Proposal for attracting the attention of the huge untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems by setting in motion the investigation of a unique national case 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

To subscribe to this series of articles on this website
Go to the menu bar above >+New >User,,, 

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.

The pragmatic intention, not partisan character, of the letter below

The letter below is a manifestation of pragmatism, not partisanship. It applies the principle of strategic thinking: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, it appeals to the person in the best position, as an Establishment outsider who never nominated or confirmed any judge and need not protect any, to achieve, even if only in his own electoral interest, our objective of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform(†>ol2:445).

What do you prefer?

A flawed presidential candidate, perhaps even a president for four, at the most eight years, though subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the Judiciary, the media, public opinion, and the constraints of other world leaders and international treaties;


2,293 federal judges, as of 30sep15, who enjoy actual or effective life-appointment without being accountable to anybody: In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! They dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers(*>jur:21§1). As a result of such historic and self-insured impunity, federal judges engage in wrongdoing risklessly, depriving you of your property, your liberty, and all your rights without due process or equal protection of the law. They are the models for state judges.

*All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

* Volume 1:

Volume 2:


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

Dear Mr. Trump,

Your campaign is in trouble and the number of days to recover is worryingly small.

So I ask you as you did when you invited Blacks to vote for you:

“What the @#%! do you have to lose”
by taking a close look at this proposal and implementing it?

Indeed, this is a proposal for shifting attention from slipping poll numbers to your theme ‘Not a third term for Barak Obama through Crooked Hillary Clinton’ by bringing up at a press conference a story rooted in articles(*>jur:65fn107a) in The New York Times (NYT), The Washington Post (WP), and Politico that suspected P. Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets.

In the documents that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations she failed to account for $3.6 million(jur:65fn107b,c).

Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, e.g., in a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by bankruptcy judges(jur:65§§1-3). They are appointed for a 14-year term by circuit judges, such as J. Sotomayor was(jur:xxxv-xxxviii), and are removed by them and district judges, not by Congress.

On average, 75% of all cases enter the Federal Judiciary through the bankruptcy courts, where the money is: In 2010, bankruptcy judges ruled on $373 billion in controversy in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). A large majority of such bankruptcies is filed by the most vulnerable people: bankrupts who cannot afford a lawyer and have to appear pro se. They are easy prey of the judges and their cliques(jur:81fn169).

How they were appointed suggests a variation on the “Pay to Play” notion that you used to depict Sec. Clinton’s sale of access to the State Department against a donation to the Clinton Foundation: “Share and share generously”(>ol2:440§B).

The J. Sotomayor asset concealment story will allow you to charge “the sleazy media” with partiality now that NYT is running a story about your former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, having received payments under the table from the former pro-Russia Ukrainian government: Did NYT enter into a quid pro quo with the Obama administration to kill its J. Sotomayor story in exchange for a benefit, a hefty one?:

Obama nominated her, another woman and the first Latina, to the Court in order to ingratiate himself with the people and entities that had requested such a nominee from him to replace Retiring J. Souter and from whom Obama expected in return support for the passage in Congress of what was to become his signature legislation: Obamacare.

NYT could have expected to win a Pulitzer Prize if it had pursued the story until it had caused J. Sotomayor or even P. Obama to withdraw her name or resign as a judge or a justice. NYT could not dismiss that prospect lightly after it failed to act on a tip(jur:102fn198f) that the Watergate scandal reached into the White House, thus leaving to WP the historic journalistic feat of bringing down a president, Nixon, who resigned on 8aug74.

WP and Politico, which killed the story contemporaneously with NYT, would not have risked letting the glory go to it. Did they too enter a quid pro quo?

To find out, you can make a masterful move:

Demand that Obama, J. Sotomayor, Sen. Schumer(ol2:422¶3), and the FBI release the secret FBI vetting reports on her as a district, circuit, and supreme court nominee.

Challenge Sec. Clinton to join you in calling for such release, lest she show that, if elected, she will not only cover up all wrongdoing by Obama, but also engage in more of her own when nominating the successor to Late J. Scalia(ol2:437 5th).

I respectfully request a meeting to present to you and your officers this proposal.

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, previous ones, and their supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

To subscribe to the series of articles on this website
go to the menu bar above >+New>User

Published by

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., is a doctor of law and researcher-writer attorney. He is a member of the New York State Bar and lives in New York City. He earned his doctorate of law from the University of Cambridge in England, where his thesis dealt with the integration of the banking industry in the European Union. He earned a French law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, where he concentrated on currency stability and the abuse of dominant positions by entities in commerce, similar to American antitrust law. He also earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan, where he concentrated on the use of computers and their networks to maximize workflow efficiency and productivity. Dr. Cordero worked as a researcher-writer at the preeminent publisher of analytical legal commentaries, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, a member of West/Thomson Reuters. There he wrote commentaries on the regulation of financial activities under federal law. Currently at Judicial Discipline Reform, he is promoting the creation of a multidisciplinary academic and business team to advocate judges’ accountability and discipline reform. The need for such reform is based on his analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, who are the models for their state counterparts. That analysis is set forth in his study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts: Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you and your colleagues of the evidence of judicial wrongdoing so that you may learn how to join the effort to expose it and bring about judicial reform. Contact him at Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it. *

Leave a Reply