How Sec. Clinton stole the show at the charity gala, causing Mr. Trump to concede that “She’s such a naspy, naspy woman”

A two part skit

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

******* Part 1 of 2: At the charity gala *******

Everybody knows that the third presidential debate between Mr. Donald Trump and Sec. Hillary Clinton was yet another display of personal animosity between them. It was there for everybody to see before they even uttered a word, as both entered the stage, walked up to their respective podium, and stayed put. They did not shake hands then, let alone at the end of the debate.

Thereby they reflected the disunity that has split our country into not just two factions, but rather several bitterly opposed factions incapable of budging toward each other to meet at or near a democratic, pragmatic, and constructive center for the benefit of all of us, We the People.

What few know is how each of the candidates could have thought of transforming the animus of that occasion into the theme of a strategy that would reunite the country behind her or him and lead to a win on Election Day.

The first opportunity to do so came the day following the debate, Thursday, October 20, at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a charity gala intended to bring in money to help poor children in New York. This is an occasion for self-deprecating humor, not for mean-spirited, acerbic criticism of an opponent.

It was Sec. Clinton who understood it to be such. Chance had determined that she would take the podium first. When she did, she seized the opportunity to do something that nobody had ever done. Normally, at such an occasion, laughs are drawn by one joke after another, as stand-up comedians do. Instead, she embarked on one single “Hillyarious” story in length, content, and tone. It brought the house down. It brought her up on their shoulders. This is what she said when she went to the podium.

“Coming tonight to this uplifting event is in itself very uplifting after the third presidential debate that we had last night. It gives me, and I’m sure Donald too, the opportunity to continue the very congenial atmosphere in which we exchanged so many substantive ideas.

“I was so positively excited at the end of it. He finally convinced me of how much I mean to his campaign and how admiring of me he is by not letting even two minutes go by without talking about me with effusive comments. You have grown on me. I felt the two of us came closer than ever before to being on the friendly terms that we had put so much effort to establish between us.

“Our friendship has a bright future. When you, as it is likely to happen, win and go to the White House, you won’t be alone, feeling lost without me inspiring your every sentence, with nothing left to do but improvise the details of how to govern. I’ll be there…again, for I was there for 8 years, as the first woman in the seat of the presidency. You only have to call on me for guidance and I’ll jump to your side to hold your hand through every step, however difficult the case may be, even the not so simple matters of what to say and where to say it. Don’t worry, I’ll be prudent, letting you appear to be governing, just as I did when Bill was said to be the president.

“This explains why last night, I slept restfully in the warm embrace of that reassuring prospect of our distribution of labor. It goes to your credit, Donald, that you elicited it with your praise-laden characterization of me as “Such a…” Oh, Donald!, I’m so thankful and fond of you.

“So much such that I would like to share with you and all of you gathered here tonight the dream that I had last night. We may be able, I so hope, to continue it tonight.

“Indeed, I had a dream. In my dream, I had moved back to my little hut in the suburbs after I had been trounced at the election and had to decide whether to concede my defeat or to run once more to the courts to mount a ballistic attack. As you know, I am not afraid of filing lawsuits. I have sued people left and right, well mostly left, not as of right.

“But I was rather depressed. I had just learned that while I was campaigning, thieves had broken into my home and stolen everything, including my most precious possessions: my jewels by Microsoft and Apple. I feel so exposed when I am not wearing them.

“In addition, I felt lonely. Bill was again running after some mothers…and fathers too, looking after their needs at our soup kitchen foundation.

“Then the telephone rang. But I was not in the mood to talk. But it kept ringing. But I still was not in the mood to talk. But the telephone kept ring. I thought it was yet another marketer trying to sell me another package of psychiatric counseling for people in suicidal situations.

“Then it hit me that perhaps it was Chelsea asking why the pictures of my grandchildren that she had emailed me had bounced. She has sent me more than 33,000. I adore each one of them, the pictures, that is, not those little wet brats running around, crying, and disrupting my attention to guarding state secrets.

“So I picked up the phone. You can’t believe who it was! Go on, take a guess. Come on, guess. Wait, have you fallen asleep? The one with the dream is me. You’re supposed to be awake and listening!

“O.K., I tell you: It was Donald! He was so consoling and empathetic, as he always is with everybody, especially those weaker than him, so everybody. He was what I needed. He said”

“I don’t claim to know what you’re going through because I have never been crushed in an election as you just were by me.

“Moreover, I have fired more people in my life than I have hired and I could read their pain in their faces. I can only imagine how you feel after President Obama commented on your defeat saying that he knew you would be flattened at the polls because you had turned out to be his worst appointment ever and the most incompetent secretary of state in the history of our nation, a disgrace, a total disgrace. He said for good measure that he was firing you retroactively. That hurts, I guess.”

“Donald then offered to send me the clip of the President’s utter repudiation if I had not seen it. He is such a generous man!, he is. In fact, you won’t believe what he then said to calm me down.

“I know I am about to move into your former home in D.C. and that every time you’ll picture mentally your living room, I’ll be there; and every time you’ll picture your kitchen, I’ll be there; and every time you picture your bedroom, I’ll be there with somebody.

“So I would like to make it up to you: I’m inviting you to my victory party at Trump Tower. You’ll have the opportunity to see the campaign headquarters that I have been running there as a circus and that beat you into the dust. Tonight, we will have special performances by my closest friends.”

“That was a fantastic invitation, Donald, and so timely. I was really chocking in that hut in the suburbs. A high tower is what you need when you are suffocating and contemplating suicide. At least you catch some fresh air on your way down.

“So he sent his private 747 stretched-out jet to pick me up on my doorstep. In no time, we landed on the roof of Trump Tower. It was all worth it. The show was fabulous, as was the company.

“Although Trump has pulled off so many stunts in this campaign, he surpassed himself with a new one: He swung from chandelier to chandelier over his dinner table, dropped at the end of it before Melania’s plate, opened his arms, and sung to her Al Jolson’s “Mammy, forgive me!” as Gov. Pence and Campaign CEO Stephen Bannon played the old tune at https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=684n8FO68LU since Donald is such a big fan of historical facts and accuracy.

“Then it was his best friends’ turn:

“Putin danced with one after the other of his Russian dolls in a ballet set ever dangerously closer to the fireworks of a sparking Internet switch.

“Turkish President Erdogan lassoed sheep, rabbits, and chicken dressed as ghosts as they scurried and fluttered over the circus’s rings in his number “I catch you ‘cause I can”.

“President Xi Jinping vaulted the Trump Tower using as a pole a T-beam made of Chinese steel borrowed from Donald’s warehouse.

“For my entertainment, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks worked his magic by bringing from the dead my deleted emails. I’m so grateful to him for all he has done to reunite me with my loved ones!

“It was so much fun! I just couldn’t believe I was dreaming. But Donald assured me that I wasn’t, saying

“This is how things are in reality. Here at headquarters, I run a campaign as highly coordinated and in sync as a three-ring circus. It is how I will run government. And I want to assure you that however busy I will be recouping the money that I invested in the campaign, including a salary for me as a candidate for the people, the doors of the White House will always be open for you whenever you want to crawl in begging for a favor.”

“I was so excited. What a generous man, Donald is. So now that we are here and awake, a least I am, I would like to beg the first favor of you, Donald. After we are done with these boring speeches, can I come tonight to your Circus at the Tower?”

Trump, always the gentleman to all ladies, in general, and babes, in particular, stood up and replied with his customary wide open smile, “Yes, my dear, come to tonight’s performance.”

Hillary was overjoyed. As she always spreads inviting warmth to everybody around her, she blurted, “Can I bring over my friends, please?”

With open arms, Trump said in his raspy voice of a circus master of ceremonies, “I grant your second begging. The friends of Hilly are my friends. Yes, bring all of them over.”

It was the first time that he had called her Hilly. She was ecstatic     !

“I am so grateful that you have come to appreciate me enough to call me Hilly. I long to learn more about you as a person, Donald the Man, not just the wise statesman.

“The fact is Donald is a very modest person and talks little about himself and even less about his issues…or ours. He has this amazing capacity to summarize in only 140 characters what others would need a programmatic platform book to say it.

“It is as if every character were a coded message. I must admit, I’m not clever enough at decoding; but I’m sure all those among you out there who have a doctorate in disencryptology and access to a supercomputer get the richness of Donald’s one forty wisdom.

“That’s why I so loved the debates: Even in what little was left in his two-minute answers after praising me, he could concentrate on the issues so much insightful information. You could see it even without an electronic microscope. He is just so skilled at sharing information, actually wisdom. When I grow up…in intelligence…I want to be like him, my intellectual hero.

“As for now, I rejoice at the opportunity to get to know Donald the Man in the protective company of my friends.” So she slowly pivoted on her feet as she kept repeating: “You heard him, my friends, you all can come with me tonight to see Trump in his Circus at the Tower.”

All were as exhilarated by the prospect of the extraordinary things that they would see at his circus as they had been by the phantasmagoric things that had appeared in his campaign.

Hillary, who is so forward looking to anticipate the consequences of her acts, said to her friends: “After I’ll take you there, Donald’s assistants will be exhausted from running after him to clean up after his acts. We should bring them some entertainment of our own.”

She looked around and shouted: “Bill, Bill, where are you? Bill Gate, stand up so we can see you.”

Bill Gate stood up. She asked him, “Can you bring your video games?” Bill nodded.

Then she called out: “Goldman, Goldman Sachs, where are you?”

The people at a table stood up somewhat hesitatingly. She asked them, “Can you bring your monopoly and your new game ‘Pay to Play’?” Though they looked timid, they too nodded.

She went on, “Marco, where are you, Marco? Please step up so somebody can see you.”

Marco Rubio stepped on the table and she asked him, “Can you tell your story of survival tonight? It is going to be so uplifting to Donald’s senior staff in its first part and to him in its second part. I mean your story, “The Dwarf In Influence and his Seven Snow Whites?”

Marco grinned affirmatively.

“You’re great!”, said Hillary. Then she added:

“We can follow your act with two more that are sure to be a hit. Rosie O’Donnell, that old flame of Donald’s, can sing the song that made the couple famous back in the days when Donald was starting off as one of his father’s construction workers, ‘I left my heart in the tower’ ”.

Rosie stood up, raised her right arm and her middle finger as if it were the torch of the Statute of Liberty, and with her left hand she held, instead of a tablet with the Declaration of Independence, her fork, stabbing it up and down.

