Uncategorized – Page 5 – Judicial Discipline Reform

Opportunity for you to share your judicial complaint with an influential chief judge, New York State C.J. Janet DiFiore, and turn her into your and the nation’s Champion of Justice

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

Submit your complaint against a judge or judiciary of any state to New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in support of her Excellence Initiative to correct the deficiencies in “justice services” and ask that she become the national Champion of Justice of all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and victims of unaccountable perfunctory and wrongdoing judges.

To that end, contact her (see below) and share and post this open letter as widely as possible in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and the link to his website: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here:
+ New or Users >Add New

NYS Chief Judge Janet DiFiore
NYS Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207-1009

Dear Chief Judge DiFiore,

I learned about your Excellence Initiative^[1] on the website^[2] of the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (AD1). It is a source of hope that a person in your position implicitly recognizes the deficiencies in “the level of justice services the people of NY have a right to expect and deserve”^[1].

^[1] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/excellence-initiative/

^[2] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

Historically, nobody has been held accountable for such deficiencies, for judges themselves are unaccountable. Consequently, they engage risklessly in perfunctoriness and wrongdoing. Your Initiative and request for comments imply your awareness thereof.

This is a proposal to develop your Initiative through your public denunciation of those deficiencies and thereby rally behind you all those who have been harmed by them.

Those harmed are parties to the more than 50 million new cases filed in federal and state courts annually(*>jur:8⁵); to the scores of millions of pending cases and those deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided; and the other people affected by those cases, such as the parties’ friends and family, workmates, employees, suppliers, shareholders, etc.

They are more powerful and important to you than an appointing governor, your fellow justices, and former peers: They are your potential constituency, the ones who can catapult you from being another judge into being a unique, historic figure. That is the objective of this proposal: to turn you in your own interest and for the benefit of everybody else into We the People’s national Champion of Justice.

The People will support you because of their current attitude: For thousands of years, women were good only for the kitchen, the kids, and for men to manhandle them. Not anymore. Today the attitude of women as well as men is “I will speak up against my abusers and will not be complicit with my silence”.

Likewise, throughout history, judges have been unaccountable and have abused their power over men’s and women’s property, liberty, and rights. They have generated a significantly greater pool of people with up to now pent-up resentment. Pent-up no more!

The People’s newly found confidence for denunciation and self-assertion will drive women and men to explode and shout ‘I’m fed up and won’t take judges’ abuse anymore…Metoo!’ If you muster the courage to lead them in a movement of transitional history, they will rally behind you. You will become their Champion of Justice.

^*The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical blue text) references are found in my main study of judges and their judiciaries, which constitutes the basis of this proposal. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

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

The study contains a wide variety of topics on that subject in its more than 1,150 pages of chapter-like articles and letters of advocacy. They are the product of my professional legal research and writing.

To give my study a chance to be effective, it is available to you and the rest of the public for free because KNOWLEDG IS POWER and only a powerful public can hold judges accountable and force the reform of their judiciaries.

However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write each letter and chapter-like article are not free to me….far from it. Such effort and time I cannot use for a gainful activity. On the contrary, trying to expose judges’ interception of emails among Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, including me, is very costly.

Hence, I encourage you to donate to the pursuit of the common interest in holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any donation of $3 or more through the button below or my website is a positive contribution and for it I thank you in advance.

Since you too, Chief Judge DiFiore, are unaccountable, most likely you have engaged in the same conduct or condoned it. That you can turn into a point of strength: You know about it firsthand; and can redeem yourself as Saul of Tarsus did after his epiphany by becoming Paul(The Bible, Acts 9:2).

You can denounce judicial unaccountability, perfunctoriness, and wrongdoing in a historic Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like letter(jur:98§2) presented at a press conference cum State of Our Judiciary speech. There you can announce:

a. the hiring of out-of-state public relations, business administration, and Information Technology firms to:

b. conduct televised public hearings on judges’ and their equally unaccountable clerks’ perfunctoriness and wrongdoing;

c. audit(cf. *>OL:274) judges’ decisions to determine whether they meet even first year law school standards of quality; and

d. investigate judges’ contents-based interception of their critics’ communications, a First Amendment violation bound to provoke public outrage graver than that caused by Edward Snowden’s revelation of NSA’s interception of only the metadata of communications, i.e., telephone numbers, time of call, duration of call, but not the contents of the conversation(^†>OL2:583§3);

e. your impending request to your fellows in the leadership of the Conference of Chief Justices and its other members to endorse your I accuse! denunciation and make their own regarding their respective judiciaries; and

f. a tour of presentations in NY and across the country to inform your audience and outrage it into demanding of every candidate in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections to take a position on judicial perfunctoriness and wrongdoing, and call for congressional and state televised public hearings.

Your I accuse! and Initiative can attract enough public support to:

a. earn you the nomination to succeed JJ. Ginsburg or Stevens, or

b. lead a party in the 2020 presidential elections; and

c. be the first person in history to form a civic movement intent on empowering We the People as the masters who hold the most powerful officers in government by the rule of law, judges(^†>OL2:541), accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their perfunctoriness and wrongdoing.

You can become here and abroad the Champion of Justice.

To present to you this proposal I respectfully ask that you invite me to meet with you.

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

To donate, use the following button:

Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Overview of the proposal to
NYS Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore
to issue an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation
of judicial perfunctoriness and wrongdoing
aimed at her becoming
the national Champion of Justice

Based on the study

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

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

A. The math^[3] of judicial perfunctoriness reveals the judiciary as a fraud scheme

^[3]See in-depth analysis of judicial statistics at *>jur:9-14; 21§§1-3; 105²¹³^;^†>OL2:455§§B-G; 548

As a baseline for comparison, not as a standard of justice, there is the fact that the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and their pool of clerks and pick out of some 7,250 filings per year only some 78 cases to be heard and decided by written decisions(^†>OL2:459§E). Compare against that what the homepage of the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (AD1), states:

Over 3,000 appeals, 6,000 motions, and 1,000 interim applications are determined each year. In addition, the Appellate Division admits roughly 3,000 new attorneys to the Bar each year, disciplines practicing lawyers, and otherwise exercises its judicial authority in Manhattan and the Bronx.²

^[2] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

AD1 judges also prepare and hold meetings to administrate and make policy, induct new judges, honor retiring ones, and receive visitors; they also visit other courts. Some days they may be sick, busy with attorney registration matters, have a family emergency, attend seminars, serve on panels and moot courts, lobby attorneys and their associations to raise money and services to refurbish their courthouse, etc. Work is cut back during the summer recess months.
.
So it can reasonably be assumed arguendo that out of AD1’s 19 judges, only the equivalent to three 5-judge panels can be deemed to work on over 10,000 pleadings 250 weekdays per year after excluding 10 holidays and weather days. So each panel handles more than 3,333 pleadings a year and more than 13 a day. This includes over 1,000 appeals compared to the 78 that nine Supreme Court justices dispose of annually.
.
To handle 13+ pleadings in what is left of each 8-hour workday after deduction of the time allocated for oral arguments, panel deliberation, and research and writing decisions, an AD1 judge would have to read:
.
a. the briefs of 13+ appellants;
.b. 13+ respondents, each having a maximum of 14,000 words or 70 pages⁴;

^[4]http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/Practice&Procedures/rules.shtml >Rule 600.10.d.1.i

c. even as few as 10 pages of each of 13+ records on appeal –each of which runs to hundreds or even thousands of pages of depositions and trial transcripts and other evidentiary documents–;

d. their motions and answers, each having some 2,000 words or 10 pages;

e. the exhibits to each; and

f. some 10 pages of each of the 13+ decisions of the judges appealed from. No judge can read over 1,500 pages a day each of 250 days. Neither can nor will unappealable clerks.

Reading is only the beginning. Determining a motion or appeal also calls on judges to:

a. identify the relevant facts and controlling issues;

b. research case precedent or statutory law;

c. consider attenuating and aggravating circumstances;

d. discuss them in light of legal principles and requirements;

e. consider what only matters to a party, that is, each element of its “Relief requested”;

f. state what most affects the court below on remand: the reversible error, why it was such, and how to remedy and avoid it;

g. what concerns the court above on appeal: the implications of the reversal for future cases; and

h. write a reasoned decision…13+ times a day!

“Too much work. Forget’a ‘bout it! Dump it by form!”

That is how judges ‘determine’ motions and appeals: They have clerks gavel the clerk of court’s signature rubberstamp on dumping forms, i.e., forms with same wording whose blank is filled out by a clerk with only one operative word, mostly Denied, for a motion, or Affirmed, for an appeal⁵.

^[5]http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/calendar/appsmots/AppMotIndex.shtml

Thereby neither the clerks nor the judges assume responsibility for changing the status quo while avoiding the need to read the pleadings and write an opinion and decision similar in quality to the answer that law students are expected to turn in to a question on a test at the end of the first semester of law school. But judges expect their decisions not to be ‘corrected’ by anybody. As AD1 puts it:

Since, with few exceptions, appeals to the Court of Appeals, the State’s highest court, are by permission only, the Appellate Division is the court of last resort in the majority of cases.²

^[2]AD1 website: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/AD1/index.shtml

So are terminated most motions and appeals: with one-disposition-fits-all, mass produced, reasonless fiat on a dumping form.(OL2:546¶¶4-7) All elements of the “Relief requested” are indiscriminately denied by implication. Such dumping is inherently arbitrary because it disregards the merits of the case at hand. Any individualizing element on the form is limited to the names of the parties and details that a clerk took from the “Description of Appeal and Issues” section of the Request for Appellate Division Intervention form, thus avoiding having to read the much longer Statement of Facts of each party.
.
A complaint to the judges about pro forma disposition of cases gets the complainant nowhere since the clerks did simply what they were asked to do: dump most cases and allow the judges to work on the few that they like. Perfunctoriness is part of the courts’ modus operandi. So it is in the federal appeal courts, where 93% of appeals are dumped(OL2:457§D).

