court statistics, how-to articles.

    21.  Whether by joining forces through harmonious and coordinated activities, or by running the for-profit business, we will be able to pursue simultaneously two interests that are consistent with each other:

    a.  to work for the public good by making progress in the realization of the noble ideal of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6); and

    b.  to advance our careers by making nationally recognized names as well as earning tangible, valuable rewards(*>OL:3§6), eventually having the option of earning our living as members of the business.

    E. The initial harmonious and coordinated activities that we can pursue to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    22.  We can from now on engage in the following illustrative activities to inform the public about judges’ wrongdoing and so to outrage(>OL2:461§1) the public at judges that it is stirred up to demand that incumbent politicians and those who will soon run in the 2018 mid-term primaries and main campaign, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office(>OL2:517¶16), denounce judges’ wrongdoing and conduct or call for nationally televised congressional public hearings -like those being held by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey  and others- on people’s own and third parties’ experience at the hands of unaccountable judges who engage in consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    23.  We all can strive to insert that issue among the core ones of the national debate and the mid-term election so that being either for exposing or for covering judges’ wrongdoing is a decisive choice for incumbents -including Trump and his decision to campaign for or against somebody- all candidates, and voters(*>OL:356). To that end, we can do the following:

    1. The media members

    24.  A nationally known court reporter and a newspaper editor(>OL2:511) can:

    a. investigate(*>OL:194§E), interview, and write articles on the issue(>OL2:483);

    b. promote its investigation(*>OL:344; 374; >OL2:524) at journalism schools(*>Lsch:23) or by individual(*>jur:xlvi§H) students or those taking a team reporting class;

    c. facilitate the organization by students of a multimedia public presentation(*>jur:97§1) as part of a course(cf. *>dcc:31);

    d. induce talkshow hosts(*>OL:222§1) to hold a weekly or monthly show(*>OL:146¶1) and even form a coalition(>OL:113, 142) for judicial wrongdoing exposure, which can become a powerhouse of American politics, just as Roger Ailes developed Fox News into a conservative politics force to be reckoned with;

    e. produce a documentary(>OL2:464, 536, 537);

    f. call for, and produce an unprecedented and potentially trend-setting nationally public hearings held in the public interest by a board of national media outlets, prominent court reporters, editors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and schools of law, journalism, business, and information technology;

    g. thereby winning a Pulitzer Prize or commanding a higher salary with the same or a different employer;

    h. see to it that a series of my articles is published; and

    I. that I teach a related course at a school(cf. *>dcc:1, 23);

    j. am invited to make a presentation(*>OL:54) to their colleagues or at a school(*>OL:197§G); and

    k. am interviewed.

    2. The law professors

    25.  A preeminent emeritus law professor(>OL2:542, 543) and a tenured law professor(*>jur:xi) at an Ivy League law school can:

    a.  draw the attention of deans(>OL2:539, 541) and the legal community(>OL2:453) to the issue, and thereby become courageous academic figures that pioneer the study of judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to in theory; cf. Professor John Banzhaf III of George Washington Law School taught a public integrity class that successfully led three of his students to sue Former U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for having taken kickbacks and bribes while governor of Maryland, which he was forced to pay into the state treasury with interest;

    b.  organize the first academic conference ever on the issue(*>jur:97§1; *>OL:253), to be held during the 2018 primaries;

    c.  innovate on the role of law schools to turn them into independent, apolitical entities that instill in students the moral strength and develop their skills to hold judges accountable(>OL2:452), thus developing an academic niche for the school and a practice area niche for students;

    d.  promote the creation of an institute of judicial accountability and reform advocacy(*>jur:130§5);

    e.  apply their influence to allow me to present(*>OL:197§G) to their students, faculty, and student organizations(*>Lsch:1, 2):

    f.  see to it that I teach a related course(*>OL:60, 42; dcc:1, 23); and they can

    g.  request of law journals and book publishers(*>jur:x) that they publish my articles(>OL2:483) and study(supra ¶2) of judges and their judiciaries.