Hillary turned to the person sitting next to Trump, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

“Father Dolan, you are Donald’s spiritual advisor and have been so successful in instilling in him the Christian values of generosity, compassion, and humility. We would be so strengthened in our faith in humankind and the future of American politics if you came with us and had your choir children perform your latest choreographed mass, “Angels Dancing under a Pinhell”.”

The Cardinal nodded as he flashed his endearing avuncular smile.

Hillary turned to the table where Trump’s children were sitting and signaled to them to stand up. They did slowly, unsure of what was to come. She said,

“I love you so much! More than my grandchildren: No messy pampers and all that. So, we’re going to bring you a gift. I know you have everything. But do you like a big surprise gift?”

Trump’s children nodded somewhat embarrassed. But Hillary said with that confidence-inspiring demeanor that is her trademark, “We’re going to bring you puppets!”

Lastly, Hillary addressed Trump again. “We all are going to have so much fun tonight. Thanks to your penchant for inclusiveness, the whole of us will be with you at your circus.”

Then she turned to the house: “All the babes will be there. Babes, stand up. You’re going to enjoy yourselves safely with all of us who love and respect you. Yes, babes, you know who you are, please, stand up.” As she insisted, a few of the most beautiful young ladies stood up.

“You’re gorgeous! and you too, all the other babes, stand up, you’re always babes to somebody. Boys, boys, let’s give our babes a loving and respectful round of applause!”

As the men began to applaud, more and more women began to stand up bashfully. Yet, their faces were flushed with gratitude and joy.

“And all the Hispanics, stand up. You are coming with us to the circus tonight.”

Now the women began to applaud as men also stood up.

“You, the Muslims, you are joining us, stand up! Let’s go together to the circus.”

More people kept standing up and the house was shaking with a thunderous applause.

“You, the Blacks, stand up, up up up, you want circus with us! Yes, we want circus!”

The house was overtaken by a frenzy of joy as everybody began to chant, “We want circus!, We want circus!”

Hillary had to shout to make herself heard:

“You, the people with disabilities, stand up, roll with us, let us take you to the circus with us!, for we all want circus! We want circus! We want circus!”

Hillary was alone at the podium, but she stretched out her arms as if she were reaching out to hold hands with people next to her and then began to swing her arms to and fro.

Soon everybody began holding hands and swinging their arms. At a round table where the men were wearing small caps as headdress, that is, kippahs or yarmulkes, they and the women began to lean to the right as they held hands and then to the left until they fluidly began taking steps to one side and then the opposite side; soon they were circling their tables, their eyes, their hold bodies twinkling with carefree amusement. Their dancing spread as if embers of a bonfire carried by a twister of irrepressible joy were igniting it at other tables.

Those sitting at the rectangular long tables, the high tables, began to sway sideways with cheerful abandon.

At other tables, people laughed and giggled and rhythmically let out high pitched cries to match the creaks of their knees and hips as they bobbed up and down while swinging their handheld arms in the opposite direction.

The house kept chanting with furor as their paroxysm rose in unison, “We want circus!” We want circus! We want circus!

As soon as Hillary sensed that exhaustion was taking over, she began to talk loudly and slowly to calm people down. Gradually, ever more puffing and panting people began to stand still. They were sweaty, their throats were sore, their arms were barely attached to their sockets, but all were brimming with the emotions unleashed by a totally unexpected, spontaneous physical manifestation of the joy of sharing an unimaginable and unforgettable experience.

“Since the third debate, I have relished Donald’s novel characterization of me. He said I was “Such a naspy woman”. I don’t quite know what ‘naspy’ means. But I know one thing: If he said that of me, then it must be a heartfelt compliment, for he is the kindest, sweetest man I know.

“I guess with ‘naspy’ he summarized in even less than 140 characters what he said at the second debate, that I was a determined person that never quits and keeps going at it no matter what. I hope that it also means what I have shown tonight: I am the Reunifier of Americans.

“Thank you for calling me naspy. It has inspired me a lot and I hope many other women and men too. Whenever you open your mouth, you become my ace card, my Trumpy! Friends, let’s express our appreciation to Trumpy with the strongest and above all sincere round of applause.”

She began to clap and chant and everybody followed in her train, stamping with every strike of their hands the earnest message of the joy of togetherness that they were sending to their addressee:

“Trumpy! Trumpy! Trumpy!”

Trump stood up and, as he always does, humbly bowed to the house. Soon Boehner tears flowed to his eyes, for deep down, as his best friend and under-the-skin connoisseur, Elizabeth Warren, put it, “Trump is an outwardly secure, yet big-hearted, emotionally grabbable man”.

As soon as he began to compose himself, he walked to the podium. By then, Hillary had been scurried away by Huma Abedin, her Campaign Vice Chairwoman, who had come to share with her the good tidings of yet another miraculous Resurrection of Clinton’s Emails and had taken her to offer thankful prayers and make a plea for the salvation of her soul and her campaign. It was Trump’s turn to roast himself and, respectful of all traditions and customs, he did.

“Dear my friends of mine. I realize that to follow…her…Hillary…Hi…Hilly’s act opens a great opportunity for me. The skit that I prepared is, of course, the most self-deprecating and the most gracious toward an opponent in the history of all charity galas since the Last Supper. However, I clearly anticipate, because I always do it all, that if I were to do my skit, I would so outperform Hi…Hilly that it would be embarrassing…for her, I mean, of course.

“That would not be in keeping with the gentleman that I am and have always been since Adam took the blame for Eve eating the apple, because nobody is more of a gentleman than I am to all women, whether they eat apples or way too much. It follows that I want you all to come to my Three Ring Circus at the Tower tonight.

“There will be ice cream and hot chocolate; peanuts and pumpkins; salty crackers and sweet potatoes; and all sorts of treats and plenty of tricks and even more ghosts and rattling shackles because with me it is every day and night Halloween! and you never know what you’re going to get…I myself don’t know what I’m going to give. But it is going to be spooky, believe me!

“And you don’t have to worry about overindulging in believing or eating because I am going to have my personal doctor over there, the wonderful Dr. Ben Carson. If any of you feels sick to your stomach with what you had to swallow in my circus, I will have him give you what he has been offering to give me since he gave himself one with such enlightening effect that he dropped out of the primaries to support me: a lobotomy, better than Obamacare, no ever higher annual premiums, just one shot at it and you’re forever a healthier person .

“I haven’t taken Ben up on his offer because I have been too busy with my charity works, the main one of which is, of course, my participation in the presidential campaign to relieve the American people of its hunger for a reasonable, knowledgeable, and reassuringly reliable leader.

“In any event, rest assured that during my exhaustive preparation for the debates, I read a yellow sticky on medicine and now I know more about medicine than all doctors, including Dr. Carson. So I myself will give each of you a lobotomy if it turns out on November 9 that you failed to grant my friend Hilly her only and consuming wish: to go back full time to her true calling as an email specialist. She’s such a naspy woman!”

As soon as Hillary’s Campaign Manager, Robby Mook, heard those words, he seized the opportunity to give the signal to his assistants at his table. As one man, they jumped up, climbed on their chairs, and began chanting at the top of their voices:

“We want naspy! We want naspy! We want naspy!”

In every corner of the house, people popped up and joined them in chanting. In no time, the whole house had turned to where Hillary had taken a seat next to her adoptive spiritual father, Cardinal Dolan, who had played such a decisive role in her conversion to the credo of One Message, One Truth. Graciously, Hillary took the Cardinal’s arm and raised it as if it were that of Sen. Kaine. The room went crazy, chanting at the top of their voices:

“She’s a naspy! She’s a naspy! She’s a naspy!”

Still at the podium, Trump took it all in with great satisfaction, spreading his arms wide open, like Nixon bidding farewell at the door of the helicopter after resigning on August 9, 1974. He was basking in the as yet unspoken, self-congratulatory claim that it was thanks to his effort for years that a person had been born right there among the people: Hilly the naspy!

By contrast, Trump’s Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, had instantly grasped the gravity of the situation: With her event-appropriate, self-deprecating, and Trump-complimentary skit, Hillary had stolen the show. She would be portrayed by the media as charitable toward her opponent, gracious in style, and surprisingly “Hillyarious”.

For his part, Trump had managed to place himself at the opposite, negative end of his bipolar assessment of everything, which admits of no degrees between the extremes of a simple dualistic set of best ever and worst ever. Hillary had played him.

That had been Hillary’s sole objective: to turn the charity gala into her show. However, even before she, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and her top aides had left the Waldorf Astoria hotel where the gala was held, they had the effervescent sense that not only had they attained that objective much better than expected, but also an unexpected window of opportunity had opened on the term Hilly the naspy!

They felt that the immensely enjoyable and favorable gala experience was a situation-changing event: It gave them momentum. But they could not yet realize that if they worked with it strategically, they could turn it into the material for an October surprise.

What they did realize by instinct and experience was that while on the premises, never mind within earshot of anybody else, they should not discuss the matter. Since they possessed the required personal and professional discipline to proceed in accordance with their realization, they acted around the other attendees as if only sharing a moment of levity. So they kept their excitement bottled up.

********** Part 2 of 2: Strategizing **********

A. How their vans exploded soon after they were turned on

Once Hillary and her party got on their two vans and began driving to headquarters to pick up their cars, they could not repress their excitement anymore. They exploded. It was the mad chaos of a triumphal mood. Everybody was laughing and shouting and sputtering their comments and observations at once. Nobody could understand a word of what the others were saying. It did not matter. This was not a moment for reflection; it was for unrestrained celebration.

At the end of the gala, attendees were stepping over each other to reach them, shake their hands, embrace them, and kiss them as they thanked them for a marvelously funny and entertaining evening. Now in the vans, each of them had to share with the others the compliments that had been poured on them. The torrents of reporting to the others what they had been told quickly converged into a maelstrom of confusion that whirled all the more powerfully because as soon as they got in each of their vans, they turned on their tablets, smartphones, and laptops to communicate via Skype with those in the other van. Instantly, they became Babels on wheels:

“The first skit of its kind, bound to set a new standard. Fireworks of wit. Punch lines flying like darts to the bull’s eye. Gracious and elegant. The debut of a storyteller. The combination of masterful diplomacy with incisive psychology. The magical transformation of dread of a debate-like confrontation into surreal conviviality. Give it like this to Congress and you’ll have a shot at your legislative agenda. A cathartic experience. An unimaginable night when the spirit soared on the wings of laughter. Humor to change hearts. The bliss of a wonderful counter-expectation. A victory for the joy of togetherness. I laughed so hard, I did it in my pants!” and on and on in sheer amazement at Hillary’s gift for humor never before suspected. Hilly had emerged from nowhere.

