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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

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

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows:

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


All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) invite the public to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Two Unique National Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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