Month: October 2018

The Federal Judiciary’s abuse of power by its judges dismissing complaints about them, which ensures their unaccountability, can be exposed through J. Kavanaugh and his peers’ dismissal of the 478 complaints about them, and your protest against the sham hearing on changes to the judges’ complaint rules and code of conduct

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, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
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.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:773

 

Dear Deans, Professors, Students and Members of the Media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

I read with interest the articles in The Crimson and those written by others at Yale concerning then-Judge Kavanaugh and the power of law students to cause their deans to take a position on his confirmation, as well as the letters relating to him that more than 2,400 law professors and more than 2,000 Mothers in the Law Profession published in The New York Times(NYT).

This is a proposal for you, your professors and students, the media, and me to join forces, not to revisit the sexual abuse allegations leveled against him, but rather to use his case to insert into the national debate on the evaluation of judicial candidates’ fitness to serve what is more important: their service.

Indeed, the very politicians who put judges in office cannot thereafter turn around and investigate their appointees for lack of integrity and competence, lest they incriminate their own vetting procedures and skills for evaluating character and competence.

To evade their responsibility for exercising constitutional checks and balances on ‘our men and women on the bench’, politicians have delegated to judges authority to self-discipline. In the federal government, they have adopted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *> jur:2418a).

Thereunder, the only way for anybody to complain about a federal judge is by lodging a complaint in the circuit where the judge serves. There it is processed by precisely his or her peers, colleagues, and friends. They are required to submit the statistics of their processing of those complaints to Congress and the public in the Annual Report of the Director [who is appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice] of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); jur:2623a).

Those statistics(†>OL2:772§G) show that Judge Kavanaugh and his peers dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints about them lodged with their District of Columbia Circuit and reported in the annual official statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(OL2:748). They have abused their self-disciplining authority to grant themselves 100% exoneration from complaints regardless of the complained-about conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity.

Acting only in self-interest, he and his peers have left complainants and the rest of the public at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

Held by politicians and themselves unaccountable, life-appointed judges, in practice unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§a), risklessly abuse(*>OL:154¶3) for their gain and convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

Their service is incriminated, not by an individual’s allegations and partisan opinions, but by their own non-partisan, verifiable, and official statistics. The latter’s analysis through “the math of abuse” exposes them as Judges Above the Law.

This novel statistics-based approach to judicial service evaluation is the product and distinguishing feature of 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 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

Justice Kavanaugh now has the strongest personal motive to prevent any investigation into his and his peers’ abuse of power to secure his and his peers’ 100% exoneration from complaints about them. Such investigation can force the disclosure of the complaints, conveniently kept secret; the detection of patterns and trends of abuse; and the exposure of the organization and execution of, and benefits from, their cover-up.

Nor can Justice Gorsuch, who comes from the 10th Circuit, allow such investigation. There he, who so values camaraderie(†>OL2: 546¶¶4-6), and his peers dismissed 99.83% of complaints about themselves(OL2:548).

This explains why the 15 complaints about Judge Kavanaugh lodged in the last month that his peer, Judge Karen Henderson, referred to Chief Justice John Roberts, were in turn referred by him for processing to precisely the 10th Circuit.

The presumption of a whitewash would not be less justified if C.J. Roberts had referred them to the Second Circuit, the former circuit of Justice Sotomayor. While there, she and her peers denied 100%(jur:11) of petitions for review of dismissal of complaints about themselves (jur:65§§1-3). The percentage of complaints dismissed in all the circuits is 99.82%(jur:10, 12-14).

The exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its cover-up by VIPs published by NYT and The New Yorker pressured C.J. Roberts into referring for sexual misconduct investigation Former 9th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who then resigned.

The almost 700 letters of complaint about abuse in the Federal Judiciary submitted to the C.J. caused him to admit to abuse therein and to set up a study committee(†>OL2:645). Its report has led to proposed changes to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules for processing complaints.

Only as recently as October 2 did the Administrative Office announce only on its website that the changes will be the subject of only one single hearing at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., rather than at each of the more than 200 federal courts.

How many people can afford to travel to D.C. at all, never mind do so the day before to be ready to testify at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, for only a few minutes?

Any request to be heard must be emailed by October 18 to CodeandConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov; for the first week, a ‘glitch’ prevented AO’s receipt of those emails; http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/10/02/judiciary-hold-public-hearing-proposed-changes-judges-code-and-judicial-conduct.

This has been an announcement pro forma about compliance in bad faith with the hearing requirement. It is a sham!

No change to the Code or the Rules will stop judges from dismissing complaints about themselves, just as the changes adopted in 2008 and 2015 did not.

Such dismissal is their institutionalized mechanism for enforcing the complicit agreement through which judges reciprocally ensure their unaccountability for their past abuse and the risklessness of their future abuse. Abuse of power is the modus operandi(OL2:457§D, 760) of Powerful Judges Who Can Do No Wrong.

Students have shown to have the power to draw public attention to abuse. You, law professors and students, and we lawyers have the duty to expose abuse by judges, the ones who run(OL2: 717) our profession and corrupt it by ensuring their impunity.

Your publication of this letter and one or more of my articles(OL2:755, 719§C) and your protest against the sham hearing can launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power akin to the one into sexual abuse sparked by NYT’s and The New Yorker’s publication of their exposés. Just days later, the MeToo! movement emerged. It has led to a historic societal transformation from silent sexual abusees to a national public that shouts:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

That is precedent for the reasonable expectation that if we join forces to expose judges’ abuse of power using J. Kavanaugh’s dismissal of complaints as a test case, we may bring about a historic transformation:

We can insert this issue into the mid-term elections, the national debate, and the presidential campaign; and enable We the People for the first time ever to hold our judicial public servants accountable.