B. Thinking strategically to craft the strategy for the final stretch

As they were getting close to headquarters, Sen. Kaine managed to usher in a measure of sanity by asking repeatedly, “We’re arriving, people. What next?”

Robby noted that the events of the night would be highlighted by the media the next day and they had to be ready to add momentum to the favorable press that they would receive. So Hillary asked them to come in to do something whose meaning they understood right away: to think strategically about the new situation.

Indeed, they had discussed on several occasions the concept of strategic thinking that they had found at *>ol:52§C in the study by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.:

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

Volume 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 and letters thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

By thinking strategically to analyze the new situation and devise a plan of action as described in that study, they reached a valuable initial determination. The event at the gala and the imminence of its becoming known nationally presented them with a new option for the final stretch of the campaign: to leave the nastiness of the campaign behind and take a kind, uplifting, and joyful high road to victory led by a funny and gregarious reunifier capable of bringing the best in everybody for the common good: Hilly the naspy!

C. Defining “naspy” as the positive core of their new theme

The “Such a nasty woman” characterization that Trump had thoughtlessly hurled at Hillary as he unraveled the deeper he got into the third debate and the thinner his self-discipline wore, would be transformed into a term of their own. The Hillary campaign would not ask people to swallow their distaste of everything nasty and nevertheless proclaim themselves nasty as a cry of defiance and self-assertion.

Instead, they would coin “naspy”. They would define it as a positive, complimentary term meaning not only determined and ‘non-quitting’, but also exuding civility, graceful, kind, witty, resourceful, and contagiously optimistic so as to be an inspiring, winning leader. It would be a term to be uttered without second thoughts. Rather than “stronger” to fight an opponent, the emphasis would be laid on “together” to join the joy. “Naspy” would be the core of the positive, uplifting theme for their new strategy to guide the campaign in the final days of the race.

Now they had to flesh out the ‘naspy’ term with the details needed for strategy implementation. They did not have much time to do so. They stayed at headquarters and got to work.

D. Crafting TV ads of all kinds of people joyfully walking to a voting center

Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and other assistants bandied ideas from here to there. Progressively, their ideas began to take shape and win consensus: They wanted an ad portraying people from all walks of life moving briskly from different directions, even dancing as they sang to invite others along the way, including those who looked the opposite of them, to join in a joyful trip that converged on a unifying center, that is, a voting center on Election Day where Hillary was to welcome them.

This led to a discussion of an appropriate place that would suggest the center of something. Robby came up with the idea of the green field of the Upper West Side Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University, of which he was an alumnus, because people could converge between the buildings on it and have the Low Memorial Library in the background that could bring to mind both the White House and the Supreme Court building as a…

“The triumphal arch!”, shouted Huma, who had held a volunteer recruiting speech at a student association of archrival New York University.

It was an instant hit: The Washington Square Arch in Lower Manhattan, surrounded by NYU buildings, conjured up the idea of celebration of a triumphal victory, indeed, that of George Washington.

However, getting the necessary permits to film physically at the Square would take too long, as would cordoning it off to prevent it from being flooded by students, tourists, street performers, neighbors, cyclists, vehicles, delivery trucks, etc. So they decided to do it the high tech way: They would go digital.

The movement of people would be filmed at the Madison Square Garden, where a true circus, that of the Ringling Brothers, usually performed. Thereafter scenes from the Columbia University campus and the Washington Square Arch would be added digitally. What is more, the ads that would run in battleground states would use the same movements of people and song, but an algorithm would easily perform the digital addition of equivalent well-known local buildings and monuments.

The discussion of a multitude of people swirling on the Square led to another idea. The people on the ad that would walk between a set of buildings would be dressed in the same solid color and kind of dress. As they approached the Square, they would mingle with other people dressed in other colors and kinds of dress so that as they neared the voting place under the arch they made for a kaleidoscopic crowd in joyful colors and variety of dresses. This would illustrate the message in the lyrics that they would sing: Hilly the naspy was the reunifier of America after a divisive and bruising campaign.

E. Assembling an artistic team to translate their ideas into reality

After they were reasonably satisfied with the results and could no longer keep their eyes open, they slept wherever they could for the little time that was left. As early as they could that morning, they began calling people.

They contacted the manager of their account at the TV advertising agency that was making their ads and prevailed upon him to dispatch to Hillary’s headquarters their best TV ad makers. They wanted to ensure that these ad people would not be distracted from producing their ads in a record short time.

They also got in touch with a composer who should come up with a catchy, vibrant, energizing song, something reminiscent of ABBA’s Thank you for the music. They also got hold of a male and a female celebrity who would narrate the positive message of being joyfully reunified for the common good under the inclusive leadership of a gregarious Hilly the naspy.

The ad people contacted a digital studio reputed for doing the most spectacular special effects for big budget Hollywood pictures. They expected it to be willing in exchange for a hefty fee, which the campaign could easily afford, to drop everything it was doing in order to concentrate on producing in rapid sequence a series of localized TV ads for the new strategy.

F. Variations on Hilly the naspy for T-shirts, signs, and posters

As more volunteers arrived at headquarters, they were told about the new strategy. They too contributed their ideas for variations on its Hilly the naspy theme. Those variations would be seen at every rally in hand-held signs, posters on walls, and the T-shirts worn by volunteers working at rallies and bought by supporters, whether at rallies or on the Hillary website.

Accordingly, an instruction was issued to all the state headquarters and local offices to print and distribute materials with the new logos and similar positive and uplifting ones likely to find resonance with the local voters.

Among the logos that Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and the headquarters volunteers came up with were these:

  1. She’s naspy!…and I too;
  2. We want Hilly!
  3. Such a naspy Hilly
  4. Naspy is the winner
  5. Naspy is kinder
  6. I love naspy
  7. Hilly, America’s reunifier
  8. Be naspy, vote Hilly
  9. Stronger reunified
  10. Go Hilly, join us
  11. Be naspy, reunify!
  12. Hilly for 1 America
  13. We reunify, we’re naspy
  14. I’m naspy for Hilly
  15. Vote, be naspy

They also came up with ideas for designs with those logos to be printed on T-shirts in bright colors made by local shops on rush orders. Among the designs were these:

  1. a color gradient that converged on a luminous center where the logo was written;
  2. the logo was written in the inverted U shape of an arch;
  3. the logo appeared on a billboard atop an arch;
  4. the logo formed the road that ascended and led under the arch;
  5. the logo appeared on the frontispiece of the arch;
  6. the logo was written on the roof of a 3-D arch that tilted outwardly;
  7. the logo was on the inside of the vault of a 3-D arch tilted toward the torso;
  8. the logo was the foundation of the arch, whose legs rested on the blank space between two words;
  9. the logo appeared in the shape and colors of a rainbow;
  10. the logo appeared as lightning striking the arch and electrifying it;
  11. the logo appeared as the rim of a sun that cast sunrays on the arch and brightened it;
  12. the logo appeared as an incandescent arch overarching the arch and illuminating it.

Within 48 hours from the end of the charity gala, there rolled out onto the national scene the new strategy of leaving behind everything nasty about the campaign and moving forward with the naspy theme of kindness and the joy of being reunified as We the People. A lot rode on it for Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and everybody else involved in the campaign both at headquarters and in their offices throughout the country. Hilly the naspy was supposed to take them to victory at the polls under a triumphal arch.

In that vein, Robby, ever the electoral strategist, came up with an idea:

“At every rally from now on, we will replay the video of the charity gala before you enter the stage. It will put the audience in a joyful mood and make it see you as a well-rounded person with an insanely hilarious streak. You will tell the audience that the video is posted to your website.”

Robby’s idea turned out to be right on: The video went viral instantly. The goodwill that it generated explained why the request that followed it was granted by a high percentage of people who viewed it: to make a donation to Hillary’s campaign. Hilly the naspy became an emotionally and materially paying strategy.

G. Sec. Clinton consults with Dr. Cordero, the author of the strategic thinking concept

Soon after the new strategy was put in place, Robby and Huma suggested that Sec. Clinton bring in Dr. Cordero to consult with him on the further application of his strategic thinking concept to the campaign. They also wanted to ask for his advice on how, in case she won the election, she should proceed as president elect with the nomination of a successor to the Late Justice Scalia and to the sooner rather than later Retiring Justice Ginsburg. She also wanted to express her appreciation for his analysis of her performance at the charity gala.

The meeting was attended by the three of them as well as Sen. Kaine. It was very cordial and constructive. Emphasizing its forward-looking nature, Sec. Clinton asked Dr. Cordero how he could contribute to her administration if she became president. Dr. Cordero answered without hesitation and with conviction, as if he were making a statement before a Senate confirmation committee.

“I would like to be your Attorney General. I want to carry out the investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges for their unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing so manifest in their disregard of the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law. They have provoked the dissatisfaction with our judicial and legal systems of so many people among the more than 100 million parties to the more than 50 million cases that are filed annually in the federal and state courts(*>ol:311§1).

“The dissatisfied form a huge untapped voting bloc. They are ignored and left to fend for themselves by the politicians who recommend, nominate, and confirm judges and then hold “their men and women on the bench” unaccountable. They need an advocate.

“In turn, they can open the way for you to bring about the change that can help you win over the Dissatisfied With The Establishment, the very ones who have given their unwavering support to Establishment Outsider Trump and Establishment Critic Sen. Sanders. They can give you their support and help you become a successful president or they can mount an even stronger challenge in the mid-term election, thus reducing your support in Congress, and your reelection chances in 2020.

“As your Attorney General, I would work to make them and the rest of the country have reasons to acknowledge you as their Champion of Justice.”

After Dr. Cordero ended his answer, Sec. Clinton looked at him incredulous. She did not know whether he was joking, charity gala style, or he meant it as dead seriously as he appeared to be. Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma looked at each other speechless and at Dr. Cordero respectfully. Then they turned to Sec. Clinton, waiting for her to react.

Finally, she said with the benevolent smile on her face and the playful tone in her voice of a consummate diplomat.

“I don’t doubt that you could be a competent attorney general. But after reading your charity gala piece, I’d rather say that your vocation is that of a writer of dreams”…and she smiled facetiously. ”

The others chuckled. By contrast, Dr. Cordero replied matter-of-factly:

“But dreams don’t pay my rent and food”.

“Perhaps Saturday Night Live can give you a gig there…and next time I appear on the show you write something as funny as your charity gala skit. I can talk to some people to get you onboard.”

“I’d rather you gave me a job as an investigator of wrongdoing judges.”

“Dream on!”

