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
Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
If you believe that judges’ are held unaccountable and risklessly dispense with due process and equal protection of the law for their convenience and gain, depriving you, your family, friends, and the rest of us in our country of our property, liberty, and the rights and duties that shape our lives, forward this email to both candidates.
Copy and paste in the To: line of your forwarding email this bloc of email addresses:
This is your opportunity to denounce judges’ unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing. Take action! Share, post, and republish this email in its entirety as widely as possible and become a producer of an event that can change the campaign and decide the election.
Proposal @Trump to produce tax returns @Clinton emails
on a national network newscast &
denounce how wrongdoing judges harm We the People
If it becomes an Internet buzz, it may pressure the two candidates, the network, the anchors, etc., to take a stand on it before the third debate or even before the election. You can make a difference!
Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Trump,
In your first presidential debate, you challenged Sec. Clinton to produce her 33,000 deleted emails in exchange for your production of your tax returns. While she did not take up your challenge, she did not turn it down either.
This opens the opportunity for you to raise the stakes by making a national announcement on tweets, emails, at rallies, and through Gov. Pence at his vice presidential debate that will build up enormous expectation and focus the attention on you:
a. At 8:05 a.m. on Tuesday, October 18, the eve of the 3rd presidential debate, Donald Trump will enter through the right door of the Good Day news studio of Fox, the network of the anchor of that debate, Chris Wallace, and before the cameras of the national and international media and the eyes of scores of millions of viewers he will be holding a copy of his tax returns with a flash drive on top containing their digital version in a not-passworded pdf file, none bearing any redactions.
b. If Sec. Clinton enters through the left door holding a copy of her 33,000 deleted emails with a flash drive on top containing their digital version in a not-passworded pdf file, none bearing any redactions, both candidates will walk to, and release them on, a table behind which there will be five people, the document receivers, who presumptively enjoy their trust:
1) Martha Raddatz of ABC, anchor of the second presidential debate;
2) the moderator of the second presidential debate, Anderson Cooper of CNN;
3) the moderator of the third presidential debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News; and
4) the chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., and Mr. Michael D. McCurry.
c. If after checking the paper and digital versions of those documents at least three of these five document receivers agree that Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton have produced what they are supposed to, the receivers will use the flash drives to make those documents available on the websites of Fox, ABC, CNN, CPD, and the websites of the national and international media represented at that event. There will be some 36 hours for the media, the viewers, and the rest of the world to analyze the documents before the debate the next day.
d. If one candidate fails to show up and produce the expected documents to the receivers, the other will not be required to produce his or hers, but may do so voluntarily. Obviously, if with the cameras of the world trained on a door the corresponding candidate fails to enter through it with the documents in hand, he or she will suffer a credibility-devastating blow. One candidate stared at the other while calling the other’s bluff, and the other blinked and crawled away.
On this occasion, you, Mr. Trump, can:
a. denounce unaccountable judges, some confirmed by Then-Sen. Clinton, who risklessly engage for their convenience and gain in wrongdoing(jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) that deprives parties and the rest of the public of their property, liberty, and rights, and intercept their communications to protect themselves, which can set off a scandal; outrage the public of all stripes; and rally it behind Trump as the only Establishment Ousider who can go to Washington and disrupt the corrupt and corruptive system of connivance between judges and the politicians who recommend, endorse, nominate, confirm, and then fear judges and their power to retaliate by declaring a party’s legislative agenda unconstitutional;
b. call for a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the two unique national stories of P. Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA (infra);
c. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing;
d. cause the resignation of judges, whose vacancies you will get to fill; and
e. attract the attention of more than 100 million people who are parties to more than 50 million cases filed annually in the federal and state courts(jur:8fn4,5), or parties to scores of millions of cases, and who are at the mercy of unaccountable wrongdoing judges; they constitute a huge untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, and form part of the largest segment of the public and the electorate: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.
I respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers to present this and other proposals.
[1.] This letter(†>ol2:481) together with previous ones(cf. †>ol2:463) and supporting materials, all of which contain more proposals appropriate for preparing for the second presidential debate, are collected in the file at:
Those letter and materials are based on, and also found 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* †
The study runs to more than 965 pages and is contained in two volumes:
* Vol. 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to ol:393
† Vol. 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394
Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation
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)
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’.
2. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! 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)– 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:
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); and
2) 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.
See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn12) 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.
This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).
Dr. Cordero respectfully requests an opportunity to present to Mr. Trump and his officers the proposed investigation by the media(ol:194§E) and law school professors and students(ol2:452) of these two unique national stories of judges’ wrongdoing.
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.