No wonder that judges come to ‘their’ courtrooms without having read motion pleadings despite their due process duty to afford the parties an ‘opportunity to be heard’ through their written statements. They do not ask of themselves the question “Are the parties ready?” Though ignorant of the facts and issues, they make on-the-spot, off-the-cuff decisions, indifferent to how they will affect the property, liberty, and rights and duties that frame the parties’ lives. After all, a reversal has no impact on their tenure, career, or salary. Judges’ conduct is riskless, for they are unaccountable.

1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

Most appellate judges come from the ranks of trial judges. They are not going to turn against their former peers to criticize them for the same perfunctory work that they rendered while sitting with them in the courts below. Worse yet, they may be judges because of their affiliation to the same political party that put them on the same electoral slate or that supported their appointment to the bench.
.
In the same vein, they are not going to discipline, certainly not in public, a judge that belongs to the same party. Nor will they discipline a judge that belongs to another party, for an explicit or implicit reciprocal conniving agreement governs their relation: ‘If you don’t discipline the judges of my party, I won’t discipline yours’.
.
Similarly, the judges of last resort will not hold the judges below accountable for their perfunctoriness, much less their wrongdoing. They are liable as principals or as accessories that have covered up for them(jur:88§§a-c), thus compounding their own wrongdoing.
.
In their ears rings the threatening shout: ‘If you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!’ Their conduct is not guided by ethical principles or commitment to the integrity of judicial process(jur:68 ^123a). It is determined by the self-interest underlying mutually assured survival: ‘Today I protect you so that tomorrow you and your friends protect me. Why should we reduce our benefits by mending our ways or denouncing our perfunctoriness and wrongdoing?’ We risk no adverse consequence of our conduct. The consequences are born only by litigants and the rest of the public. That’s their problem.’
.
This explains why in the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§1) Yet, on September 30, 2015, the number of judicial officers on the federal bench was 2,293(jur:22¹³). Federal judges are not only unaccountable and their appointment is not only for life “during good Behaviour”; in practice they are also irremovable despite ‘bad Behaviour’(id.).
.
Although state judges only serve for a term of years, during their terms they similarly can do whatever they want, to whatever standard of quality they want, and can fail to do whatever they do not want to do. What adverse consequence imposed by whom could deter them from being perfunctory or doing wrong?
.
Federal and state judgeships amount to having a license to be where no person ought to be: They are Judges Above the Law. Their judiciaries have become the safe havens for perfunctory performers and wrongdoers. Mere litigants, all at their mercy, cannot bring them down to where they can be held accountable and liable to their victims.

2. A fraud scheme run by judges in their own interest

So, judges have no scruples about going through the motions of judicial process without revealing to filers that their $45 motion filing fee and their $315 appeal filing fee will get the substantial majority of them nothing but a perfunctory dumping form.
.
For the payment of consideration in the form of such fees, filers enter with judges into a contract for “justice services” that the judges know will in most cases not be delivered. They not only fail to administer justice according to the rule of law, but also engage in false advertisement and the concealment of a pre-programmed breach of contract. They run in self-benefit a judicial system that is in effect only a fraud scheme.
.
Judges deserve this criticism because they have failed their duty, imposed by themselves in their own Code of Conduct for Judges, to ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’(jur:68^123b, 44⁷¹).
.
Even if judges are overworked, they have dealt with that problem wrongfully, as the math of their operation reveals: Judicial process is mostly only for show because judges have neither the time, nor the need, nor the will to do the work required to assure due process and the equal protection of the law to the majority whose cases are dumped by form and the few who get fair and impartial process leading to a decision that judges expect to be scrutinized by the media and law journals, and that they strive to make meritorious of inclusion in a law school casebook and of their being considered for a higher court.
.
It has been judges’ duty of integrity(*>jur:68^123a) to inform the public thereof so that people could decide whether they wanted to gamble their effort, money, time, and hopes on the off chance that they might receive the offered dispute resolution services if they went to court to sue or defend.
.
Since judicial process is pro forma, judges should have:
.
a. suspended the fraudulent collection of fees;
.
b. encouraged the parties to choose an alternative dispute resolution means;
.c. demand from politicians more funds to run a judiciary capable of delivering the offered “justice services”; and

d. accept an external control system that holds them accountable for their delivery, thus recognizing that self-discipline is anathema to human nature: Nobody can be an unbiased judge in his own cause(OL2:548).

3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

Instead, judges have in self-interest run their fraud scheme on the public knowingly and thus intentionally: They have abstained from demanding, not higher salaries(jur:27³⁰), but rather more funds to fix the system. They have thus spared the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed or appointed them.
.
In turn, politicians have abstained from withdrawing judges’ self-discipline authority and subjecting them to an outside system of accountability empowered to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their perfunctory and wrongful conduct.(jur:158§§6-8)
.
However, politicians know from their status as legislators that unaccountability breeds wrongdoing. In fact, the rationale for exercising legislative power is that everything is permitted in a world without laws. That is the world of the jungle, ruled by the strongest and most violent and his gang. A legislature exists to curb lawless freedom, establish standards of acceptable restricted conduct, and hold people accountable for abiding by them. A toothless law is one that lacks any enforcement mechanism, means of breach detection, and punishment for breaching it.
.
When politicians hold judges unaccountable, they accept that the known consequences will follow: riskless perfunctoriness and wrongdoing, including judges’ risklessly padding their salaries by abusing their power and access to valuable information filed confidentially under seal or given them ex parte as a bribe. Unaccountability is the hallmark of ‘absolute power, which corrupts absolutely’(jur:27^{28, 32}, 42⁶⁰).
.
Politicians have condoned judges’ conduct to avoid their retaliation. It includes holding their legislative agenda and signature pieces of legislation unconstitutional, thus preventing politicians from delivering on their campaign promises and running on their achievements: P. Trump dare criticize federal judges and they suspended nationwide his Muslim travel ban(OL2:568§C).
.
So has arisen between judges and politicians mutually beneficial connivance. When they misleadingly assert that if put in office they will work in the public interest although they intend to work for their benefit, the detriment to the public notwithstanding, they operate a joint fraud scheme on the public.

B. I accuse! with a ‘Metoo’ denunciation that makes you a Champion of Justice

Only We the People, the source of all political power in a democracy, can assert our status as the masters of all our public servants, including judges, and hold them accountable and liable.
.
Honest judges as well as principled and ambitious journalists can set in motion the process of such assertion. That is facilitated by today’s generalized attitude that has prompted many women and even men to join the “Metoo” voices against sexual abuse: “Enough is enough and I won’t take it anymore!”
.
That attitude is buttressed by the civic courage underlying Sen. Jeff Flake’s statement, “I will not be complicit or silent” about P. Trump’s conduct.
.
Judges too must speak up about their conduct. They can follow the historic example of Emile Zola and his open letter I accuse!, published in 1898(jur:98§2), which launched profound change in public exposure and accountability.
.
You, Chief Judge DiFiore, are an insider and as such in the know. You have recognized that judicial deficiencies warrant your Excellence Initiative¹. You are the top judge of one of the most influential state courts; and a member of the leadership of the Conference of Chief Justices, whom you can persuade to emulate you regarding their own state judiciaries so as to give resonance to…

^[1] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/excellence-initiative/

Your I accuse! can allow you to:
.
a. denounce the unaccountability and consequent riskless perfunctoriness and wrongdoing of the most powerful public servants in government by the rule of law, judges;
.
b. thus cause the undertaking of what must precede any talk of reform: the full exposure of their conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity, and their connivance with politicians;
.c. set off a flood of motions to recuse, disqualify, vacate, etc., that will give your I accuse! and Initiative the widest practical effect and publicity;

d. inform the national public and outrage it(OL2:604) into forcing all candidates in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections to put that issue at the center of their platform, rallies, and townhall meetings;

e. launch a generalized media investigation akin to those into Watergate, Russia’s tampering with U.S. elections, and Harvey Weinstein-like wrongdoers;

f. lead the public to compel politicians to hold congressional and state televised hearings on the issue;

g. so outrage the public at judges-politicians’ fraud scheme as to generate enough public pressure to force Congress to do what it has avoided doing because it presents an existential threat to its members’ position of power and privilege in the national Establishment: convene the constitutional convention that since April 2014, 34 states have called for, thereby meeting the requirement of Article V of the Constitution(jur:22^12b); and

h. therein lead to a new We the People-government relation.
Thus you, Chief Judge DiFiore, can become the leader of the first civic movement(jur:164§9) in history that further develops democracy by enabling the People to assure the transparent and accountable exercise of power by judges and all other public servants. That can earn you recognition nationwide and abroad as the People’s Champion of Justice.
.
Hence, I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss this proposal.
.
You, the Reader, can join this historic movement by sharing your complaint against any federal or state judiciary with C.J. DiFiore by email¹ and/or mail to her Court address (see above), and encouraging her to issue her I accuse! denunciation and become our Champion of Justice.