“Okay, let’s begin with this: I can write skits for the many celebratory meetings that you will and should attend as part of a strategy for whipping up good will among the public and getting everybody, whether they voted for or against you, excited about attending and following on their media devices your next important public appointment: your inaugural speech in January. You wouldn’t like to have fewer people in attendance than President Obama did twice.”

That statement caught Sec. Clinton’s imagination. She appeared interested in what Dr. Cordero had to say.

“And how would you go about doing that?”

“Don’t remind people of the campaign anymore. We had enough of it. Instead, joke about your transition to life without the campaign.

“Tell them about your plan to relax after the election only to be overwhelmed by people asking you for a job…‘but I ain’t being no employment agency! I’m not working at all! I won the presidency and got free tickets on Air Force One to visit my friends in the 11,200 countries that I went to as a lowly secretary. Now I’m it! and I’m on holiday! until next year, or the year after that if you people keep interrupting my rest and bugging me’.”

They all laughed heartily. Dr. Cordero went on.

“Tell your audience that you were taking a long bubble bath when Putin called to complain about the lights going off in Moscow and to warn you that if he found out that the blackout was your retaliation for his release of embarrassing emails of yours, he would turn the lights off in the whole of the U.S. So you told him in no uncertain terms, “Listen, you little third-rate malicious hacking despot, if I have to take a bath in cold water because of you, I’ll nuke you!”

“Then you got so nervous about having sent the NSA the order for the blackout from your personal smartphone that you dropped it in the bathtub and it almost got you electrocuted.

“Do you have any idea, you ask your audience, how difficult it is to get your hair down when it is porcupine up with static electricity? Now you know why I almost didn’t make it here.”

Sec. Clinton burst into hysteric laughter and so did Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma. They just could not believe that Dr. Cordero had switched so swiftly and convincingly from an apparently earnest applicant for the cabinet position of attorney general to the delivery of a string of jokes performed with the flair of a stand-up comedian. That was what Dr. Cordero had been aiming for because laughter makes people thankful and receptive to the one causing it.

“The only thing that matters to me is exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. On September 30, 2015, there were 2,293 federal judicial officers in office. They can remain there for life. They have power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape their lives. And they do whatever they want, relying on their impunity because they know that in the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:21§§1-3)

“By contrast, you have a mandate limited to 4 years, subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the media, mid-term voters, the international community, and the public. Who has more means to harm people: you or judges?

“That is why I want to expose their wrongdoing. If you are not interested in doing so, the battle over the Supreme Court vacancies may offer Mr. Trump the opportunity to do it. He may adopt my proposal that he use the time needed to create his own TV station to attract professional and citizen journalists to the background investigation of any person nominated by you to the Court; and to launch the Watergate-like generalized media investigation(*>ol:194§E) of two unique national stories: the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA stories(>ol2: 440), which will expose wrongdoing as the judges’ institutionalized modus operandi(jur:65§B).

“He can publish their findings in his website’s daily newscast, his version of MSNBC and the precursor of his TV newscast. I want to lead that investigation, whether for you or for him, and in both cases on behalf of We the People and our birthright to government by the rule of law.”

Sec. Clinton looked inquiringly at Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma, who were looking in amazement at Dr. Cordero back in his serious skin. Sec. Clinton fixed Dr. Cordero with her eyes and became pensive. Nobody disturbed her thinking.

After a while, she said…

******************

 

Candidates are held to account for their positions; judges are held unaccountable and do wrong risklessly, harming your property, your liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame your life

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

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

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

If you agree that the subject discussed below affects you, your family, and the life of everybody else in our country, forward this email to both candidates and share it with your family and friends and those on your emailing list. Here is a bloc of email addresses that you can copy and paste in the To: line of the forwarding email:

leadright@gop.com, info@hillaryclinton.com, donations@donaldtrump.com, info@ourrevolution.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, email@gop.com, teamtrump@trump2016.com,

In the public interest, you may share and post this email as widely as possible.

 

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

You requested on the Internet input for your debate with Sec. Clinton. Here is mine.

It rests firmly on your statement at the Values Conference that the most important decision that a president has to make short of declaring war is to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. It points to the importance to you and the American people of appointing honest justices:

a. Although 2,293 federal judges were in office on 30sep15(*>jur:22fn13), in the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§1).

1) If the president and his or her cabinet were appointed to office for life and were in effect irremovable, would you and voters fear that they would abuse their power in self-interest?

2) If your bosses were unaccountable and secured in their position for life, would they too develop a sense of entitlement and become abusive and self-centered? That is why the judiciary has become a safe haven for Wrongdoing Judges Above the Law(jur:49§4).
__________________________

* All (blue text references) herein are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s 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: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:# up to ol:393

Volume 2:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

Visit his website at, and subscribe to his series of articles and letters thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

__________________________

b. Chief circuit judges abuse judges’ 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”(ol2:364fn12).

c. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In CY 2010, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(42fn60). Money! lots of money! the most insidious corruptor(jur:27§2). It has fueled a bankruptcy fraud scheme(65§B; jur:xxxv-xxxviii).

d. In the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, its circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals on procedural grounds and with “unsigned, unpublished, without comment, by consolidation decisions”(ol2:457§D) so perfunctory that the judges do not even have to read the pleadings to rubberstamp a ¢5 form where the only operative word is overwhelmingly “Affirmed” and which they deprive of precedential value. But they require parties to pay a filing fee of $505. It is a scam! It is bound to outrage the public and rally it and the media behind your call that…

e…the media should investigate wrongdoing in the Judiciary through two unique, national stories(ol2:440): P. Obama-Justice Sotomayor –while a nominee she was suspected by NYT, WP, and Politico of concealing assets(jur:65fn107a,c); and Judiciary-NSA on interception of communications of critics of judges(ol2:476), which can explode into a scandal bigger than Snowden’s.

There is probable cause to believe that my communications with other critics and victims of wrongdoing judges have been intercepted(ol2:425). That can be ascertained by IT experts, just as Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson(ol:215) and CBS hired such experts and they ascertained that her personal and work computers had been hacked. On that basis, she has sued through her attorneys at Judicial Watch(ol:216fn2) the Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her computers in search of files on her investigative reporting on the attacks at the Benghazi embassy and the fiasco of DoJ’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation(ol:346¶131).

At the debate, your denunciation of wrongdoing(ol2:437) by judges, some confirmed by Then-Sen. Clinton, and proposal of those stories can:

a. launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judicial wrongdoing, one narrowly focused at the top of the national government, where it sets the example for all lower federal judges and their state counterpartes, and cost-effective;

b. let you set the campaign’s key issue;

c. rally the huge(ol:311) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judiciary to your website(ol:362; ol2:444), ideas(ol2:423), and business(ol2:463); and

d. pave the way for your calling for nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, similar those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee, and to a historic reform(jur:158§§6-8) of the judiciary that empowers We the People to hold accountable Judges Above the Law and turns you into our Champion of Justice.

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

 

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

NOTE: 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.
************************************

Proposal for production by Donald Trump of his tax returns and Sec. Clinton of her 33,000 deleted emails on a national network; and for denouncing unaccountable judges’ riskless wrongdoing; launching the media investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor concealment of assets and Federal Judiciary-NSA interception of emails; and calling for nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing

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

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

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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:

leadright@gop.com, info@hillaryclinton.com, email@gop.com, donations@donaldtrump.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, info@nrcc-mail.org, teamtrump@trump2016.com, media@debates.org

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.

Tweet:
Proposal @Trump to produce tax returns @Clinton emails
on a national network newscast &
denounce how wrongdoing judges harm We the People
#abusivejudges

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[1] respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers to present this and other proposals[2].

_______________________________

[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:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

  1. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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 Two Unique National Stories
of Judges’ Wrongdoing

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf >ol2:440

  1. 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.

******************************

When pro ses and lawyers think strategically and proceed unconventionally to join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities, turn clerks into confidential informants, and become We the People’s Champions of Justice

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

DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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.

Subscribe to this series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or >Users >Add New

You, a pro se or a lawyer, who have had a judge deny you or your client due process and equal protection of the law, can take unconventional, imaginative action to expose such wrongdoing (*>jur:5§3; ol:154§3) judge, e.g., one who has clerks allege that documents were served on you but who can neither produce copies nor even show a record that they were actually served on you.

* 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: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:# up to ol:393

Volume 2:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf  >from ol2:394

A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

  1. There are two basic principles that should guide the actions that pro ses and lawyers take to defend their rights in court:
    .
    a. The court has all the institutional power. If a court wants to railroad you, there is nothing you can do about it, as shown in the analysis(>ol2:452) of the official statistics of caseloads and their management by judges. Suing the judge before his or her own colleagues, peers, and friends is an exercise in futility foretold and a show of lack of understanding of how and why judges cover for each other, as explained in the article(ol2:461) that discusses the concepts of:

1) dynamics of interpersonal relations based on reciprocally dependent survival; and

2) institutional circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing.

b.  Think strategically! This means think outside the box, putting aside the conventional, in-court ways(*>ol:390§B) in which pro ses and lawyers have tried for centuries(jur:21§1) unsuccessfully to secure the respect of the law by judges and their clerks.

1) Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) consists of the use of knowledge of parties –here: the parties in the judicial and legal systems– and their interrelations to determine through analysis their constantly strengthening and weakening harmonious and conflicting interests underlying and motivating those relations so as to figure out a way to influence those interests to one’s advantage through, e.g.:

a) the forging of strengthening alliances or the driving of weakening wedges between parties, in application of the principles:

(1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will do everything possible to help him prevail in order to help myself;

(2) The friend of my friend is my friend…and I will help him because there is strength in numbers and my grateful friend may help me.

  1. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read as much as you can of my study of judges and their judiciaries*, starting with the (blue text references* ) to it herein. Then you can proceed, not by rote, but rather by strategy crafted against a formidable opposing party: judges and their clerks, who have all the power of their institutions and will use it to crush you. You only have the power of knowledge, which can help you outsmart them. This you can do in the following concrete ways that apply the above principles. They provide for you to use your case only as an element of a strategy: the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>ol2:458§1) for exposing unaccountable (ol:265) judges who consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing coordinated with their clerks.