    3. The politician

    26.  A local politician(>OL2:487) can:

    a. adopt the issue to appeal to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, placing the issue at the core of her platform and turning it into her brand to enter the national scene and become a national leader that runs for national office; and

    b. invite me to address her supporters at her rallies and fund-raising events (*>OL:46, 51).

    4. The members of courts

    27.  A member of a court, even a judge (*>OL:180), can:

    a.  share with me on a confidential, Deep Throat (*>jur:106§c) basis inside information on judges’ conduct, individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and operation of their judiciaries (>OL2:468); and

    b.  eventually become a whistleblower and end up:

    1)  on the cover of Time Magazine as the Person of the Year(*>jur:iv/fn.iv) and

    2)  as the main character in a blockbuster movie or bestseller, like All the President’s Men(*>jur:4¶¶10-14), for her courageous service in We the People’s interest(*>OL:4¶7) and practical support to the rule of law principle that Nobody is Above the Law,

    3)  thus earning the national merit and name recognition to become this generation’s version of the historic Watergate figure of Deep Throat(*>jur:106§c). Why should a president be investigated and leaked on but not a judge?

    5. The members of district attorneys’ offices

    28.  A member of a district attorney’s office can

    a.  provide me confidentially inside information on:

    1)  how the assistant district attorneys (ADAs) perform in connivance(*>jur:L; ix/c-e) with judges to avoid the latter’s retaliation and abusive exercise of power by making capricious and arbitrary rulings and orders(*>Lsch:17§C), whereby ADAs try to preserve and enhance their “winning scores” and chances of a promotion;

    2) how ADAs’ choice of both cases to prosecute and manner of prosecution is influenced by the district attorney’s dominating goal of securing his reelection to ensure a tenure at least as long as that of his predecessor; and

    b.  manage to pass on to defendants and other litigants the information on how they can work together in small groups to audit(*>OL:274) judges’ decisions and other writings in search of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:282, 304, 308); and refer them to me for a free of charge seminar on auditing judges;

    c.  eventually becoming a whistleblower(supra §4) and gaining enough public recognition and gratitude to run for district attorney; and

    d.  use his or her connections to cause community and grassroots organizations to invite me to present the issue in person or at a video conference.

    F. Work through which we can have a consequential and historic impact here and abroad

    29.  By thinking strategically(>OL2:445§B, 475§D), we can seize the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers to launch the process of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. We can even take advantage of the opportunity to set in motion the development of a Tea Party-like, single-issue civic movement(*>jur:164§9) that seeks to hold judges accountable through, among other things, citizen boards of judicial accountability(*>jur:158§§6-8). This out-of-court strategy(OL2:461§1) is justified by the incapacity of judges to hold their peers accountable and of politicians their appointees(supra §B.1).

    30.  This would constitute progress of historic(*>jur:xLv§G) proportions by We the People in asserting our status: We are the source of all political power. We are the masters of all our public servants. We have the right to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. That assertion will express the awareness of self-identity and power of the movement: The People’s Sunrise(*>OL:201§J).

    31.  As with so many socio-economic innovations that started in America and set the example for the rest of the world, our analysis, business plan, and experience can travel abroad. We can take action in our country that can reach The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System in other countries. We can inspire them with the ideal of Equal Justice Under Law and share with them our means to advance its realization. We can set a trend that makes them aware of who they are: We the Peoples of the World, asserting our universal right to justice and our power as masters to ensure that our servants administer it fairly and impartially according to the rule of law.

    32.  By initially joining forces and then developing into a well-integrated team of competent and responsible professionals ‘dedicated to a mission greater than ourselves’, our work in life can be consequential and historic. In addition to deservedly earning material and professional rewards(*>OL:3§6), we can earn the highest reputational one: We can become recognized here and abroad as the Peoples’ Champions of Justice.