Subscribe for free to the articles that appear here thus:
+ 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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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 to the Russian government to investigate the interception by unaccountable wrongdoing judges of the communications of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries -who invoke Candidate Trump’s request to the Russians to look for Sec. Clinton’s missing emails, equal protection of the law, and the principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”- whose findings can cause national outrage that inserts the issue of politicians’ condonation of judges’ wrongdoing among the key ones of the 2018 mid-term primaries and elections, and for which the Russians can be “rewarded mightily” by the press, by President Trump for discrediting “swamp” politicians and intelligence agencies investigating his presidential campaign, and by an American public much more concerned with establishing a new We the People-government relation than with the Russians’ meddling with the 2016 presidential election or their activity in the rest of the world

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline–Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

This email may be shared and posted as widely as possible non-commercially, in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and the link to this website: http://www.Judicial–Discipline-Reform.org.

NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort
to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications
that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C),
this email has them or any other formatting oddity,
kindly overlook them and send a note to
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

The Hon. Ambassador Anatoly Antonov
Embassy of the Russian Federation to the U.S.A.
2650 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20007
http://www.russianembassy.org/
rusembusa@mid.ru
tel. (202)298-5700

The Hon. Consul General Igor L. Golubovskiy
Consulate General of the Russian Federation in NY
9 East 91^st Street
New York, NY 10128
www.newyork.mid.ru
mainly@mid.ru
tel. (212)348-0626

Dear Ambassador Antonov and General Consul Golubovskiy,

This is a proposal for the Russian government to use its Information Technology (IT) prowess to expose how the most powerful American government officers, the life-tenured unaccountable federal judges, who dispose of people’s property and even suspended President Trump’s Muslim travel ban, risklessly:

a. engage in financial wrongdoing(*>jur:102§a, OL:154¶3) using their IT network and/or that of intelligence entities dependent on their grant of their secret requests for secret orders of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(*>OL:20fn5); and

b. silence their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, by committing the federal crime(*>OL:20¶¶11, 12) of intercepting their communications(jur:105§b).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* ^†NOTE: This article(^†>OL2:597) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* ^†>blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

However, the effort and time that it takes me to research and write them are not free to me….far from it. Just trying to protect my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org from being shut down is very costly.

Hence, I encourage you to donate to our common cause of holding judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Any amount of $3 or more is a positive contribution and for it I thank you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your government could achieve through this exposure what it failed to through its meddling with our presidential election: create a crisis of confidence of the people in the institutions duty-bound to uphold the law and turn public attention inward and away from Russia.

The Advocates would achieve what we have failed to for the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, during which period only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed(jur:21§1), as they dismiss 99.8% of complaints against them: to expose the connivance between politicians and their appointed judges.

Politicians hold judges unaccountable to avoid being retaliated against by them, e.g., judges may declare their laws implementing their legislative agenda unconstitutional, as happened with parts of the President’s Muslim travel ban(^†>OL2:569¶¶13-16; 541 2^nd-3^rd¶¶).

The exposure could set off a process that attains the Advocates’ objective of judicial reform that empowers We the People to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Russia would benefit from an America in domestic turmoil where the People demanded greater public accountability, no Judges Above the Law –even compelling a constitutional convention(OL2:517¶11)–, and concentration of attention and resources on improving the People’s lives, away from policing the world.

By contrast, your government’s ordered reduction of American diplomats in Russia only causes a logistical inconvenience, whereby fewer of them have to do the same or less.

The probable cause to believe that judges are intercepting Advocates’ communications is laid out at ^†>OL2:476, 425, 405§§B-C, 395; *>OL:19fn2; and shown by the current flagrant manifestation:

a. After my article with a realistic strategy for turning the issue of unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing into a key one of the 2018 mid-term elections was posted to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, the daily number of new subscribers –not just visitors– to it, who some days had exceeded 110, was blocked in a week to zero on July 29! Up to then, 22,961 visitors had subscribed in less than 2 years.

The ones most interested in silencing me, judges, can reasonably be suspected of having blocked subscriptions to my website or even access to it.

Your exposure of judges’ wrongdoing through the type of IT investigation illustrated below would provoke public outrage more intense than that arising from Edward Snowden’s revelations of the National Security Agency (NSA)’s illegal dragnet collection of only the metadata of phone calls between scores of millions of people, but not the contents of their conversations(^†>OL2:525§H).

However, committing contents-based interception of communications(OL2:583§3, 526¶56) deprives the People of their birthrights: “freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, guaranteed by the 1^st Amendment to our Constitution(*>jur:22fn12b).

I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss the details of this proposal.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net Corderoric@yahoo.com
**********************************

Two unique national stories
whose leads provided by the Russians
can launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation
that ends up toppling, not a president this time,
but rather the Federal Judiciary and
the current form of People-government relation,
for which the Russians can be “rewarded mightily”
by the press,
by P. Trump for discrediting “swamp” politicians and intelligence agencies
investigating his presidential campaign, and
by an American People concerned much more with themselves
than with the Russians’ activity in the rest of the world

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

These stories illustrate the type of IT investigation proposed by Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to the Russian government in application of the strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B) principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”; and the statement by Presidential Nominee Donald Trump on July 27, 2016, at a press conference in Florida: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”.
As President, he has repeatedly defended that statement, which he made in the sole self-interest of embarrassing his opponent, Sec. Clinton. He has not faced any charge of treason for having made it.
We invoke the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution(*>jur:22fn12b) as the justification for our statement to the Russians. We make it in the hope that they will initiate the investigation of these two unique national stories, whose findings can set off a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with the politicians that put them on the bench and hold them there unaccountable. Thereby this issue can get inserted in the 2018 mid-term elections.
The adaptation of these stories to current events can be discussed at a meeting with Russian government representatives, where the underlying strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B) outlined next can be developed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* ^†NOTE: This article(^†>OL2:598) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* ^†>blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus::

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

* Volume 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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee was Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor. She was suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(>jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets(>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), which entails the crimes(*>OL:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering.
What did President Obama(jur:77§5), Senator Schumer and Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and judges(jur:105fn213b) know about it but covered it up and lied(*>OL:64§C) about it to the American public by vouching for her honesty because P. Obama 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 wrongs of hers(jur:65§§1-3)?

Exposing the participation of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand in a conspiracy of silence about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets

7. Sen. Schumer (D-NY) is the current Senate Minority Leader; Sen. Gillibrand is the junior Democratic senator for New York. Both recommended that J. Souter be succeeded by Hispanic Sotomayor, who at the time was sitting as a U.S. circuit judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals located in NY City, which has a very large Hispanic population, as does the rest of this solidly Democratic state.

8. After P. Obama nominated her to the opening justiceship, he appointed these two senators to guide her through the confirmation process in the Senate. Both had access to the FBI vetting report and were duty-bound to ascertain her honesty before passing her off to the People as a justice nominee who would honestly say the law and shape its rule nationwide for the next 20, 30, or more years on the Supreme Court.

2. The consequences of the People learning that they were defrauded by politicians and abused by judges

9. If now the People were made aware of probable cause to believe that Sen. Schumer and Gillibrand knew about Then-Judge Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107c), but hid that material information so as to vouch for her honesty because they wanted to advance their personal electoral and partisan interest in catering to Hispanic voters and feminist ones asking for another female justice:

a. national outrage by a defrauded People would break out;

b. a clamor would burst for the Senate to censure them and for them to resign;

c. a battle for the minority leadership would upset the Senate Democrats;

d. an outcry for J. Sotomayor to be investigated and to resign even if only for her “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a, 44fn69) would erupt, just at Justice Abe Fortas had to on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

e. the creeping of her investigation upon the other justices and her former district and circuit court peers, whether as principal wrongdoers or as accessories before or after the fact(>jur:88§§a-c), who created or tolerated the circumstances(>OL:190¶¶1-7) enabling(*>jur:69fn128) her and other judges’ wrongdoing, would become unstoppable;

f. a flood of motions for recusal, disqualification, annulment, new trial, etc., would sweep through the Federal Judiciary, rushing functional disruption into it;

g. Democrats’ payback refusal to even hold a hearing for P. Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Sotomayor until after the 2020 presidential election would further embitter an already dysfunctional, achieve-nothing Congress -imagine the scenario where Republican Senators John McCain is too ill to vote and Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins refuse to give the vacant justiceship to Trump’s male nominee-;

h. the insertion of the issue of judges’ wrongdoing among the key ones of the 2018 mid-term primaries and elections would be all but assured, especially if new candidates for the Senate, who never took part in a judicial confirmation, opportunistically portrayed themselves as leaders of those outraged at judges’ wrongdoing; and

i. widespread dissatisfaction with government would create the opportunity for Trump to survive his own chaos and the investigations of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Senate, and the House that target his presidential campaign, by him running for reelection as:

1) a traditional leader of the People, who exercise their right to amend their form of government and demand that Congress hold the constitutional convention that the required 2/3 of the states have applied for Congress to convene after Michigan became on April 2, 2014, the 34^th state to do so(*>jur:139fn270 >Ln:309), but that politicians ward off as a threat to their privileges within the Establishment; or

2) a maverick, unprecedented leader of the sovereign source of all political power, We the People, whom he leads to convene in order to adopt a new form of government, regardless of Congress, politicians, and the dead hand of the all-male white wealthy delegates who 228 years ago wrote constitutional rules for a world long gone and unrelated(^†>OL2:516¶8) to the world of the people living today and demanding to command their present and future.