    B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

  1. Go to the court website(jur:20), surf to, and download the docket of the case and the calendar of the judge for the last year. You must do that immediately to preserve those records as they stand now before they are altered to suit the clerks’ account of the documents in question. If you cannot download them, take screenshots of every screen –Shift + Screen print (the key after F12)–.
    .
  2. Indeed, whenever you visit a webpage for any aspect of this search, download and date it, and add its link to it because it can be moved or deleted. Add all of them to a single searchable pdf(ol:102; 277¶¶18-20) and bookmark each page to facilitate navigation through the pdf.
    .
  3. Go to the courthouse if those records are not online. Many state courthouses are located in the same building as the county clerk’s office, where the judges’ decisions as well as plaintiffs’ complaints and parties’ briefs, motions, and other case papers are filed as public records. It will become apparent below why it is pertinent to note that the county clerk’s office has other departments to keep, file, register, and issue a host of records, licenses, certificates, and applications regarding jury rosters, property, incorporation and sole proprietorships, marriage, birth and death, name changes, identification cards, voting, running in and results of elections, social security, public assistance, etc. County clerks work in close contact with state court clerks. The former know through the latter all the gossip about the judges and what happens in the court.
    .
  4. In a federal court filings are made in the in-take office of the clerk of court, which is not associated with the state county clerk’s office. In-take clerks learn from the law clerks, who are lawyers and ‘clerk for a judge’ (only for a year after law school) or for the court in general as their permanent job, what goes on in chambers, the courtroom, and elsewhere. An in-taker may also learn from a judge who wrongfully orders her to “change that motion’s docket date to today’s”.
    .
  5. These state and federal case filing offices are referred to here as the clerk’s office or office. Go there and quietly, without drawing attention to you more than needed, sit at a public computer terminal and check your case for its docket and the judge calendar. Print them AND take a picture of every frame with your smartphone or tablet, making sure that the picture allows the identification of the computer as that in the clerk’s office. If there is no computer available to the public, ask a clerk for the paper version of those records and make a copy or take a picture.
    .
  6. Likewise, download or print every single document in the docket. You want to determine whether the alleged document was docketed at all so that it is online and, if so, whether it was docketed in the proper numerical order. What you are looking for is:
    .
    a. the date stamp on the first page;
    .
    b. the sequential number of the document, which often is handwritten next to the date stamp;                       
    .
    c. the initials or name of the clerk who made each docket entry;
    .
    d. whether the document was docketed completely because it has all its internal pages;
    .
    e. markings on pages even if they appear meaningless at this early research stage…or no markings, but a year later the document has markings. Who reloaded it with them? Why?
    .
  7. Examine the judge calendar and look for any entries concerning your case. Are they plausible? Determine whether the judge was in chambers, holding court, or even in town on the date when the document in question was signed or the order for its issuance was allegedly issued; or he or she was at a seminar; teaching a class as an adjunct professor; judging a moot court session at a law school; at the wedding out-of-state of his or her son; on holiday; etc. So check the judge’s:
    .
    a. webpage on the court’s website, paying attention to dates, times, places, names of people, titles, relations, occasions, membership in organizations and clubs, etc.;
    .
    b. social media page, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube; download all pictures of the judge, his family, associates, etc., and accompanying articles for future use(infra, ol2:470¶25).
    .
    c. appearance on a Google search showing that he or she holds an honorary position in an organization that advocates positions that under the code of conduct for judges (jur:68fn123a >Canons 4 and 5) are inconsistent with the obligations of judicial office or involve political activity; or contradict his or her public statements.
    .
    ……………1) This is an example of serendipity: You are looking for one thing but detect another thing of great value because you are proceeding with your eyes wide open and a mind that looks at everything critically and integrates every piece of information into a system. A large percentage of findings are made thanks to serendipity.
    .
  8. Compare your case docket and the calendar entries for your case with those of the judge’s 20 other current cases; compare them with those of other judges. Does a pattern emerge that:
    .
    a. was broken in, or confirmed by, your case and points to the judge’s failure to abide by the injunction in Canon 2 of the judges code to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”?
    .
    b. raises suspicion?: e.g., the judge takes the type of order affecting you on Fridays close to the end of business: Is that a mere caseload dumping(ol:92¶b) measure for a light shoulder feeling that has nothing to do with the merits of the cases?
    .
    c. involves other parties that strangely enough are the same? One of the main rules of wrongdoing is: Involve as few people as possible to avoid leakage, mistakes due to lack of coordination of timing and action, infighting for turf, and reduce the number of ‘slices in which the cake’ of wrongful benefits must be divided among the wrongdoers:

1) the same clerk, the same accountant, auctioneer, warehouser, guardian ad litem, executor, liquidator, evaluator, companies, and other parties with whom the judge and/or the clerk works together in a scheme(ol:85¶2, 91§E), the most complex, profitable, and harmful form of coordinated(jur:88§a) wrongdoing.

  1. Think like a lawyer: What arguments can you make based on each piece of information, such as a marking, in a source, such as a picture, a webpage, an article, and through their integration in, or failure to fit, a system? Arguments do not scream at you to identify themselves. You have to stare at sources critically and imaginatively to craft them; sources only provide a hint in the form of a piece of information. Does it hint at manipulation of dates, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, text replacement, bias, conflict of interests, counterfactual statement, odd behavior, etc.?

2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

  1. Al Capone was convicted, not on his alleged mafia crimes, but rather for tax evasion. Likewise, a judge may not be brought down on account of her wrongful decisions, which peers and clerks may squeeze within her discretion or cover up, but rather on account of financial crimes(ol:250§B); after all, the most insidious motive for wrongdoing is Money, lots of money!(jur:27§2).
    .
  2. The key documents in this respect can be downloaded or examined and copied in the field and subjected to financial analysis to determine whether the judge is liable to the Al Capone approach for illegal benefits sought and/or obtained for herself or others. These documents are:
    .
    a. the judge’s mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) available for the last seven years(jur:105fn213a); and
    .
    b. the filings in county clerks’ offices(jur:110fn242-244) concerning the property in the name of the judge, her family, close associates, and even strawmen (fictitious people).
    .
  3. Such financial analysis may produce probable cause to believe that the judge may be:a. filing reports that make no financial sense(104¶¶236-237; jur:72§b; ol:315§6), which may point to off-shore accounts in tax heavens(ol:1, 2), money laundering, and tax evasion;
    .
    b. living above his or her means because on a judges’ salary –a matter of public record–:

1) records in county clerks’ offices show that the judge has a yacht, a condo in Miami, a large investment in a company, in addition to a home in a gated community;

2) based on the information found in huge commercial databases of newspapers and journals, e.g., Nexis(jur:108§d): the judge has three children at expensive private universities, takes vacations at luxurious resorts, is a member of exclusive clubs;

c. taking indirect bribes, e.g., has taken out large loans for which little or no collateral has been posted by mortgaging a property and recording it in the county clerk’s office.

15. The above should have allowed you to realize the strategic thinking that motivates this exercise:

a. You are not looking to establish that the judge abused his or her discretion. That is a losing battle because by definition ‘discretion’ has a wide margin of leeway. Even if appellate judges would have exercised their discretion to do the opposite of what the judge did, they cannot reverse her decision if it was within her margin of discretion(ol2:437).

b. You are looking for wrongdoing, including criminal activity, from which the judge and the clerks benefit(ol:173¶93). Three basic elements are considered to establish wrongdoing: motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). They may reveal a settled way of doing, the modus operandi, which manifests itself in a telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing. You only need to show ‘the appearance of impropriety’(jur:92§d), not prove with evidence.

3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

  1. The search for patterns of wrongdoing is what can allow you to strengthen your case as nothing else can. Right now, you only have yourself, a pro se party or a lawyer for a party, who as such is by definition biased toward his own side of the story. You are alleging with nothing more than words that you are the victim of some form of judicial wrongdoing, e.g., that you did not receive a document or that the record of a document cannot be found. Nobody is going to take your word for it over that of a judge and her clerks, who are her protégés as her accessories in wrongdoing. Forget about people reading the whole record to reach their own conclusion. Thus, you are nothing but a lone whining loser. You need to break away from that damning status.
    .
  2. Strategic thinking and proceeding will allow you to become a member of a class of people victimized by a pattern of wrongdoing of a judge or judges and their clerks. How you form that class, beginning with a small, manageable team of three to seven people who have appeared before the same judge as you have, is described in painstaking detail in the article Auditing Judges (ol:274; and at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero_Auditing_Judges.pdf).

C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

  1. To build the Auditing Judges class, you and your Auditing Judges team need inside informants: Deep Throats(jur:106§c), similar to the classic one in the Watergate Scandal, which brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign on 8aug74(jur:4¶¶10-14).
    .
  2. Clerks know a lot about judges’ wrongdoing, for they may be their willing or coerced assistants in committing it. Yet, most only get the smallest benefit, usually limited to holding on to their jobs: They either do what they are told or they are flung out(jur:30§1). If they are fired arbitrarily, they can hardly count on other clerks testifying on their behalf. If they file a suit, they land in front of the firing judge’s peers, who have an interest in sending a message to all clerks: ‘Don’t you even think of disobeying our orders: You can only jump from the pan to the fire.’ Cowardice and helplessness breed resentment in the clerks. How many female clerks have had to endure sexual abuse by judges, such as J. Samuel Kent(jur:22fn14)? Read about it and turn this subject into a talking point to strike up a conversation with a clerk identified as a potential informant.
    .
  3. This explains why clerks may be the ones most indignant about the judges’ wrongdoing: They may have joined the court expecting to be Workers of Justice, but have been forced to become the judges’ Enforcers of Wrongdoing. They may not feel proud about their behavior.
    .
  4. All this points to the need to:
    .
    a. identify former clerks: They know a lot about what went on in the court; still have contacts there, and cannot be fired…or were fired for protesting;
    .
    b. imagine scenarios of how to approach a given clerk based on what you are learning about her that may persuade the clerk to become an Informant for Justice; and
    .
    c. role play(ol:356) frequently with other team members, even on the phone, or in front of a mirror: Do not wing it! Here are three steps for you and your team to search for informants: identify, learn and choose, and contact:

a. Identify current and former clerks

a. Go to the website; download and print the picture of every judge and clerk; identify each with name and title, and affix all to The Wall of Insiders of your home, where you will build their organizational diagram (organigram) with those pictures and additional information found elsewhere; use 3” x 5” cards for people whose picture have not been found;

b. download the telephone register, which lists the name and title of judges and clerks;

c. check the website’s Contact Us webpage;

d. check the webpage for each judge, which may identify his or her law (chambers) clerks;

e. send a crawler to roam the Web for people who in social media or resumes have listed among their former jobs ‘clerk at court X [=wild card]’ or ‘clerked for Judge X’;

f.  Go to the courthouse; look in the lobby for a directory on a wall listing the name, title, and room of each judge and clerk; take a picture with your smartphone or tablet;

g. go to the county clerk’s office, the in-take office, the court library and other departments:

             1) the personnel headshot gallery, with name and title, may be on a wall; take a picture;

2) ask a clerk for a roster of clerks to help you navigate your way through the maze of departments that you have been told you need to work with. If the clerk has such a roster but not for distribution to the public, ask to be allowed to copy it;

3) inconspicuously take a picture of every clerk and the desktop nameplates;

4) ask for newsletters, brochures, fliers, forms, etc.; some may be downloadable;

h. go to the court library; check the publications that report court decisions, called reporters and advanced sheets, which at the front or the back may have a list of clerks’ names;

i. check the pages posted on the outside wall of the courtroom on the day when a judge holds motion hearings, which may list the name and phone number of the judges’ clerks;

j. walk through the courthouse and pay attention to the shingles outside some doors indicating the names of the several departments and their respective heads;

k. strike up a conversation with any clerk even if you show that you are in the wrong department and have no clue what it does. Use your ignorance to ask for, and receive, the names of current and former clerks in that and other departments with whose requirements you have to comply…to receive child support for a newborn after changing your name after your home was foreclosed and your new address is your car that was stolen. Bad day!

l. if needed, go to the courtrooms and photograph judges on the bench and their clerks.