    G. Contact me to schedule a presentation in person or at a video conference

    33.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to contact me to choose a convenient time for us to meet so that I may present to you, if here in New York City, in person, or if otherwise, at a video conference, my invitation to join forces to take advantage of the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. On that occasion, we can discuss the extent to which everyone can initially get involved and how discreetly or publicly.

    34.  Hence, I look forward to hearing from you. To that end, you may contact me by email sent to the following bloc of email addresses:
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com.

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

    A For-profit Business Plan for exposing how judges self-exempt from discipline by dismissing 99.83% of complaints against them, and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; and a proposal for public hearings conducted by Congress and/or a board of national media outlets on personal cases and the experience of litigants, lawyers, and others at the mercy of judges above discipline and their decisions by fiat

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

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

    To subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website go to:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    Thank you for your emails replying to my article on Judge Neil Gorsuch and his fellow judges (>ol2:546), and for letting me know about your projects and seeking my opinion thereon. Kindly consider the following comments on two projects that are representative of others.

    † See my study of judges and their judiciaries as they perform in practice as opposed to the conduct prescribed for them in their codes of conduct and statutory rules. It is titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

    and

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

    A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

    1. You want to ensure that “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals” are appointed to the bench. Yet, they must also have the academic qualifications and professional experience needed to perform competently as judges so that they are acceptable to the nominators and confirmers; otherwise, you and the nominees are headed for an exercise in self-embarrassment.
    2. The appointment of a judge, whether to the federal or a state judiciary, is a political act intended to assure that the laws enacted by the appointing party will be upheld as constitutional and interpreted as intended by their adopting party. A group like yours does not offer anything as important as that intended assurance. On the contrary, your demand for honest judges works against the interest of politicians:
    3. Known for their double-talk and opportunism, not their principles, politicians have an interest in appointing people of their ilk, willing to play the power game. They have no use for the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.
    4. Hence, your Washington sit-in will be an exercise in futility that will only waste the effort, time, and money of your group and cause through disappointing results an erosion of commitment.
    5. Neither the President, a governor, nor a legislative body will ever nominate a person who is not a lawyer and a judge, or who does not have the qualifications to be a judge –Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge but was a lawyer and former dean of Harvard Law School–. The risk is too great that the lack of such qualifications may lead to public criticism of the nominee, embarrassment of the appointer, and the forced withdrawal by the nominee of his or her name.
    6. You only need to remember the embarrassment of President George W. Bush when he nominated Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. She was roundly disapproved by even fellow Republicans as unqualified and had to withdraw herself from the nomination. Bush did not risk nominating even his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Instead, he went for a sure name, Then-Judge John Roberts, a member of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
    7. This shows that what appears to advocates of honest judiciaries to be a good idea must be evaluated in the context of one’s resources, the facts, and other people’s interests to determine how to turn it into a reality. This calls for pragmatism enhanced by dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests underlying strategic thinking and resulting in a strategy(>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

    B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

    1. Even if that circuit were broken up into two or more circuits, the judges that have been appointed for life would remain on the bench. Belonging to a smaller or a new circuit is not going to cause them to become “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals”, never mind political neutral and committed to applying only and always the rule of law. They will remain political appointees expected to rule along political lines.
    2. That is shown by the politically motivated controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of Judges Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, nominated to the Supreme Court by Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively.
    3. Worse yet, their respective interests favor maintaining the status quo: The politicians will not dare investigate for misconduct the judges for whose honesty they vouched, lest they indict their good judgment and vetting procedures and provoke the retaliation of all judges, for each could be investigated next. They will continue to hold them unaccountable and allow them to self-exempt from discipline, as shown by the analysis of the official statistics(ol2:546).
    4. The judges will keep risklessly engaging in wrongdoing for their gain and convenience at the expense of everybody else.
    5. Politicians and judges have a harmonious interest in frustrating the advocates’ conflicting interest in non-political judges. The Circuit break-up is not a strategy for judicial honesty. It is an effort that proves that in the absence of strategic thinking and its analysis of interests, there is only wishful thinking, amateurism, and improvisation that do not attain the intended objective.