The Follow the money! investigation and its demand for reports that can shatter the People’s trust in a government of conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges

10. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; OL:194§1). It envisages a call on President Trump to order the release unredacted of all FBI vetting reports on Sotomayor as nominee to the district, circuit, and supreme courts; and on her to request that she ask him to release them.

11. Such call can set a precedent for requesting the release of the reports on the other justices and judges, and for an outraged public to demand their resignation.
The strategic benefit for the Russians

12. What amount of political and popular attention would be left in America to care about what Russia did or was doing in the rest of the world? The People could “reward mightily” the Russians with indifference or gratitude.

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

13. The Federal Judiciary is the only national jurisdiction. It has vast IT expertise and a computer network that handles the filing and retrieval of hundreds of millions of case documents(Lsch:11¶ 9b.ii). The judges of its secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(OL:20fn5) rubberstamp (OL:5fn7) up to 100% of the NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance.

14. To what extent do federal judges, either alone or with the NSA’s quid pro quo assistance:

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; jur:72§b, 105fn213b); and

b. intercept the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(OL:20¶¶11-12)– of their critics to prevent them from joining forces and growing their ranks enough to expose the judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and compel their compensatory “redress for their victims’ grievances”?

1. The Follow it wirelessly! investigation and its current model

15. This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(OL:194§2). A statistical analysis(OL:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of email oddities(OL2:395, 405, 425), point to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.

16. Law enforcement authorities’ contempt for the law is illustrated by the Department of Justice (DoJ) hacking the computers of Former Reporter Sharyl Attkisson of CBS, the national media network(OL:345§1). She had embarrassed DoJ with her reports on its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Fast and Furious program for selling even assault weapons and tracking their delivery to Mexican druglords, one of which was used to kill an American border patrol; and the killing at Benghazi, Libya, of the American ambassador and three of his aides.

17. After noticing odd behavior of her work and office computers, Rep. Attkisson and CBS had three independent IT experts inspect them. They found that her computers had been roamed without authorization, even if no file was damaged or stolen. She is suing DoJ for $35 million.

2. Starting the investigation with an IT inspection of Dr. Cordero’s computers and website

18. Similarly, the herein proposed exposure of judges’ wrongdoing can be started by having independent IT experts inspect Dr. Cordero’s computers and website to ascertain whether they have been interfered with and his communications with others intercepted and, if so, who is the likely interferer and interceptor.

C. Letting the Russians know your support for this proposal

Write to the Russians in support of this proposal.
If you share with them your complaint about judges, do not, do not, do not send them tens of pages of briefs and case documents for them to read in a foreign language, which not even the clerks of judges, let alone judges, read in English. Be reasonable and do your homework: summarize your complaint on one side of one page. The Russians cannot intervene in your case.
The purpose is only to encourage them to undertake the proposed investigation of the two unique national stories. If they do and bring their findings to national attention so that judges’ wrongdoing becomes a key issue of the 2018 mid-term elections, you together with we all, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, will benefit from it more than from any other effort of ours. By showing your support for this proposal, you too can become one of the People’s nationally recognized Champions of Justice.

August 4, 2017

Director Christopher Wray
FBI Headquarters
35 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Mr. William F. Sweeney, Jr.
Assistant Director in Charge
FBI, 26 Federal Plaza, 23^rd Floor
New York, NY 10278-0004

Dear Director Wray and Assistant Director Sweeney,

Kindly find attached hereto a copy of my letter to the Russian ambassador to the United States, currently represented by Mr. Denis V. Gonchar, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim, proposing that his government apply its Information Technology (IT) prowess to ascertain and expose federal judges’ financial wrongdoing¹ and their interception of the communications of their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, to disrupt the latter’s efforts to expose the judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:154¶3) and their connivance with the politicians that hold them unaccountable.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* ^†NOTE: This article(^†>OL2:602) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* ^†>blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus::

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

* Volume 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

If the Russians heed our proposal, they can reap some of the benefits that they sought by meddling with the 2016 presidential election.

We are not colluding. We are giving notice to an authority empowered to investigate judges’ wrongdoing, for in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law, nobody is above the law’(*>OL:5fn6), not even judges.

Indeed, we have resorted to making that proposal to the Russians because our efforts to cause American authorities to investigate the evidence of judges’ financial wrongdoing –which is quite different from allegations of abuse of discretion or error in applying the law– have met with the authorities’ culpable indifference and condonation. Among those authorities are:

the FBI at its D.C. headquarters and district offices;
the U.S. Attorney General;
the Public Integrity Bureau of the Department of Justice;
the leadership of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives;
their committees on the judiciary and on oversight and government reform;
the senator and representative for our respective district;
the Office of the U.S. [Bankruptcy] Trustee;
Presidential Candidate and President Donald Trump, members of his top campaign and White House staff, and Running Mate Mike Pence;
the Supreme Court chief and associate justices;
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts;
the Judicial Conference of the U.S.;
its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability;
federal circuits’ judicial councils;
the chief circuit judges with whom complaints against federal judges must necessarily be filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §351(*>jur:24fn18a); etc.

Since that Act, statistics on complaints against federal judges must under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(>jur:26fn23). be submitted annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to Congress. Their analysis show that chief circuit judges dismiss 99.8% of them(>jur:10-14, 21§1; ^†>OL2:546). Judges have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect an act of Congress intended to end their secular impunity.

So judges still hold themselves and are held by politicians unaccountable and consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing.

They do wrong for the convenience of disregarding the strictures of due process and equal protection of the laws(OL2:453-462d).

Worse yet, they commit financial wrongdoing in their crass personal and class interest(jur:24§2, 65§§1-3, 105fn213b), which has nothing to do with “the national security interest”.

After all, who is there to hold life-tenured federal judges in check, who wield more power than the President, let alone the FBI director, over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives? Nobody. As a result, judges have turned the Federal Judiciary into the safe haven for their wrongdoing(*>jur:49§4).

If the Russians, pursuing their own interest, bring their findings of federal judges’ wrongdoing to public attention, an outraged public will give the media a commercial interest in launching their own investigation. That could insert the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into the 2018 mid-term elections.

That will not follow from you acting on your pious words upon becoming director that you want “to work…for the good of the country and the cause of justice”², given that you will not for a nanosecond consider investigating judges, their harm to country and justice notwithstanding.

We can only hope that you will not instead take the easy way out of investigating us.

But it is not unreasonable to suggest that you at least order the inspection by independent IT experts of my computers and website to determine who, after my posting to my website³ an article with a realistic strategy for exposing judges, has caused the daily number of new subscribers -not merely visitors- to it, who some days had exceeded 110, to drop off in a week to zero on July 29! In less than 2 years, 22,961 visitors had subscribed to my website.

So I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss that suggestion.

Visit my website at, and subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

I look forward to hearing from you.

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
http://www.Judicial–Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

ENDNOTES

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero–Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:27fn30:a) “I will reiterate what I have said many times over the years about the need to compensate judges fairly. In 1989, in testimony before Congress, I described the inadequacy of judicial salaries as “the single greatest problem facing the Judicial Branch today.” Eleven years later, in my 2000 Year-End Report, I said that the need to increase judicial salaries had again become the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 2002 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, p.2. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2002year-endreport.html; and http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Chief_Justice_yearend_reports.pdf >CJr:79b) “[Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts] Director Mecham’s June 14 letter to you makes clear that judges who have been leaving the bench in the last several years believe they were treated unfairly… [due to] Congress’s failure to provide regular COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments]…That sense of inequity erodes the morale of our judges.” Statement on Judicial Compensation by William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, Before the National Commission on the Public Service, July 15, 2002. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_07-15-02.html; and http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/CJ_Rehnquist_morale_erosion_15jul2.pdf.c) “Congress’s inaction this year vividly illustrates why judges’ salaries have declined in real terms over the past twenty years…I must renew the Judiciary’s modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied!” U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., 2008 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, p. 8-9. http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx >2008.

Money!, “the root of all evils”(jur:28fn32), that is “the single greatest problem” in the minds of judges, not access to justice, respect for the rule of law, or their rendering honest services, let alone their avoidance of even the “appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123b).

The ‘erosion of their morale’ also washes away their moral inhibitions about doing wrong in the absence of fear of losing by so doing their life-appointment or suffering any other adverse consequence whatsoever.

For federal judges, they are simply going after the money that has been kept from them ‘unfairly’. To correct the cause of their “sense of inequity”, they resort to self-help to get ‘their money’, wielding as their means their unaccountable, ‘absolute power, the kind that corrupts absolutely’(jur:27fn28). Those circumstances enable their financial wrongdoing(jur:190¶¶1-7), which becomes inevitable.

Having engaged(jur:88§§a-c) in criminal activity, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:65§§1-3), denying parties due process and equal protection of the laws is merely part of their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4). For “he who does the most, can do the lesser”.

If you had their job security and unaccountable power to allocate money in controversy, would you too abuse it to grab some of that money? If so, what else would you dare do?(jur:3§5)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* ^†NOTE: This article(^†>OL2:597) and the more than 1,150 additional pages of my legal research and writing that contain the materials corresponding to the (* ^†>blue text references) are available free of charge to all of you interested in honest judiciaries. Read as much as you can, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. They are part of my main study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

The development of a commercial software product to audit the statements of a judge in search of pattern evidence of bias by performing statistical, linguistic, and literary analyses and establish the probability of the outcome of the case at bar so as to give the product user an objective, verifiable basis on which to devise litigation strategy and gain a competitive advantage over the opposing party

This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible non-commercially, in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification, with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and indication of this website: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

A. The development of a judicial auditing software product

This is a proposal for developing a judicial auditing software product to estimate prospectively the likelihood of fairness and impartiality or rather the risk of bias and abuse of power of a judge so as to devise litigation strategy accordingly.