We may expose what will be a national scandal: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications to each other and to others –did you receive my previous ones to you?-, shown by a statistical study and verifiable by IT experts examining computers and servers (See the following article; also at †>OL2:775).

Thus, I respectfully request that you publish this letter and call me(*>jur:1) to invite me to make a presentation to you, school members, and media colleagues. Time is of the essence.

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 this series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate

to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

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

Exposing government interception of communications of critics of judges as an abuse of power that would cause a national scandal and launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless 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, Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article non-commercially
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.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:775

A. Statistics as the source of probable cause to believe that there is interception

There is reason to believe that the communications among critics of judges, including Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, and between them and third parties are intercepted, which is prohibited as provided for in the Criminal Code under 18 U.S. §2511(*>OL:5a13).

This is demonstrated through the statistical analysis(>OL:192 >‡>ws:58 §7) of communications(>ggl:1; †>OL2:476, 425, 405§§A-C) 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 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

Statistically, people line up in a standard normal distribution, which is a continuum that goes from one extreme of low values to the opposite extreme of high values of the variable in question. This continuum, when graphically plotted on an X,Y system of coordinates produces a bell curve. Most people bunch up on either side of the top –the crown– of the bell. Hence, it is abnormal and a sign of manipulation to see the values for everybody on only one of the two extremes.

Although I email to tens of thousands of email accounts directly and through hundreds of yahoogroups, hardly ever do I receive an email that is positive and encouraging.

Nevertheless, my website (this one at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org) has 24,700 subscribers and counting; it is built on the most widely used platform in the world, WordPress. When was the last time that you liked what you read on a site so much that you subscribed to it, although you and the rest of us suffer under information overload?

It is counterintuitive for people to subscribe but leave no comment. It is decidedly suspect for the number of subscribers, which had reached an average of 90 a day, with peaks of over 110, to drop to 0 in the space of a week and then pick up to only around 3 a day(OL2:604¶2).

To some emails I receive no reply at all. Practically every reply that I do receive is negative and critical of them. That is counterintuitive in a country as divided as ours, where at one end of the spectrum of everything there are people strongly in favor of it and at the other end people strongly against it. Cf. A rubric of one of the national TV networks, either CBS or NBC, is precisely “A Nation Divided”. Although I have communicated with some Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for years, I do not receive emails from them anymore. People email me, I reply to them with an encouraging message, but then I do not receive any more emails from them.

More than 2,000 Mothers in the Legal Profession and more than 2,400 law professors took out each an ad in The New York Times regarding J. Kavanaugh. I addressed them in the Subject: line of emails that I sent to tens of thousands. Despite that and although I too am a lawyer, and a doctor of law at that, I have not received a single reply from any of them. This is most suspect because we have harmonious interests(>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3). Those protected under the 1st Amendment(>jur:2312b), are “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

Moreover, requests that I make for membership in yahoogroups are approved only for my next posting to them to be rejected because I am told I am not a member.

1. Recent cases showing government interception of communications

The National Security Agency (NSA) engaged in a warrantless, indiscriminate, mass ‘dragnet’ collection of the metadata of communications of scores of millions of unsuspected people(OL2:395§B), as revealed by the secret documents that Edward Snowden leaked.

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her personal and work computers to spy on the status of her investigative reporting on the attacks by extremists on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three of his aides; and the fiasco Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which sold even assault rifles to track their way to Mexican druglords(OL:346¶131) and resulted in one such rifle being used to kill an American border patrol. Her articles were so incriminating that A.G. Eric Holder would respond to congressional demands for documents with entire pages blacked out. He was the first sitting member of the presidential cabinet to be held by Congress in contempt of it. Accordingly, he was forced to resign.

These cases show that the government, of which the judiciary is part, engages in illegal digital activity against those whom it perceives as a threat, such as a persistent investigative reporter, and even those who are suspected of nothing at all, such as those caught in NSA’s surveillance dragnet.

It is the judges of the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that approve up to 100% of the NSA’s secret request for secret orders of secret surveillance. Do they do so for the quid pro quo of the interception by the NSA of the communications of critics of judges? That is what the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation must determine(OL2:600§B).

B. Money and a scandal that focuses the media on judges’ abuse of power

Potentially, there is money to be made by suing the government for breach of constitutional rights and the right to privacy. More realistically, exposing to the national public that judges have abused their power to intercept their critics’ communications and prevent their ‘assembling to petition for redress of judges’ abuse’ would constitute a scandal far greater than that provoked by Snowden’s leak. It would shock America’s conscience and put you and your organization on the frontpage of every publication and at the top of every newscast, and on the list of Pulitzer Prize candidates.

C. What you can do to expose government interception of communications

I respectfully propose that you participate in exposing the interception of the communications of critics of judges by those who have the greatest interest therein: judges themselves. You can:

  1. widely share and post my articles with your address as the reply address to see what kind and number of replies you receive, which you can forward to me under an unrelated Subject: line;
  2. help finance IT experts’ examination of critics’ email accounts and computers, and servers;
  3. help organize presentations(OL:194§G) by me at law, journalism, IT, and business schools, pro se groups, and venture capitalists who may be interested in my business plan(OL2:563).

Consider this proposal in light of these principles of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL2:570§E, 475§D, 465§1):

  1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (we share the interest of defeating our common enemy).
  2. The friend of the friend of my friend may want to become my friend (which speaks to the indirectness of connections and a means of building alliances of result even if not of interests).
  3. People never work as hard as when they work for themselves. (Ask yourself: What interest of her own can the person that I want to persuade to do something advance by joining forces with me? Cf. Some such interests are to make herself and her group or organization known.)

Time is of the essence to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse in the mid-term elections.

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

Subscribe for free to these series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate
to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

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