22. Think, think, think creatively, imagining and rehearsing scenarios in advance, to come up with the opportune questions or comments at the right moment. Think strategically to craft a plan of action and, very importantly, to ‘connect the dots’ represented by each big as well as small, even tiny, piece of information. You are doing field research work: You are a Detective for Justice.

23. Go back home; print and post new pictures and add your field information to that already in the organigram on your Wall of Insiders. Google names and run pictures through face recognition software(jur:146fn271, 272 for a spectacular result of so doing); read the related articles; and add information on 3” x 5” cards. You will be impressed by your own work and so will be others.

24. Reproduce your Wall on your computer using PowerPoint preferably, otherwise Word, and its many collapsible/expandable features for adding information, such as digital sticky notes, call outs and cloud forms, connecting and freeform lines, etc., also available after you save your PP page in, or add it to a, pdf. Save a copy on your mobile device so that you can share your organigram with other team members(ol2:416§A) by email or when you meet them; and compare it with theirs in order to correct, combine, and enlarge it. This is team work, not competition.

b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

  1. After compiling the list of clerks, you and the team must learn about each. Check their social media pages and Google their names, as shown above concerning judges. Learn as much as possible about where and what they studied; what their past jobs were; whether they have family and who their friends are; what school their children go to; where they went for their holidays; what hobbies they have; what associations or church they are members of; where they are likely to be found outside the courthouse; etc. Every piece of information will allow you to relate to them better when you meet them. With insatiable curiosity, imagination, and foresight, hog information.
    .
  2. The determination of what clerk is most likely to become an informant begins with those who are more relatable to you because of age, race, educational level, religious affiliation, marital and family status. However, keep in mind that young people are likely to still be idealistic. They may resent more the injustice that they see in the court and that they are forced to participate in. An unmarried young clerk who still lives at home may still be sensitive to a motherly figure.
    .
  3. Old clerks may have become jaded. They have established links of, not only conspiratorial relations with judges, but also of friendship and loyalty. They may be so deep into wrongdoing schemes that they risk too much if they give you any piece of information that may lead to any aspect of the court being investigated. Their ‘fingerprints’ are in every wrongdoing. They knew or should have known about it. They are not only accessories under duress(ol2:462§1); they have become principals(jur:90§§b,c). They may be close to retirement and cannot envisage losing their pension just because you tell them to think back to the days when Justice mattered to them.

c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

  1. The previous two steps called for members with a bent for research and organization of data and capacity for profiling people(jur:xLvi§H). The third step calls for people’s persons, those with great social skills, talkative, and the ability to touch other people’s soul. They have to go in the field to befriend clerks who have been determined likely to become confidential informants.
    .
  2. Befriend a clerk until you can appeal:
    .
    a. to his or her moral fiber:
    .
    b.  the image of themselves as decent persons, who “Treat others the way they would like others to treat them”;
    .
    c. as honest public servants who take pride in serving the public;
    .
    d. as good parents who want to set the right example for their children;
    .
    e. people with a personal and civic conscience who would be outraged upon being informed(ol:236) that you and so many others, their families, employees, suppliers, etc., have been harmed profoundly by the wrongs, committed with the coerced assistance of their clerks, of the judges who have deprived them of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives. The harm is real –injury in fact–; the pain is constant.
    .
  3. Elicit understanding and empathy, positive reactions that generate personal identification with a common cause and commitment to its advancement; not guilt, a negative feeling that drains people of energy and draws them into self-absorbed recrimination that causes degenerative self-worthlessness. Get the clerk to confide in you under the assurance that you will preserve their anonymity. Share only the information with the other team members(ol2:416§A). Invite the clerk to meet and join them.

2. The invisible little men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

  1. There is another class of people that can provide an enormous amount of information about judges and their wrongdoing: They are outsiders: hotel drivers, receptionists, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, room cleaners, and similar ‘little people’ with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts, experience with VIPs, and financial interest in satisfying their every wish– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges full of themselves, and in whose ghostly presence Judges Above the Law uninhibitedly discuss, or engage in competitive boasting about, their wrongdoing(ol:175§2).
    .
    a. Got to the places where, according to your research, the judge went or frequently goes. and show the ‘little people’ the pictures of the judge, her family, associates, etc.;
    .
    b. ask them what they know about the judge and the others. Any apparently insignificant dot of information can become significant once you start ‘connecting the dots based on what makes people tic and the world go around’(ol:279¶25) and a richly detailed figure emerges of the judge, her train of living, property, extra-judicial activities, etc. So, ask about:

1) the occasions on which the judge was there;

2) the other people that were with the judge: spouse, boy- or girlfriend, children, other VIP’s, shady people;

3) who picked up the tab;

4) any bit of the conversation among them that the little people picked up;

5) how the judge treated the little people; etc.

D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

32. Einstein said that “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, because it ignores the fundamental law that governs both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. The secular practice against wrongdoing judges is to sue them in court, lodge complaints against them with a judicial performance commission, and ask legislators to investigate them. If you do that, you will likewise end up frustrated, exhausted, and abused; and with dissatisfied one-time clients.

33. Strategic thinking leads to a radical departure: inside knowledge and rational analysis of people’s interests. It detects patterns of wrongdoing and devises an out-of-court/commission plan of action that imaginatively fosters or hinders such interests to expose wrongdoing and hold wrongdoers accountable. This calls for hard work, but it is reasonably calculated to have positive results: objective, verifiable, and convincing wrongdoing patterns that you and your team can take to:

a. journalists, who do not pay attention to the self-serving allegations of a single party;

b. politicians(ol2:416) who are looking for a novel issue on which to run for office, set themselves apart from their challengers, and develop a personal, reliable constituency;

c. documentarists looking for a story that can make them the next Michael Moore, with the equivalent of a hugely successful Fahrenheit 9/11(ol2:461), or Laura Poitras(ol:35, 36);

d. to other parties before the same judge or other judges in the same court, in other courts in the same city, in other cities, and beyond to build a class and develop a precedented, Tea Party-like movement(jur:164§9) of victims of wrongdoing judges and the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who are members of the dominant segment of the population: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment;

e. even the judge on a motion for recusal; an appeals court for disqualification or remand and new trial; and a judicial performance commission to support a fact-based complaint;

34. You are not alone. There are many like you out there. The above is a plan of action for you to become their rallying point. It all begins in your mind, by strategically thinking, then taking imaginative action(ol2:431). Strengthen your mind by reading in my study* because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read and reread the Auditing Judges article(ol:274) to learn how to form a small team of people who have appeared before your wrongdoing judge. They share your experience and frustration. They understand you. They are on your side. Your success is their success. You can become the leader of many pro ses and even lawyers by starting with a few just like you.

35. Take heart from the people who never dreamed of becoming leaders until they were hit by an event that knocked them to the ground. But they would not stay down and take it: They stood up and fought back. They became reluctant heroes(ol:142§B).You never know what you can do until you decide that enough is enough and take the risk: To do your most. That is how you become recognized by We the People as one who asserted our right to Equal Justice Under Law and to hold all our public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing because Nobody is Above the Law.

36. Thus, I offer to make a presentation at a video conference(ol:350) or in person on how you can become one of the People’s Champions of Justice.

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

NOTE: 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.

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

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

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b 

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;

or

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: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

 

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.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf 

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

To subscribe to the series of articles on this website
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
go to the menu bar above >+New>User

Resorting to Donald Trump out of pragmatism, not partisanship, to expose unaccountable judges, who engage risklessly in wrongdoing for their benefit while disregarding the constraints of due process of law and abusing you and We the People

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, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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.  A study about judges and their judiciaries identifies the circumstances that enable their wrongdoing

1.  I have researched, analyzed, and written a study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable as follows:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

2.  KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Hence, I invite you to read in my study as much as you can about the circumstances of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness(*>ol:190¶¶1-7) that enable judges to engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3; ol:265) for their material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93) while disregarding due process of law(jur:5§3) and abusing their power to dispose of all our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives…and get away with it.

a.  Federal judges engage in wrongdoing because they:

1)  are life-tenured;

2)  can retaliate against politicians who investigate them by declaring their legislative agenda unconstitutional(jur:23fn17a);

3)  instead, are protected by the politicians, who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them, as “our men and women on the bench”; so they

4)  are allowed to dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of the complaints against them, which must be filed with their chief circuit judges(jur:24§§b-d); and

5)  are the only ones to whom you can appeal to review their own decisions, so they review them in their own interest(jur:28§§a-b) or deny review at will(jur:47§c).

b.  As a result, federal judges are in practice irremovable: While on 30sep15 the number of federal judicial officers was 2,293(jur:22fn13), in the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:22fn14)

c.  If your bosses could neither be removed from their life-appointment positions nor have their salary reduced(jur:22fn12) and had all the power to decide over all your money(jur:27§2) as an employee and a person, would you be afraid that they would abuse that power for their benefit, regardless of the harm to you? Those are the positions and power that federal judges have; they abuse them in reliance on the fact that no adverse consequences will come to them therefrom. Is that outrageous in ‘government, not by men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6)?

B.  Advancing the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by applying a principle of strategic thinking

3.  The exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and advocacy of judicial reform are guided by the strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C) principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him prevail so as to help myself”. It leads to alliances forged between people with harmonious interests even if with different motives who can converge on the same result.