1. The target: judges rather than the juries subject to their instructions
While there are many companies that advise their clients on the composition and behavior of juries, the proposed product will provide information on what steers juries in myriad overt and subtle ways to reach a desire outcome: the mind of a judge, as revealed by the record of his or her statements and comparable types of recorded conduct. Where the case is tried to the judge only, information on what influence his or her way of thinking and making decisions is all the more important.

2. The auditable material: judicial statements
The auditing product will apply artificial intelligence and resulting algorithms to perform on judicial statements, e.g., decisions, transcripts, articles, recorded speeches, three types of analyses: statistical and linguistic analyses as well as a new and more sophisticated type, namely, literary analysis(*>jur:131§b).
Judges’ statements can be downloaded from the websites of individual courts and their judiciaries, e.g., the Federal Judiciary’s Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts website, as well as services such as PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and commercial databases, such as Lexis Nexis’ Accurint.

The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

NOTE: Each of these volumes is too big to be emailed. Accordingly, they take minutes to download, which requires patience. However, if by clicking on either of those links nothing downloads, then copy one link at a time, paste it in the search box of your browser, press “enter”, and wait for the volume to download.

3. The aim: to reveal patterns of thinking with predictive value

The product will reveal a judge’s patterns of thinking and decision-making that have predictive value for the case at hand.

Patterns are formed by the frequency of the audited judge’s:a. types of rulings and jury instructions in favor or against certain categories of parties and subject matters; and
b. use of specific or kinds of words and phrases that reveal biases.
The value of the audited judge’s frequency is plotted against the bell curve of the normal distribution for all the judges of his or her court or judiciary. This makes it possible to calculate that judge’s deviation from the norm concerning that category and therefore, to determine whether the judge exhibits an objectionable bias that justifies recusal for reversal of his or her ruling or decision.a. The hump of the bell can be so distorted toward one end of the curve as to reveal the judges’ generalized bias in favor or against a category, e.g., the judges’ dismissal rate of cases where pro ses are parties(^†>OL2:455§§B,C).

4. Categories where patterns of abnormal frequencies reveal biases
Among the most significant categories are:a. plaintiffs v. defendants;
b. represented v. unrepresented parties;
c. clients of big law firms v. of solo practitioners;
d. wealthy v. poor parties;
e. parties associated with judicial appointers;
f. members of bar association leadership v. common lawyers;
g. authorities, such as the IRS, the police, and the city council;
h. families v. Child Protective Services or appointed elderly guardians;
i. borrowers v. financial institutions;
j. employees v. their employing companies;
k. class actions;
l. privacy rights v. community or national security;
m. private ownership rights and owners v. eminent domain laws and developers;
n. susceptibility to scientific data v. emotional appeals; etc.
Every case falls within several categories. The auditing product determines the audited judge’s patterns of frequency within or outside the range of normality of each category as well as the frequency of his or her use of bias-revealing words and phrases. Based on all these frequencies, the product can quantify reliably and verifiably on the foundation of data one overall prospective value, to wit, the statistical probability of a given outcome of the whole or a part of the instant case assigned to that judge.

5. Competitive advantage gained from using the product
An audited judge, like most of us, may not be aware of his or her biases. Data analysis performed by the auditing product may produce results pointing to bias that can shock that judge as much as they may shock the auditors and third parties informed about those results; e.g., the judge was unaware of how much more often than the average of her colleagues she disregarded the testimony of minors, especially boys.
A mere allegation of bias is likely only to offend, antagonize, and provoke retaliation. Would you rather build your litigation strategy and make a motion based on your impression of the judge in your case or the result of analysis of data gathered from the hundreds of his cases?
It follows that the knowledge about the audited judge’s patterns of thinking that reveal her biases is very valuable in the hands of a party who realizes that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. It furnishes the party who acquires such pattern knowledge based on the broad and more representative foundation of data a competitive advantage over a party that lacks it.
That knowledge can prove valuable in deciding whether to sue or settle, move for recusal, disqualification, or new trial, oppose the introduction of evidence, etc.; and in devising litigation strategy concerning the calling of expert witnesses v. friends, relatives, and workmates, the introduction of scientific data and its amount v. anecdotal evidence, the letter of the law v. a sense of justice, priority given to precedent v. the requirements of an evolving society, etc.
Note how some of these categories are subjective as opposed to the objective category of a white or black plaintiff; a defendant of a given religious denomination; a case to protect the environment v. jobs. A mere counting of decisions for or against, which is at the root of statistical analysis, will not be helpful with respect to subjective categories. To detect whether they appear in a case and, if so, assign a value to their frequency, call for linguistic and literary analyses. Accordingly, they require sophisticated software to determine where the audited judge’s frequency concerning those categories.

6. Knowledge worth paying for
If you are a party or a lawyer, would you raise a motion based on your personal or anecdotal allegation that the judge is biased or rather on the quantifiable and verifiable basis of IT analysis of his or her publicly available statements?
Which basis is more likely to convince a judge asked to recuse himself or an appeals panel composed of three of his or her friends and colleagues asked to disqualify him for bias and abuse of discretion?
Knowledge that affords a competitive advantage and a more convincing basis for requesting others to take a particular action is worth money. The product that gains that knowledge for its user will attract people to either buy it or pay to use it on a one-off basis or on subscription or for the service of a specialist who runs it on their behalf on the judge to be audited.

7. Product development financing
In turn, that pool of potential purchasers creates a market opportunity. The latter can attract investors who will finance the development of the product, which can be expected to be very expensive. The development of software, not to mention such requiring the current frontiers of artificial intelligence to be pushed forward, relies on talented coders and programmers, who command high salaries.
Without the prospect of profit, there will be no financing and no product. Without a clear plan for product development financing, wishing for that product is only that: wishful thinking.
Pro ses, who cannot afford a lawyer, and who mostly have a low level of education and even less understanding of Information Technology research and development, are not the ones who will provide the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars needed to develop this product. Nor will pro ses wait perhaps years to derive a benefit from their investment, long after their cases will have been decided…did this realistic long-term prospect dampen your own enthusiasm for the development of this product?
This means that the request for financing must be addressed to venture capitalists who invest in high technology and have the patience necessary for it to become marketable and produce any profit.

B. References for further reading because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
See a more detailed proposal for this advanced and innovative legal IT product and its commercial application and potential at *>jur:131§b; OL:42, 60.
On how to audit judges without using auditing software, see *>OL:274, 284, 304.

C. The more pressing objective of turning judicial wrongdoing into a key issue of the mid-term elections and national public hearings
The problem of unaccountable wrongdoing judges cannot be solved by merely replacing an allegedly lone rogue judge on a folly of his or her own with another judicial candidate of the same ilk, whom the same politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, confirm or appoint to a judgeship and thereafter hold unaccountable as another one of ‘our men and women on the bench’.
By analyzing the statements of the judges of a court and a judiciary, the product will provide results evidencing the nature, routineness, and gravity(*>jur:21§§1-3) of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>OL:154¶3). This will show that the judiciaries themselves have become wrongdoing institutions.
However, effectively preventing, detecting, and punishing institutionalized judicial wrongdoing requires far-reaching judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). Such reform is today unrealistic because it would require upsetting fundamentally the established power game between judges and politicians.
The needed judicial reform can only become indispensable and inevitable by first exposing judiciaries as safe havens for wrongdoers(*>jur:149§4) so that a national public informed thereof becomes so outraged as to turn that issue into a key one of the 2018 primaries and mid-term election campaigns and compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to hold nationally televised public hearings on the issue.
The judicial auditing software product is not a strategy for bringing about such judicial reform. Rather, it is a valuable tool for gaining a competitive advantage in one’s own case(^†>OL2:578).
By contrast, the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy and attainment of its concrete, realistic, and feasible intermediate objectives are reasonably calculated means for judicial reform. Hence, it is they who should constitute the focus of attention and effort of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries.
Through that strategy and objectives, the Advocates can create the circumstances necessary for an informed and outraged We the People to render far-reaching, transformative judicial reform unavoidable by politicians. Only the People, as the sovereign source of political power and master of all public servants, have enough power to achieve judicial reform of that kind and degree(^†>OL2:581).
By joining forces to implement that strategy and attain its objectives, Advocates can become nationally recognized as a grateful People’s Champions of Justice.

D. An offer to present the proposals for a judicial auditing software product and judicial reform
I offer to present for free this auditing product and judicial reform proposals either at a video conference or here in New York City.
If the presentation venue is outside NYC, the organizer must cover the cost of finding and using an adequate venue, promoting the event to attract an audience, and providing presentation equipment as well as paying in advance my transportation, room and board, and presentation materials, and making a commitment to covering my incidental expenses.
It is the organizer’s investment in the presentation that will ensure its interest in its success; otherwise, the aphorism applies: What is received for free and can be dropped at no cost is not appreciated. I do not want to travel to make a presentation only to find out that nothing has been prepared at all or appropriately and that I am left out in the open holding the bag of expenses.
Let the organizer rely on the quality of this article and my study of judges and their judiciaries*^† to gauge the expected quality of my presentation and my interest in ensuring that it surpasses expectations.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Joining forces to effectively inform the public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing, which is enabled by their secrecy and probably by their interception of the communications among their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

By

NOTE ON FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

A. Pervasive secrecy infects the Federal Judiciary with wrongdoing

1. Secrecy pervades the Federal Judiciary: It holds all its adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors, and holds no press conferences(*>jur:27§e). Secrecy spares judges of scrutiny and allays their inhibitions about disregarding due process and equal protection requirements, and abusing their power for their own benefit. It constitutes a circumstance enabling(*>OL:190¶¶1-7) them to commit wrongdoing as their institutionalized way of doing business(jur:49§4).