    C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

    1. The first step to reform the judiciary is to show why it needs reforming: Judges abusively exempt themselves from 99.83% of complaints, are held unaccountable by their Republican and Democratic appointers, and risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3) harmful to everybody else.
    2. For instance, circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., a mere ‘for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect’] by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(ol2:455§§B-E). These decisions are so “perfunctory”(*>jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”…in a legal system rooted in precedent –as opposed to a code of rules– to prevent arbitrariness and off-the-cuff decision-making, and promote predictability and thus, conformance by the man and woman in the street of his or her conduct to reliable legal expectations.
    3. Circuit judges mostly affirm the decisions on appeal and deny motions raised in the appeals(ol2: 457¶26). District judges, who weigh pro se cases as 1/3 of a case and treat them accordingly(ol2: 45§B), know that most of their decisions will be affirmed pro-forma and act perfunctorily.
    4. Their decisions, whether reasonless or cobbled together, are the ad hoc fiats of the judges of “the swamp of the Establishment”(ol2:453), for their life-appointment and in effect irremovability –only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789(jur:21§a) – make them the Establishment’s most established members.
    5. So, We the People are at the mercy of judges who risklessly deny us due process and equal protection of the law, which are reserved for the 7% of decisions that, intended for public scrutiny, are reasoned, signed, and published.
    6. If this information, based on official statistical facts, is made known to the national public -not just the passers-by at the time of a sit-in in D.C.-, it can outrage the People and cause them to demand that their senators and representatives, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call on Congress to conduct public hearings on the experience of the People at the hands of the judges that they hold unaccountably independent.

    D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

    1. You and other advocates should meet locally to discuss the above facts and out-of-court inform-and-outrage strategy before embarking on any trip. Even demonstrating at your courthouse has no chance at present of accomplishing anything: Your demands will not imperil legislators’ electability or even make it to the newscast; they will be ignored like those of most demonstrators.
    2. Your focus should not be on your personal, local cases, which are of as little interest to anybody else as theirs are to you. Rather, highlight through the use of the official statistical tables accompanying the article on Judge Gorsuch and his peers how judges in your circuit abusively dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them, enabling their riskless wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) that harms and interests everybody else.
      1. If your appellate attorney failed to disclose that his or her attorney’s fees would buy you a 93% chance of receiving only a reasonless 5¢ form decision, consider suing him or her for malpractice. If your doctor failed to disclose that he or she would charge you thousands of dollars for medical treatment that for 93% of patients was useless but caused 100% of them a lot of anxiety for months on end, what would you do?
    3. Meet(cf. ol:274) with other advocates to use the table template (ol2:555) to draw up the table concerning your judges. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Gain and wield it to implement the inform-and-outrage strategy that can earn you public respect and attention, and make future demonstrations numerous and effective.
    4. You and others can inform the public by distributing that article by email and social media and discussing it with local groups.
    5. This will allow you to strategically pursue your and other people’s personal cases and share experiences involving wrongdoing judges by demanding that public hearings thereon be held with a view to judicial reform by Congress and/or a pioneering and potentially trendsetting entity: a board of national media outlets working in their commercial and public interest(ol2:558§§D,E).

