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

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,,,

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

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

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

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting




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://


Mozilla-Firefox: https://

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

a. judges (cf. jur:71§4);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


  1. But time is of the essence.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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



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

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

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


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