2. Secrecy also enables judges to engage in coordinated wrongdoing, such as would be required to intercept the communications of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries(§B infra). If your boss could hide under the same level of secrecy, would you reasonably fear that he or she would do wrong ever more gravely, even if thereby he or she harmed you?

NOTE: The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

B. Is there interception of our emails? How to find out

3. In Volume II(^†>OL2:567) and not downloadable separately as well as hereunder is the article on joining forces to seize the opportunity presented by Trump’s chaos to implement nationally the inform and outrage strategy(§C infra) for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy. That article also accompanied this one in my latest email.

a. Such seizing is the opposite of prosecuting separately a personal, local case, which is ineffective for the prosecuting party and brings no progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone reforming their judiciaries.

4. My emails elicit reply emails. I make every effort to acknowledge receipt of emails sent to me, although I cannot afford the effort and time to comment individually on each email that I receive. However, that intended two-way exchange of emails raises a troubling question:

5. How is it possible that readers who take the time to contact me to show their appreciation for my articles and make the effort to share with me their ideas, and to whom I gratefully write back, hardly ever contact me again?

6. That does not make sense at all. It constitutes conduct inconsistent with precedent. It need not be their conduct that is to blame. Rather…

7. Is there a third party intercepting our communications, in general, and those among Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, in particular, with the purpose of foreclosing our forming an effective team for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy? See the statistical study pointing to probable cause to believe that there is(*>OL:19fn2 >‡>ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C).

1. IT experts can investigate whether judges misuse their networks to intercept their critics’ communications

8. Experts in information technology (IT), including Advocates with advanced IT knowledge and appropriate hard- and software, can find out whether there is interception and, if so, whether it can be traced back to those who have the greatest interest in preventing our exercise to their detriment of our 1^st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:130fn268), namely, judges.

9. IT experts(*>OL:346¶131; OL2:396§3) can investigate whether the interception is conducted by the judiciary, particularly the Federal Judiciary, misusing its national and advanced computer network. The latter is composed of each federal court computer system and runs the huge document filing and retrieving system PACER, the acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records; https://www.pacer.gov/.

2. A quid pro quo for, and financial benefits from, interception

10. The Judiciary can intercept communications either alone or with the assistance of any of the surveillance agencies in exchange for its federal judges’ approving up to 100% of the agencies’ secret requests for secret orders of secret surveillance(*>OL:5fn7).

11. The Judiciary can also misuse its and the surveillance agencies’ networks for the transfer for judges’ benefit of assets between disclosed and hidden financial accounts(*>jur:65§§1-3; 102§§a,b; 105fn213b).

12. If interception under judges’ auspices of Advocates’ communications were taking placed and revealed, public outrage would be profound and national, and that not only because it is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(*>OL:5a/fn13) and would be committed precisely by the public officers sworn to uphold the law.

3. Contents-based interception as opposed to only collection of metadata

13. Such interception would also be outrageous because aimed at preventing our communications due to their judge-criticizing contents, thus involving judges in denying our constitutional rights and abusing their power in self-interest.

14. Contents-based interception is qualitatively very different from an intelligence and surveillance agency, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), collecting ‘metadata’, which would involve only the recording of the email addresses used and the time and place of the communications, without reading the emails, never mind preventing their delivery.

15. Contents-based interception of Advocates’ communications cannot be explained away as action by a third party “in the interest of national security”, for there is no evidence whatsoever that our criticism of judges’ wrongdoing endangers “national security”.

16. It follows that the revelation of interception by judges or at their behest(^†>OL2:525§H) would provoke national outrage graver than that arising from Edward Snowden revealing that NSA was conducting dragnet collection of metadata of millions of people’s phone calls, e.g., phone numbers and time and duration of calls, but without listening to their conversations.

17. If IT experts determined that there is such unconstitutional and power-abusive self-interested interception by judges of communications among the public, in general, and their critics therein, in particular, they would make a national name for themselves.

18. In the process, the IT experts would significantly advance our inform and outrage strategy by providing either evidence that judges engage in wrongdoing, probable cause to believe that they do, or “the appearance of their impropriety”(*>jur68fn123a).

C. Implementing the inform and outrage strategy by joining in sharing and posting the article; and precedent for its success

19. Our strategy for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing seeks to inform the public about, and so to outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing(^†>OL2:449§B, 461§1) as to cause the public to insert that issue in the national debate and the 2018 primaries and general election campaigns, and make that issue a decisive one for voters as well as politicians.

20. We all can participate in implementing that strategy if we disseminate this article and the one below while seizing the opportunity that Trump’s chaos opens for exposing judges’ wrongdoing. Share these articles with your friends and relatives and post it on social media as widely as possible. We need Advocates to Take action!

1. Precedent for succeeding in stripping judges of their secrecy and holding them accountable

21. Our joint and well-organized effort can be effective: Judges and politicians can stop some of us by denying our rights and intercepting our communications, but they cannot stop all of us, much less do so simultaneously.

22. There is precedent for success. Think of the model offered by the Tea Party. In fewer than 10 years, its grassroots members spread their message and managed to dominate national politics. They were disciplined enough to concentrate all their efforts on one single issue with national appeal: taxes. That is what Tea stands for: Taxed Enough Already.

23. Even millennial impossibles have been overcome by people who would not cease taking action until the “impossibles” were replaced by opposite realities: For thousands of years:

a. only landed white men could vote;

b. only the sons of the rich could get educated;

c. only the wealthy had access to medical treatment;

d. women could neither vote nor hold office;

e. African-Americans and other ethnic groups were enslaved;

f. employees were held in virtual enslavement by abusive employers wielding power of arbitrary firings from their business;

g. a landlord could evict tenants from his home into the street for any and no reason; etc.

24. Changing those ‘facts of life’ constituted millennial impossibles. But they gave way to the realities of today because some people kept taking action against the injustice of privilege and the abuse of the powerful.

25. We too can take action jointly to change the millennial unaccountability and secrecy of judges by asserting our status as We the People, the masters of all public servants, and our right to hold judicial public servants accountable for discharging the duty for which we hired them, namely, to apply the law to us and themselves fairly and impartially.

26. In “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172), No Wrongdoer is beyond accountability in a safe haven Above The Law.

D. Massive dissemination can lead to nationally televised hearings that boost the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing

27. Cicadas are grasshopper-like insects that ensure their survival by overwhelming number of them making a shrill creaking noise at mating time.

28. We too can survive judges’ interception of our communications and make attention-grabbing noise by massively disseminating this article, the one below, and my other ones, all of which surpass any personal, local case by dealing with wrongdoing of national scope.

29. Our massive dissemination can marry conviction and action. The offspring is national outrage that causes the public to insert the judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing issue in the national debate and the mid-term elections.

30. Dissemination can be boosted by becoming a member of yahoo- and googlegroups(§E infra): One email sent to a group of which one is a member is automatically distributed to all its members.

1. Nationally televised hearings on judicial’ wrongdoing

31. The massive dissemination of these articles through sharing, emailing to groups, and posting on social media can pave the way for the most powerful means of communication: nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing. They can expose before a national public judicial wrongdoing’s nature(*>jur:5§3), routineness(*>jur:28§3), gravity(*>OL:154¶3), and the harm in fact that it inflicts on litigants and the rest of the public whom judges abusively and for their own benefit(*>OL:173¶93) deprive of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives.

a. Congressional hearings

32. Such hearings can be held by Congress, like the one held by the Senate to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey on June 8. It has been estimated that some 20 million people followed it live; to them must be added all those who have since watched on demand its recording.

b. Media hearings

33. But there is also an unprecedented type of hearings that we call for: nationally televised hearings organized by a board of national media outlets in the public interest as well as in their own competitive and commercial interest. They can be held across the country by panels of prominent investigative journalists, legal affairs reporters, newscasts anchors, publishers, and members of schools of journalism, law, information technology, and business, including students elected by their classmates and dutybound to report back to them.

34. These media hearings can generate the critical mass of outrage needed for judicial reform. They can serve the purpose of “…Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(¶2 supra). Thereby they can have a continuing effect, so to speak, a ‘successor’ over time.

35. Moreover, the media hearings can become a mechanism for a measure of direct democracy that bypasses a dysfunctional, partisan, and discredited Congress. They can not only take the pulse of the country, but also give a voice to its people to express how they want their representatives, that is, their public servants with legislative duties, to work for them rather than for their own partisan benefit and their permanence in power.

36. Indeed, the nationally televised public hearings can enable We the People to assert our status as the source of all political power, entitled to tell our legislative servants what and how to legislate on our behalf.

c. Hearing findings as the basis for judicial reform

37. The findings of the congressional and media hearing will provide the factual basis necessary to convince the public and politicians that since judges are held unaccountable by themselves and politicians(^†>OL2:567§B), only judicial reform of a scope that today would appear unrealistic, and millennially has been held “impossible”, can ensure that judges apply and abide by the rule of law, e.g.:

a. Judicial reform through the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability that publicly receive and process complaints against judges; and to that end, exercise power of subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and indictment; and hold judges liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(*>jur:158§§6-8).