    E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    1. If you and your group are travelling for a demonstration to D.C. or anywhere else for free and without having to sacrifice time that you could or must use to earn a living, I would like to know how you have managed that feat. Such scenario is, of course, unrealistic.
    2. Planning to travel there or just to demonstrate locally on a workday must have made you all realize that even the noblest objective requires effort, time, and money. Implementing any plan or strategy needs financing.
    3. Thus, I have devised a for-profit business plan to pursue through strategic thinking the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform. Its table of contents is below. I welcome your ideas on how to raise the necessary investment capital to implement that plan. If you have any experience with Fund Me initiatives or access to individuals willing to put their money where their noble or business ideas are, I would appreciate your letting them and me know.
    4. In this vein, I offer to present to you and your group by video conference or, upon your invitation, in person, why it is necessary and opportune to share and post widely the article that discusses judges’ official statistical facts; to implement a business plan that addresses the public harm caused by their unaccountable abuse of their power over your property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine your and everybody else’s life; and to hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, for they are not entitled to be Judges Above the Law.
    5. Your contribution to informing We the People that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ they are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants; outraging the masters at their servants’ wrongdoing; and empowering them to hold their servants accountable can earn you the People’s recognition and turn you into their Champion of Justice.
    6. So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

    Part I. OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
    their analysis points to its judges’ arbitrary handling of caseloads that denies due process and equal protection of the laws

    Sections A.-E(>ol2:454, 546)

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

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

    Table of Contents of
    Part II.
    THE BUSINESS PLAN
    for raising investment capital
    to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
    through a for-profit business
    that caters to professionals, litigants, and
    The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal Systems

    F. Executive Summary: Paying to acquire, and earning by providing, knowledge and services to counter judges’ power to harm by denying due process and equal protection of the laws and engaging in other wrongdoing

    G. Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries: the foundation for the for-profit business of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

     1. The publication of the study and the formats of publication

    H. Dr. Cordero’s website: the storefront for the public to look in and the billboard to attract clients

    I. The targeted segments of the market

    1. The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

    2. The market of professionals

    3. Professors and students as a pool of employees

    4. The market of pro ses

    J. Activities to be financed to enable the offering of services

    K. Formation of the team of professionals to pursue the multidisciplinary and business venture and its evolution into the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy

    1. Desirable association with a prestigious academic institution from early on

    2. The key members of the team or officers of the institute

    3. The logistics of setting up and running the office

    L. Key profit points of the business plan

    M. What investors can provide in addition to investment capital

    N. Conclusion: This is the most opportune time for a business intended to help “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”

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

    How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

    Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

    «An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

    Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
    The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
    UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
    WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
    The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

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

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

    This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

    1. After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
    2. His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!
    3. J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
    4. He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

    NOTE: The file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546  and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf 

    contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

    1. the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
    2. its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
    3. the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
    4. the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
      a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
      b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

    This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability
    reporting
    *

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

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

    A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

    1. Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

    ‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

    B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

    1. J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
    2. With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
    3. Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(>ol2:455).
    4. The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
    5. The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
    6. What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
    7. In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
    8. For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
    9. No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

    C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

    1. So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
    2. Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
    3. Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
    4. By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

    D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

    1. It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
    2. Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
    3. Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
    4. President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
    5. To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

    Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

    NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

    and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548 

    Line Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10th Cir., filed with AO1 ‘06[5] ‘07[6] ‘08A[7] ‘08B[8] ‘09A[9] ‘09B ’10[10] ’11[11] ’12[12] ’13[13] ’14[14] ’15[15] ’16[16] totals
          1. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year * 2 14 7 0 52 18 26♦‡ 8 9 11 17 12 176
          2. Complaints Concluded 0
          3. Complaints Filed[17] 49 37 17 58 [18] 73 62 64 33 59 33 37 51 573
          4. Complaint Type/Source
          5. Written/Filed by Complainants 49 37 17 58 71 61 64 33 59 33 37 51 570
          6. On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
          7. Complainants♦♦
          8. Prison inmates 50 47 26 37 13 27 15 22 13 250
          9. Litigants 8 23 33 19 25 25 16 11 20 180
       10. Attorneys 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 4 2 17
       11. Public Officials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       12. Other 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 16
       13. Judges Complained About **
       14. Circuit Judges 24 18 3 29 21 10 12 3 28 1 4 14 167
       15. District Judges 40 27 43 34 35 22 16 23 29 22 291
       16. Bankruptcy Judges 2 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 3 14
       17. Magistrate Judges 8 12 7 2 6 17 15 6 14 9 4 12 112
       18. Nature of Allegations
       19. Erroneous Decision 2 46 50 57 30 53 16 28 46 328
       20. Delayed Decision 1 7 4 1 5 10 1 4 7 4 6 0 50
       21. Failure to Give Reasons for Decision 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
       22. Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel 4 9 6 6 6 8 7 2 0 48
       23. Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney 0 7 6 7 3 6 14 4 1 48
       24. Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias 14 19 13 28 2 3 9 0 1 3 4 3 99
       25. Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney 3 13 20 21 7 14 18 5 10 111
       26. Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse) 2 4 1 0 7 4 5 1 4 10 2 3 43
       27. Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
       28. Improper Outside Income 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
       29. Partisan Political Activity or Statement 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
       30. Acceptance of a Bribe 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
       31. Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 6
       32. Solicitation of Funds for Organization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       33. Violation of Other Standards 0 1 1 2 1 0 10 0 1 16
       34. Other Misconduct 57 48 23 28 14 23 0 25 40 258
       35. Disability 5 5 0 7 0 0 0 2 10 29
       36. ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
       37. Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
       38. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       39. Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
       40. Withdrawal of Petition for Review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       41. Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
       42. Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
       43. Complaint Dismissed in Whole or in Part 32 78 51 75 33 57 26 42 37 431
       44. Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability 1 0 4 4 3 5 0 2 4 2 25
       45. Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related 30 0 74 43 68 30 49 21 35 33 383
       46. Frivolous 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 18
       47. Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 30 0 46 43 61 18 32 19 32 36 317
       48. Allegations Incapable of Being Established 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
       49. Filed in Wrong Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       50. Otherwise Not Appropriate 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
       51. Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 14
       52. Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       53. Voluntary Corrective Action Taken 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
       54. Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 8
       55. Appropriate Action Already Taken 0 0
       56. Complaint Withdrawn 0 0
       57. Subtotal 0 0
       58. Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
       59. Actions by Special Committees
       60. Matter Returned from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       61. New Matter Referred to Chief Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       62. Judicial Council Proceedings
       63. Matter Returned from Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       64. Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       65. Received Petition for Review[19] 0 58 13 43 0 23 13 26 176
       66. Withdrawn 0 0
       67. Action on Petition for Review 0 0
       68. Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied 21 54 19 45 17 37 18 16 15 242
       69. Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
       70. Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       71. Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       72. Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
       73. Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report 0
       74. Complaint Dismissed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       75. Not Misconduct or Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       76. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       77. Merits Related 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       78. Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       79. Otherwise Not Appropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       80. Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       81. Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       82. Remedial Action Taken 0 0
       83. Privately Censured 0
       84. Publicly Censured 0
       85. Censure or Reprimand 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
       86. Suspension of Assignments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       87. Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       88. Removal of Bankruptcy Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       89. Request of Voluntary Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       90. Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       91. Additional Investigation Warranted 0 0
       92. Returned to Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       93. Retained by Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       94. Actions by Chief Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       95. Transferred to Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       96. Received from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       97. Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
       98. During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year 37 48 24 0 0- 96 50 83 33 57 47 40 36 551[21]
       99. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year] 26 0 29 30 7 8 11 18 14 27 170
                  1. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals

    [These notes are in the original.]

    Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

    ♦♦ Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

    Revised

    Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

    * Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

    Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

     

     

    ENDNOTES

    The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

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

    The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

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

    [1]  This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

    Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

    The above table for the 10th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

    Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

    [2]  Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

    The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

    In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

    The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

    Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

    Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

    And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

    The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

    [3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    However, the website of the 10th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

    [4]  On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    [5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

    [6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

    [7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

    [8]  The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

    [9]  http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

    [10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

    [11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

    [12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

    Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

    [13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

    [14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

    [15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

    [16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

    [17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

    The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

    Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

    The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

    [18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

    [19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

    The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

    [20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

    [21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.