4.  This effort has currently found expression in my letter(>ol2:437) to Mr. Donald Trump, who publicly and repeatedly criticized the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. In that letter, I propose that he denounce judges’ wrongdoing, as opposed to judges’ exercise of discretionary power and reap significant electoral benefits therefrom.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

a.  Proving abuse of such power is most difficult since discretion is a matter of opinion involving a wide leeway. Wrongdoing is indefensible. One only need show, rather than prove, that a judge has failed to abide by his or her duty to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). That can force a judge to resign(jur:92§d).

C.  Giving priority to the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform and choosing a candidate that can advance it

5.  There is never a perfect candidate. But there is always one cause that outrages and energizes us the most. It is not productive to do nothing until we can advance all our causes simultaneously.

6.  Therefore, we all have to decide which cause is most important to us and who can contribute the most to advancing it the way we advocate. Then we must work with that person accordingly, in spite of what we may think about that person’s position on other issues.

7.  If judges’ wrongdoing exposure and judicial reform is that cause for you, I encourage you to share my letter widely so that many informed and outraged people may demand that Trump denounce such wrongdoing and the media investigate two unique national stories of it(ol2:439).

D. Choosing between a 1-2 term Trump presidency subject to checks and balances v. 2,293 life-tenured judges subject to no accountability

8. Trump is not expected to be interested in an honest judiciary at all. He is only assumed to be interested in winning the election and becoming president.

9.  That does not diminish the importance of the fact that he has what we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, sorely lack, which explains why we have made no progress in our common cause at all: He is avidly covered by the national media. We do not have access even to the local media.

10.  Thus, Trump can solely in his electoral interest denounce judges’ wrongdoing as proposed(ol2:437). Nevertheless, he can thereby set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing(ol2:439). By exposing its nature, extent, and gravity(jur:5§3, 65§§1-3), that investigation will provoke such outrage as to stir up the national public to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing. Their findings will so deeply aggravate public outrage that they will render judicial reform inevitable, regardless of who is president at that time.

1. What do you prefer?

a.  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;

or

b.  2,293 federal judges who are in effect irremovable and not subject to any checks and balances. Consequently, they risklessly engage in wrongdoing. Federal judges are not only human beings and as such flawed; they are also unaccountable wrongdoers(jur:88§§a-c).

11.  Hence the strategy of informing and outraging the public concerning judges’ wrongdoing. It is born of pragmatic, strategic thinking, not of partisanship. You too can think strategically and contribute to its implementation.

E. The need to take action to advance our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

12.  Merely making a statement of fact about wrongdoing and abusive judges, never mind simply whining to commiserate with one another about our suffering, will not accomplish anything. It is necessary to think strategically and take action accordingly(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C).

13  We all should contribute to advancing our common interest by taking advantage of the opportunity that Mr. Trump presents.

14.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to:

a.  share the below letter(>ol2:437) to Mr. Trump as widely as possible by emailing it to all your friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances, and your emailing list, and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blogs;

1) See a list of yahoogroups at >ol2:433.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

b.  subscribe to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, and encourage them to do likewise so that you all can Gain Power Through Knowledge;

c.  network(ol:231) with friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems;

1)  Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort

2)  General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.

3)  VP Nominee Gov. Mike Pence

4)  Ms. Ivanka Trump

5)  Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.

6)  Mr. Eric Trump

d.  download and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

e.  organize presentations to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them the letter, evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B), and the way for them to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting  through a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture.

15.  I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances.

16.  Let’s not miss this window of opportunity for turning judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of a presidential election, which is the ocassion when politicians are most vulnerable and responsive(ol2:422) to We the People.

17.  Time is of the essence.

18.  It is by taking action that you too can become one the nationally recognized Champions of Justice of a grateful We the People.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

*********************************

See the article:

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 discretionary power

Filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court is an exercise in rigged gambling and waste

A realistic alternative that takes advantage of presidential politics to inform the national public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing and cause the public to demand nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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. Barriers to access to the Supreme Court: the booklet format, the preference given to a few lawyers, the 1 in 100 review chance, and the cost of representation

1. The problem begins with the format of the brief and the record to be filed. It can cost $100,000 or more just to pay a specialized company to transcribe and print the record on appeal in the booklet format required by Rule 33(*>jur:47fn77) of the Rules of the Supreme Court because if you do not qualify as indigent to file in forma pauperis, you cannot file them on regular 8.5” x 11” paper.(jur:47§1)

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
*

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

2. Even so, since in the last few years some 7,250 cases were filed per year in the Court, but it disposed of an average of only 78 cases, your chances of having your case taken for review are roughly 1 in 100(cf. jur:47fn81a). In the casinos of Las Vegas, your odds of winning are better.

3. Your odds of having your case reviewed by the Court are substantially worse if you are not represented by one of the “superlawyers”, whose cases are decidedly preferred by the Supreme Court: 8 superlawyers argued 20% of cases in the nine years between 2004-2012. They command whatever attorney’s fee the law of offer and demand allows, which only a few, mostly corporate parties, can afford.

4. In fact, taking a case all the way to final adjudication in the Supreme Court can cost more than $1,000,000(jur:48fn83). If it remands to the trial court for a new trial, you start all over again.

a. The Echo Chamber…At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket; Reporters Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts, and John Shiffman, Reuters Investigates, Thomson Reuters; 8dec14; http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus/

b. Elite circle of lawyers finds repeat success getting cases to the Supreme Court; Gwen Ifill interviews Joan Biskupic, Legal Affairs Editor in Charge, Reuters; PBS NewsHour; 9dec14; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elite-circle-lawyers-finds-repeat-success-getting-cases-supreme-court/

5. Judicial review in the Supreme Court is not only discretionary with the justices, it is also illusory(jur:48§2; cf. 46§3).

6. If you cannot download the Rules of the Court(jur:47fn77b) and pay attention to, and comply with, their hundreds of minute details, you cannot reasonably expect the Court to take your case for review. The clerk will not accept your case for filing.

7. Nor can you expect the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices of the august Supreme Court of the United States, sitting on the high bench to hear oral argument before the national press and a select audience of guests, let a pro se babble, ramble, and rant about the facts of the case and his heartfelt pain at so much injustice visited upon him by the adverse party.

8. That scenario is simply not possible, an idea born of ignorance of, or reckless disregard for, the applicable standards of performance and court decorum.

9. Rather, the justices expect knowledgeable and authoritative arguments based on legal precedent and firmly established or proposed principles of law. They want clarification about any points discussed in the briefs that raised questions in their minds, asking the kind of questions that are the most difficult to answer as they demand a firm command of the law: What are the legal implications of that point? The law is a system. Points of law have to fit together for the law to make sense. A pro se cannot wing it when answering those questions.

10. Therefore, do you have the money to retain a member of the Supreme Court bar to argue your case? If you do not have money to even pay a lawyer to review your papers before filing them, you don’t.

B. A case filed by a pro se in a federal court is weighted as a third of a case

11. When you file a case in a federal district court, you have to file a Case Information Sheet. It asks, among other things, whether you are represented or pro se. You are appearing pro se. The consequences thereof at the brief in-take office of the clerk of court are funereal without the solemnity: Your case was dead on arrival and is sent right away to potter’s field.

12. In the Federal Judiciary, pro se cases are weighted as a third of a case(jur:43fn65a >page 40). By comparison, “a death-penalty habeas corpus case is assigned a weight of 12.89”(jur:43¶81). As a result of such weighting, a pro se case is given some 39 times less attention than a death penalty case regardless of the pro se case’s nature, what is at stake in it, and whether the complaint was written by joe the plumber or a law professor.

13. Your brief is likely not to be read at all…that is the whole purpose of the Case Information Sheet: to tell the court on half of one side of one page what the case is all about and what relief the party is requesting so that if the court does not want to grant it, why bother reading the brief?

C. Justice is blind, but the judge sees the incompetence of pro se pleadings

14. A federal district judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship”(jur36fn57).

15. Hence, the judge is expected not to waste her time with a pro se case, which is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if it did, without any notion of the elements of the action that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he must introduce to prove each of them.

16. Indeed, the pro se, ignoring how to state a case, is likely to plunge in his opening paragraph into a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better? She knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say and do not lay out arguments of law, but instead intone articles of faith and cries of pain caused by an intuitive sense of justice denied.

17. As a result, your pro se brief reaches the judge tainted by the presumption of irrelevancy, inadmissibility, and incompetence. The judge will give it the perfunctory attention that the official weighting of the case enables her to give it. The weighting works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because upon your filing of your case in the in-take office it was considered already not worth a case, not even half a case, but merely a third of it, the judge will do a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.

18. Just because paper holds everything one writes on it, the writing on it by a pro se does not produce a brief of law. He is likely to have stated a case so inadequately that it will be considered incapable of surviving a motion for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” by a court, that is, a Rule12(b)(6) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(FRCivP; ol:5b/fn15e).

19. It follows that as a pro se, you do not stand a chance at getting a due process fair hearing or reading. You are DoA.

D. A pro se is likely not to have a clue of what subject matter jurisdiction is and how its absence can doom his case

20. Worse yet, you have to show something of which you, as a pro se and a lay person at that, are presumed not to have the faintest idea: subject matter jurisdiction(FRCivP 12(b)(1); ol:5b/fn15e). This means that you have to show that the federal court has the authority conferred upon it by statute as interpreted by case law to entertain your type of case and use its judicial power to adjudicate the controversy that opposes you to the defendant.

21. You cannot run to federal court and ask it to intervene in a purely state law matter, such as family, probate, and zoning law are. It is simply not enough for you to allege that the state judge and a host of other state officials engaged in what you, in your law-untrained opinion and your emotional state of mind as a party, a parent, an heir, or a resident in the neighborhood consider to be corruption.

22. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be waived: The defendant cannot confer upon the court authority to hear and decide your type of case by merely failing to raise an objection to it in its answer or by motion to dismiss. At any time, even in the middle of trial, the defendant can move to dismiss the case, thus terminating it, due to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is more, the court can do so on its own motion upon realizing that it does not have authority to deal with the type of matter presented to it.

23. In fact, when judges do not feel like dealing with a case, they take the easy way out by simply claiming that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s only remedy is to go up on appeal to argue a highly technical issue of law. Do you have any idea how to argue that the court has subject matter jurisdiction based on common law, a statutory provision, notions of federalism, and the equal protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment after analogizing your type of case to another type that was held to fall within the court’s jurisdiction?