E. Maximizing the joint effort to inform and outrage the public by emailing my articles to yahoo- and googlegroups

38. Group membership and distribution are multipliers of the effort of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and other email senders to reach as many people as possible. A list of yahoo- and googlegroups to which we can email this article and the one below on the opportunity opened by Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure is at ^†>OL2:433. A group of Advocates can take charge of dividing the list among themselves to email the article more easily and faster. To become a member follow these simple instructions:

a. Place only seven group addresses at a time and only in the To: line of your email; otherwise, your email will not be distributed. These measures take into account restrictions adopted by group programs to ward off spam to their groups.

b. A reply from each group will inform you that your email to it was not delivered because you are not a member. Scroll down and copy the email address intended for membership requests, which has this format: Name.of.group-subscribe [or -owner]@yahoogroups.com –or googlegroups, as the case may be- and replace with it the address in the To: line.

c. Likewise, replace the text in the Subject: line with ‘Membership request’.

d. Another reply email from that group will let you know whether your request for membership in it was granted and, if so, that you can start emailing that group. You must replace the address in the To: line with the normal address for emailing the group, e.g., Name.of.group@yahoogroups.com.

e. Every email sent to the group will be distributed to you too. Receiving them is the price to pay for having your emails to the group distributed to all its members. But to find out whether anybody replied to your email, simply copy part of the subject line used in the outgoing email and paste it in the search box of your email client, i.e., the email program from which you sent your email.

f. If you receive replies to my articles, please forward them to me.

F. Division of labor to obtain the rosters of attorneys and invite them to join in the strategy and the dissemination

39. I appreciate a reader’s suggestion about contacting the attorneys on the official state and bar association attorney rosters to invite them to join in implementing the strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy, and disseminating the article.

a. Attorneys are indispensable to taking on successfully unaccountable judges, whether in their own turf, the courts, where they disregard the rules and the law as they want(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), or outside it.

b. Pro ses can do an enormous amount of necessary work, but they cannot improvise themselves as lawyers, much less match their legal knowledge with the judges’.

c. To beat judges at their own game, we need the best and the brightest of attorneys; otherwise, we will not be taken seriously, making rookie legal mistakes one after the other.

40. Division of labor is a basic operational principle of any organization. Hence, I would appreciate it if a reader would access those rosters -to the extent that they are available at all-, harvest the attorneys’ email addresses listed therein, and send them to me. Perhaps the reader could take the leadership in forming a group of Advocates that volunteer to do that work with you.

41. Good ideas are costless and welcome; but taking action is, though harder, always more effective.

G. Sunshine can disinfect the Judiciary of its wrongdoing and wither impossibles

42. Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Its light must be shone on the Judiciary to disinfect it of its secrecy and the wrongdoing that breeds in it. When it enlightens people with outrageous information, they can be heated up to turn millennial impossibles into opposite realities.

43. Only the largest number of informed and outraged people, We the People, can force the holding of nationally televised public hearings by politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office; and by the media, lest they miss the opportunity to attract a bigger audience, sell pricier ads, and take advantage of Trump’s chaos.

44. Hence the need to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform, and overcome any interception of our communications by massively disseminating my articles, which deal with a national problem, not a personal, local case, through yahoo- and googlegroups, and social media, and by sharing them with friends, family, and attorneys.

45. By joining the effort to inform the public and outrage it into action, you too can become nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its articles series thus:
http://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

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

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

From ineffectively pursuing a personal, local case, to joining forces so as to turn judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a key 2018 mid-term election issue

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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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

NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” and other formatting oddities in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C), this email has them, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

A. On the audience of my articles and my respect for all readers

1. The main audience of my articles is composed of professionals. They are indispensable because they have the knowledge and skills necessary to take on the Federal Judiciary’s mighty, life-tenured judges, so powerful that they dare suspend nationwide two executive orders of a president as combative and outspoken as President Trump.

a. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the models for their state counterparts. If Advocates of Honest Judiciaries manage to set in motion their exposure, it will be easier to launch the exposure of state judiciaries and judges.

2. To attract those professionals, I myself must appear to have the knowledge and skills of a professional. These are revealed by the grammatical correctness of my articles, the meaningful contents and logical soundness of my argument, and the clean and well-organized presentation of the text. That is what I have endeavored to exhibit in my emails and my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus

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

* Volume 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

3. This objective is defeated by dumbing down my articles. No professional is going to risk attracting the retaliatory wrath of judges by following the invitation to join forces to expose them with a person who does not know how to write and who has nothing to say that is novel and convincing.

4. In addition, it is dangerous to follow the suggestion that I dumb down my articles. Nobody likes to be treated as a dummy. If a lawyer dumbs down his way of talking to, and what he tells, the jury, he shows disrespect for their intelligence. The jury is most likely to resent it and make him pay a hefty price. An article for the general public that is dumbed down is likely to elicit the same resentful and punishing reaction…and it certainly loses the professional audience.

B. Neither local corruption nor local, personal cases should cause us to miss taking advantage of the opportunity in Trump’s chaos to expose judges’ wrongdoing nationally

5. There is strength in numbers. If we, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, break down our support for the common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by concentrating our strength on local and personal matters, we will achieve only as much as we have up to now: nothing.

a. Pro ses, who know about the judiciary only through the judge in their personal, local case are not in a position to claim that the whole judiciary is corrupt and that all judges are wrongdoers. .

b. Would you dare claim that all medical doctors and nurses are hacks because those who treated you did not do succeed in restoring your health? Would that be fair? Would it be fair to claim that all people in your racial, ethnic, and religious class are bad people because some of them are thieves, drug-dealers, and terrorists? No, it would not be fair.

c. Accordingly, pro ses need to do their homework: They must first learn about:

1) the circumstances that allow judges to engage in wrongdoing, to wit, unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness;

2) the most insidious motive to do wrong: money!, lots of money!(*>jur:190¶¶1-7); and

3) the evidence showing that they engage in a pattern of wrongdoing(^†>OL2:546).

d. Those are (blue text references) to volumes I and II, respectively, of my above-mentioned study. It is based on my extensive professional and original research, analysis, and writing on judges and their judiciaries, and their reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). You can help yourself and your case by reading them and sharing them with others.

6. What the group in New Jersey is doing is of no interest whatsoever to what the group in Chicago is doing against local politicians and the guardianship abusers that they protect, just as what the group in Los Angeles is doing in exposing judges’ being paid an extra salary by the city council is of no interest to the group in Florida that is trying to expose collusion between bar members and judges. When was the last time that you read the case of an Advocate in any state other than yours…or just any case other than yours?

C. Joining forces to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

7. Unless we think strategically and proceed jointly, we are going to miss the best opportunity that we have ever had to bring judicial wrongdoing to the attention of the national public and thereby the public of the several states. As explained in the article below, this opportunity has been opened by Trump, who twice dare criticize federal judges.

a. When indictments concerning, among other things, the Russia probe start making their way to the courts and despite Trump’s invocation of executive privilege, judges uphold search and seizure subpoenas and order members of his administration to produce documents, Trump is likely to rail against them.

b. That will present a unique opportunity for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to cause Trump to look for support and donations from The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System and for us to cause The Dissatisfied to make their grievances known and demand from politicians running in the 2018 mid-term primaries and general election campaign that they call for nationally televised congressional public hearings on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, similar to the nationally televised Comey hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, June 8.

c. The hearings are necessary to expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and demonstrate the profound judicial reform required to prevent, detect, and punish their wrongdoing.

d. A public so informed and further outraged by the hearings will compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake the judicial reform that they have always resisted as part of their protection of the people that they recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed to office in the judiciary.

8. This is the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. Trump’s chaos opens the opportunity to implement it.

1. From Advocates, to The Dissatisfied, to the mid-term election, and to We the People

9. The implementation of the strategy requires that we inform thereof the Advocates so that they join the effort to inform The Dissatisfied, and all contribute to turning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a decisive national issue of the mid-term elections and thereby inform most cost-effectively the rest of We the People.

10. The People are the only constituency numerous and strong enough to compel politicians to hold the indispensable national congressional public hearings on the wrongdoing by ‘their men and women on the bench’ and thereafter undertake judicial reform that recognizes the right of the People to hold all their servants, including judicial public servants, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing (see the article below and at ^†>OL2:567).

11. Pressure on politicians to hold those hearings in Congress may have to be built up. This is the rationale for calling for unprecedented nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform organized by the national media in the public interest and held by a pioneering, potentially trend-setting board of prominent investigative journalists, court reporters, newscast anchors, and schools of journalism, law, business, and information technology.

a. Media executives will only organize such hearings if they realize that there is an audience large enough to justify both taking the risk involved in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and expecting a commercial reward by attracting advertisers interested in reaching the largest audience possible to whom to offer their goods and services.

b. The media have the technical means and reach necessary to become the largest disseminator of The Dissatisfied’s complaints about judges; their capacity to multiply our judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform effort is unmatched. They are indispensable to our success. Thinking strategically, we can turn the media into our ally by our pursuit of an objective that is harmonious with theirs: the largest possible audience.

