Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com
A. Making presentations to each presidential candidate on how to benefit from denouncing unaccountable judges and their riskless wrongdoing
- I have offered to make a presentation either at a video conference or in person to you, advocates of honest judiciaries and victims of wrongdoing judges, so that you would network me with top officers of the presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, in order for me to present also to them, and eventually to the candidate, how the latter’s denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing (> *jur:5§3) can reasonably be expected to resonate with an electorate dominated by ‘The Dissatisfied with the Establishment’.
- Consequently, the candidate can become the standard-bearer of, and draw support from, the huge(> *ol:131¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.
NOTE: All (blue references) and superscripts are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows*:
* Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting
* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:311
or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8 >ol:311
If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:
Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
- What is more, if the denouncing candidate also outlines two unique national stories involving wrongdoing by Justice Sotomayor, President Obama, and the NSA(ol:191§§A,B), the dissatisfied electorate as well as the rest of the public will be outraged.
- The media will investigate those stories because ‘scandal sells copy’ and because the stories will be undoubtedly pertinent to the confrontation between the President and Republican senators over the confirmation of his nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes of that confrontation are so high, namely, the voting balance between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning justices, that the Republican senators have refused even to meet with the nominee, never mind hold confirmation hearings.
- Those two unique stories will show that regardless of the justices’ splitting along political lines when voting on cases before them, they are united in participating in, and condoning their peers’, wrongdoing. It will also show that presidents and senators who have connivingly nominated and confirmed judges and thereafter held them unaccountable. They have done so, not in ‘the national security interest’, but rather in their crass judicial class and personal and political interest.
- The dissatisfied public will be so profoundly outraged at Establishment judges and politicians and so avidly demand news thereon as to generate the commercial incentive for ever more media outlets to offer such news by climbing on the investigative bandwagons running toward the deepest webs of politico-judicial wrongdoing.
- The outraged public will also demand that politicians open, and those campaigning for office call for, official investigations, lest they receive no more donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth endorsement, and be defeated at the polls. It is because the presidential candidates so desperately need such public support and votes that they will see it in their interest to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and outline the two unique national stories.
- This concrete, realistic, and feasible out-of-court strategy can through presidential candidates and the media insert into the national debate the issue of unaccountable judges’ and their judiciaries’ riskless wrongdoing that has become their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4).
- The public can compel reform that not merely touches up judiciaries to assuage its outrage, but rather transforms them into a We the People’s system of public servants held by the People accountable for administering justice according to law and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:160§8).
B. The need to abandon failed ways of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and join forces in support of a novel, out-of-court strategy
- We must join forces to take advantage of the turmoil generated by the presidential campaign and the justiceship nomination. If we fail to, we will miss a unique opportunity to make some progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and setting in motion a process of judicial reform. The fact is that up to now, we have worked in isolation and made by rote the same kind of traditional, failed efforts.
- We continue to sue wrongdoing judges in court, their turf, where they are protected by trial and appellate judges who are their peers and friends, who disregard the facts and the applicable law and make up rules as they go, such as the doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d), which is contrary to the Constitution(ol:158).
- We keep approaching legislators to ask them to pass laws to restrain judges, even though those legislators are the very ones who recommended, endorsed,
nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, those judges, so that the legislators have no interest at all in incriminating or reining in those whom they now protect as ‘our men and women on the bench’. The dissension over the justiceship nomination proves how important it is for politicians to have and keep their own people in a judiciary: the balance of voting that sustains or denies the constitutionality of their legislative agenda is at stake17a.
- We fail to realize the inherent contradiction, inconsistency, and absurdity of complaining about law-disregard judges while assuming that if the laws that we advocate were passed, they for some strange reason would not disregard them too, although the evidence indicates the opposite: Federal judges’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers under the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24§§b,c) amounts to their abrogation of it in effect. They will disregard the new laws too with the conniving toleration of the legislators who passed them pro forma, thus making all our effort a fool’s errand.
- As a result, we have made no progress whatsoever in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone curbing it. For proof, there is the official statistic that although 2,217 judges were on the federal bench on 30sep1313(jur:22fn13), in the past 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!14(jur:22fn14)
- Such historical record of irremovability in practice has assured federal judges that they can engage in any individual and even coordinated wrongdoing without risking either their jobs or even their salary, which cannot be reduced while in office(Const. Art. III, Sec. 112a). Federal judges, like most of their state counter-parts, are unaccountable: Officers of a Sovereign State Above the Law of the Appointing State.
- We will remain whining losers as long as we unreflectively continue to pursue failed ways of judicial wrongdoing exposure. By so doing, we have attracted the application upon us of Einstein’s aphorism: Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality. This is so because such conduct reveals ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and human worlds: cause and effect.
- By contrast, we can join forces to implement that out-of-court strategy that realistically aims to appeal to the presidential candidates’ own electoral interests to gain what they have and we sorely lack but desperately need: access to the media, and the national media at that.
- The media is the only entity that can take the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing to the national public, outrage it, and thus turn that issue into a decisive one of the rest of the primaries, the nominating conventions, the presidential campaign, and even American politics thereafter.
- Therefore, the offered presentation(¶1 supra; ol:311, 362) is a first step toward implementing that strategy.