24. You may hate lawyers because many are deceitful, uncaring, money grabbing fraudsters. Yet, it is logically sound to assume that people who went to law school for three years know something about the law that people who did not go there ignore. The same applies to those who successfully conducted doctoral research, analysis, and writing. How do you think the judge will react if you tell her that you consider the above statement arrogant and elitist?

E. A more realistic strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform that takes advantage of presidential politics and the mood of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, including the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

25. Presidential politics offers the opportunity to reach out to Establishment-outsider Donald Trump, who has already dare criticize a federal judge, and through him the national media that cover him so that we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, may implement a realistic judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform strategy.

26. That strategy rests firmly on two foundations:

a. the strategic thinking principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and by helping him I help myself”; and

b. the first law of interaction between two or more persons, i.e., horsetrading!…because social life is a give and take:

27. The strategy is concrete, reasonable, and feasible:

a. Mr. Trump and the media, each acting in their own electoral or commercial interest(>ol2:416§B), can inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing and so outrage the public at it as to stir it up to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing as the first step toward judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

  1. You can contribute to implementing that strategy. To that end, I respectfully invite you to:

a. share the below letter to Mr. Trump(>ol2:437) as widely as possible by sending it to your emailing list and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blog.

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

1) See a list of yahoogroups(>ol2:433);

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

b. network(ol:231) with colleagues, friends, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries;

1) Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort,

2) General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.,

3) Mrs. Ivanka Trump,

4) Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.,

5) Mr. Eric Trump, and

6) Running Mate Gov. Mike Pence,

c. download and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

d. organize a presentation to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them:

1) the give and take letter to Mr. Trump;

2) the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B); and

3) the way for them to participate in a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting and judicial reform advocacy.

  1. So that you may feel confident in networking me with others, I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.
  2. Let’s not miss this window of opportunity to make of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a decisive issue of the presidential campaign(ol2:422). Time is of the essence.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

How Trump can turn his website into the platform where the public can voice their complaints against unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and search for, and expose, judges’ patterns of wrongdoing as the first step for We the People to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate their victims

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, Dr.Cordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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.

___________________________________________

Dr. Cordero and Judicial Discipline Reform are non-partisan and non-denominational in their pursuit of one single issue: the exposure of the unaccountability of federal and state judges, who consequently engage in wrongdoing risklessly despite the harm to parties and the rest of the public.

Their plan of action is based on strategic thinking: Informing the national public of unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing so that the public may become so outraged as to demand of all politicians, whether running for, or in, office, that they call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing.

Therefore, members of the public who support any issue as well as those who oppose it are all welcome here as long as they believe in, and want to contribute to advancing, this common issue:

We the People are the sovereign source of all political power and as such the masters of all our public servants, including judicial public servants. We have the right to hold all judges accountable for honestly serving us Equal Justice Under Law, and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Achieving judicial reform that enables us to exercise that right is our ultimate objective, for judicial power is at the center of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’. In that government, we want to assert the supremacy of our role as We the People.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has access to the national media, hence to the national public; is the only outsider of the Establishment, which recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, and appointed judges; and is the only one who has dare criticize judges. Thus, the letter below is an application of the strategic thinking principle: The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him help me.

*********************************

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to apply a principle that you stated in an interview some 25 years ago to the effect that ‘you always think how things can go wrong, because if they go right, they take care of themselves, but if they go wrong, you want to know that you anticipated that event and did everything possible to prevent it and now are better prepared to make things right’.

Things can go wrong for your campaign due to lack of money and the dwindling support shown by polls. To run a campaign you may need $1 billion, of which you only collected $1.3 million in June. Since neither your party nor big donors are opening their pockets, you can either pay the difference from yours or implement this proposal for innovatively addressing both problems:

At the end of a long primary season, people are weary of stretched-out hands requesting money. So you can offer them your ears and invite them at rallies and in emails to voice their complaints on your website.

Complainants form that part of the electorate that you have identified and are your base: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

The most dissatisfied are those who, like you recently, feel they were treated unfairly by judges, not to mention those who feel that  they had their property,  liberty  as  well  as  the  rights  and  duties that  determine their lives mishandled: the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form a huge untapped voting bloc:

More than 100 million people are parties to over 50 million cases filed in the federal and state courts annually(*>jur:8fn4,5); to them must be added the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases and cases deemed wrongly or wrongfully decided; plus the millions of closely related people who have also become just as dissatisfied: family, friends, peers, supporters, employees, etc. All are passionate in their quest for vindication and justice.

* 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
*

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study, which has two  volumes: …/OL/… and …/OL2/….

The dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems will be receptive to your invitation to go to your website both to fill out a standardized case description form(*>ol:281) and to post their court papers so that anybody may search them for the most probative evidence, i.e., a pattern of wrongdoing(ol:274), unlike a claim of abuse in only one’s case, which is suspect of being self-serving and biased.

Thereby you would apply the marketing psychology principle that when people feel they have been given to, e.g., attention and hope of help, they feel grateful and prone to give back, e.g., money, volunteered work, and word of mouth support.

While the dissatisfied are on your website, they will be more responsive to your donation pitch. They may donate small amounts, similar to those that The Hopeful Young gave Sen. Sanders, which added up to scores of millions, even surpassing the big donations to Sec. Clinton.

You can thus grow your support, for those who post  their  complaints  to your site will identify themselves and those closely  related  to  them  as  potential voters for you, whom you can enter in your database, keep giving to(ol:362), and mobilize on Election Day.

Although you sue often, you are not afraid of criticizing judges. You can cause them to resign(jur:92§d) or be removed by denouncing(ol2:437) their unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing(ol:311).

Thereby you can launch media and official investigations of two unique national cases of judges’ wrongdoing(see infra) and provoke an institutional crisis that leads to judicial reform entailing  a reconfiguration of checks and balances among the branches and between them and the people.

Indeed, that can become your legacy even if you lose the election: a new American governance system(ol2:423¶¶g,h) where We the People assert our  supremacy in “government of, by, and for the People”.

If you win, you can also nominate replacement judges supportive of your legislative agenda(ol2:422).

To detail this proposal and explain how you can investigate(ol:194§E) the two unique national cases, I respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers.

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

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 to Mr. Trump together with previous ones to him and supporting materials is found at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf.

********************************************

The Two Unique National Cases
of Judicial Wrongdoing

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

  1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer  and Sen.  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 as  well as any  other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)
  2. This case  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 case and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

  1. 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 National Security Agency (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 the 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.

  1. 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) in  those  communications pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.
  2. This case can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).
    ***************************************************

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

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

* 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*

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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.

Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf ************************************

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).

Application of the strategic thinking principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, to propose that Presidential Candidate Donald Trump denounce judges’ wrongdoing and consequent riskless wrongdoing in order to draw support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who form part of the electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, and draw other substantial benefits, which can in turn lead to profound judicial reform

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

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.

www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to nominate to the Supreme Court, not just one of your 11 candidates, but rather many justices and judges, thus packing(*>jur:23fn17) the Federal Judiciary with jurists handpicked to uphold your legislative agenda’s constitutionality for a generation. To that end, you can appeal to the electorate dominated by 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
*

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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.

Among The Dissatisfied is a huge(infra ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems because judges are held unaccountable(jur:21) by the politicians who nominated and confirmed them, so they risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3).

This is illustrated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c), which suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets(65§§1-3).

She was President Obama’s first justiceship nominee, shepherded through the confirmation process by both Sen. Chuck Schumer, whom Sen. Harry Reid has named to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York(77§§5-6).

Your denunciation(98§2) of judges’ wrongdoing –as opposed to wrongdoing judges- at a major press conference or speech would be a masterstroke, allowing you to:

1. attract dissatisfied Democrats and Independents, and Hispanics, Muslims, women, and Blacks;

2. tarnish P. Obama, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic brand itself, and embarrass them, J. Sotomayor, and her current(71§4) and former peers by requesting that they release the secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor for the district, circuit, and supreme courts and those of the other justices and peers(jur:105fn213); and call their bluff by offering to publish your IRS returns if they release those reports;

3. take on judges safely, for they not only have no constitutional claim to immunity(ol:158) in ‘government by the rule of law’ where Nobody Is Above the Law, but also are the most vulnerable public officers to news pointing to their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct(jur:68fn123a) “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, a standard of showing that journalists can easily meet and that forced Justice Abe Fortas, nominated by President Johnson for the chief justiceship, to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

4. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, akin to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee; just as the latter led to the unthinkable, the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(jur:4¶¶10-14), these judicial wrongdoing hearings can lead to the unimaginable, the resignation of all the justices for participating in, or condoning their peers’, wrongdoing; your demand can taint with suspicion of a cover-up all the presidential candidates and other politicians of the Establishment who oppose these hearings, which can become known as ‘the Trump hearings’ on the Judiciary;

5. earn $100s of millions’ worth of free media coverage as the media conducts its, and reports on your, investigation(*>ol:194§E) of J. Sotomayor as a Trojan horse into the circumstances of secrecy, unaccountability, coordination, and risklessness enabling(ol:190¶¶1-7) judges’ wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and grave as to be the judges’ and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4);

6. emerge as the untarnished leader if the investigation exposes judges nominated, confirmed, and protected by conniving Republicans and tarnishes their Establishment, whereby you, as the reformer in chief of our political and judicial systems, can do without their and its endorsement or force them, including Speaker Ryan, to choose between going down with their party or joining you;

7. burnish your credentials as the only candidate who, as the only Establishment outsider, could have taken on federal judges, and who can take on any domestic lobby and even foreign entities so as to bring relief to, as Mr. Lewandowski put it, the people “tired of the way things are”;

8. develop your website so that it becomes:

a. the place for people to submit and analyze for patterns of wrongdoing their complaints against judges(311) and their conniving and compelled helpers(395); and

b. the center with innovative, interactive, and competitive features for people to give and receive vital information about your campaign, their lives, terrorism, etc., (362), and to gratefully donate to your campaign, which desperately needs every dollar it can get; and

9. use your denunciation to inform the national public about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in a country supposed to be founded on the rule of law and create such national outrage as to:

a. set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation that stirs up news-dominating controversy;

b. announce the presentation of the findings of your own investigation at the Republican Convention so that you

c. turn the Convention into a reality show that irresistibly attracts every Republican, Democrat, Independent, and all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, whereby you

d. become their Champion of Justice;

e. set once again the subject of the public debate because you are the one who senses and can ‘treat’ the pulse of We the People; and

10. pave the way for historic, profound judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), which can be his most important and enduring legacy regardless of whether he wins the presidency.

I respectfully request an opportunity to present this and supporting strategies to you and your staff. Time is of the essence.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net;  Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

****************************