D. Joining forces and focusing them on implementing the inform and outrage strategy

12. Therefore, I respectfully invite you to organize a presentation on the inform and outrage strategy and its implementation to your group by me in person and, if here in New York City, free, or if elsewhere, then at your group’s expense; otherwise, at a video conference.

13. The article below provides a preview of the presentation. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read it and have your group read and discuss it.

14. To attract others to the presentation organized by you, you may share and post the article as widely as possible.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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.
* 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, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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

An invitation to take advantage of the opportunity that President Trump’s “drama” offers to participate in a for-profit business to lead The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to turn judicial wrongdoing and reform into a national issue and a decisive one of the 2018 mid-term election: Thinking strategically and becoming 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
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
non-commercially, in its entirety,
without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and
indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

A. Why you are invited to join forces to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. President Trump’s presidency is pervaded by what Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell charitably called “drama” when he said, “We could do well with less drama from the White House”. Since Trump was only a presidential candidate, many commentators have used a more poignant term to describe the product of his personal conduct and managerial style: chaos(*>OL2:488¶1).

2. Last year, I took a different approach when, thinking strategically(^†>OL2:416), I described Trump’s chaos, not as a destructive force, but rather as an opportunity to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) and advocate judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). I wrote(^†>OL2:488¶8):

Chaos Candidate Trump has added; more he will cause. But if he can harness his chaos and that of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, he can use chaos as the force that unrelentingly and unmitigatedly exposes the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(*>jur:65§B). Trump’s chaos can subject judicial public servants to accountability to their masters, We the People.

*^†The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are contained in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

1. Knowledge prompts duty

3. People like you, who read this website, are likely to, and many who contact me definitely, have superior knowledge about the judiciary and its judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to its prescription in theory. That knowledge imposes on you a higher duty of care of judicial integrity: Knowledge commands action for the common good; otherwise, the knower is liable to the charge ‘you knew about that harm to us but did nothing to warn us’. Thereby the knower becomes an accessory after the harm done and before the next harm encouraged and facilitated by his or her silence(*>jur:88§§a-c).

B. The facts and tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. The facts

4. Judges cannot hold other judges accountable who have been their peers, colleagues, and friends for years and will continue to be for more. They know about each other’s wrongdoing and implicitly shout at each other, “If you take me down, I’ll bring you with me!”, e.g., by ‘trading up to a higher fish’ in plea bargain(*>jur:69¶9). For holding them unaccountable today, they expect to be similarly treated by them in future. Their conduct is determined by the principle of reciprocally assured unaccountability required by mutually dependent survival(^†>OL2:466¶11; 468§A).

5. Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm for judgeships people of their ilk, who know how the power game is played. Thereafter they cannot turn against the very people whom they vetted and for whose honesty and competence they vouched by investigating them for being dishonest and incompetent, never mind find that they engaged in wrongdoing(*>OL:191¶¶3,4; OL:265§2). The appointer cannot indict his appointee without indicting himself.

6. They also hold judges unaccountable for fear of their awesome power to retaliate by, among other things, declaring even the key pieces of politicians’ legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17). Such declaration prevents the fulfilment of their key electoral promises and diminishes the accomplishments on which to run for reelection(*>jur:22¶31).

7. Judges, held unaccountable by themselves and politicians, are irresistibly attracted to the material, professional, and social benefits(*>OL:173¶93) that they can grab risklessly by abusing their powers(^†>OL2:267§4, 505). In the absence of any adverse consequence, wrongdoing thrives rampant. Theirs is shown in detail by the facts and statistical analysis discussed at *>jur:§§1-3.

2. The tenet

8. The tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform is implicit in the principle of “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172):

a. We the People are the sovereign source of political power. We are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom we hire to serve us. We are entitled to hold all of them accountable.

b. In particular, We are entitled to hold judges:

1) accountable for discharging their duty to ensure due process and equal protection of the law, and exercising in our interest the enormous power entrusted to them over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives; and

2) liable for abusing that power for their own material, professional, and social benefit(*>OL:173¶93); and for compensating the victims of their breach of duty and abuse of power.

3) After exposing the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing, We will be in a position to determine how and how far to exercise our right to detect, prevent, and punish it by reforming judges’ conduct in practice and in theory(*>jur:158§§6-8).

C. The thesis: Trump’s chaos opens a realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform because it will suck in judges and enable The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to become a constituency

9. A realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform results from Trump’s chaos. In brief, every disputed issue in our country ends up before judges, whether it is the ban on Muslim immigration, Obamacare, abortion, gun ownership, same sex marriage, voter identification and voting districting, campaign financing, etc. The more this is the case and stirs up national debate, the more we can highlight the political importance and grievances of the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Trump will need and appeal to them; and we will advocate for them and help them become a self-aware and assertive constituency.

10. Accordingly, Trump’s conduct and policies will end up in court and even in the Supreme Court, in connection with, for instance:

a. the revised ban on Muslim immigration;

b. deportation of immigrants;

c. the probe into the interference of Russia in the past presidential election;

d. the invocation of presidential privilege to quash subpoenas for Trump’s tapes of conversations in the White House and to prevent production of White House staff to testify before congressional committees and the special counsel;

e. obstruction of justice;

f. Trump’s removal from office under the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution on a declaration essentially of his mental disability;

g. conflict of official and personal business interests;

h. the emoluments clause of the Constitution;

I. timing and corrupt purpose of a presidential pardon;

j. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s refusal to produce subpoenaed documents and Congress’s potentially holding him in contempt;

k. the scope of the Russia probe and the powers of Former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct it as special counsel;

l. Mueller’s eventual firing just as Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Preet Bharara; and

m. the expected White House shake-up by Trump, which may provoke ‘spit and tell’ retaliation by those fired, with him countering by ordering the Department of Justice to prosecute them for having leaked information;

n. etc., etc., etc.

11. No doubt, Trump’s chaos will spin a whirlwind of lawsuits. Through them, Trump will not only focus national attention on judges through media reporting, but also heighten tension with them by doing what he has already done, thus causing again Democrats as well as Republicans to react either in support of him or of judges’ independence: He will disparage “so-called judges” who in his view treat him “very unfairly” because for one reason or another they are biased against him; and he will feel justified in diminishing them because, as his Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller stated critically and he approved:

“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government”(^†>OL2:527).

12. Subsequently, Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, revealed a concurrent sentiment when he stated, thus outraging many:

“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific [U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson for the District of Honolulu, Hawaii] can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power [to issue his revised ban on Muslim immigration].”

13. That judiciary and its judges Trump is bound to attack in an effort to survive his own chaos. Thereby he will cause the judges to react by applying the judges’ unwritten ‘canon’ of conduct that Then-Judge, Now-Justice Neil J. Gorsuch enunciated when he, though nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court, commented on his “so-called judge” derogatory remark about District Judge James Robart for having suspended nationwide his ban on Muslim immigration: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(^†>OL2:527).

14. That ‘canon’ describes conduct that is not determined by reflection upon principles based on the law, professional duty, or social norms grounded in ethical consideration. It expresses the judges’ gang mentality. That is the way the gang survives in the hood. From the point of view of ‘we against the rest of the world’, every act of every non-gang member is a potential deadly threat to every member, their turf, and their material privileges and ‘respect’ in the hood, earned through sheer abuse of power and brutal retaliation. When the act is done by none other than the president of the enemy gang, the gang’s reaction reverts to its tribal, primitive, atavistic origin: ‘Us against the savage animal at the entrance of the cave’. The gang versus tyrannosaurus rex. Their fight to the death is preprogrammed by the survival instinct. It is in the nature of savages, gangs, and judges.

15. By Trump picking a fight with the judges, he will render realistic the opportunity for us to make him and his top officers aware of the significant moral and electoral support and donations that he can receive by appealing to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Simultaneously, we can appeal to The Dissatisfied as their advocates and organize them strategically to assert their First Amendment right “to petition for a redress of their grievances”(*>jur:130fn268) against unaccountable judges and their consequent riskless wrongdoing.

16. That is how we seize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform: by applying the principle of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

17. hat calls on us to identify our main enemy: It is the one that has abusively taken our property, liberty, and rights, and can still wreck our lives by bullying us at will: the gang. T-Rex will be gone sooner or later. Before he does, we need his jaws to chase the gang out of the cave so that we can hold it liable for what it took from us and subject it to us: We the People.

D. The need to join forces to realize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

18. We can ever more effectively take advantage of the opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy if we join forces by engaging in harmonious activities aimed thereat and even coordinating them. Concrete examples of how each of us and all of us can do so given our respective status are provided in the next section.

19. However, to take full advantage of this opportunity we must join forces in a more organic framework that allows and at once requires us to think and proceed strategically. For such junction, I have developed a for-profit business plan. It is available upon request and discussed in an earlier article hereunder (also at ^†>OL2:560), which is followed by its Table of Contents to provide an overview of it(^†>OL2:563).

20. In synthesis, the plan calls for raising the investment capital necessary to set up an office and form a multidisciplinary academic and business team of highly competent and responsible professionals capable of rendering an ambitious array of judicial wrongdoing and reform advocacy services(jur:128§4) to paying clients(jur:119§1) -e.g., representation, litigation, investigation, seminars and courses, advanced information technology research and development of software for auditing judicial decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing- and in the public interest –e.g., submission and access to databases of complaints against judges and research materials, analysis of court statistics, how-to articles.

21. Whether by joining forces through harmonious and coordinated activities, or by running the for-profit business, we will be able to pursue simultaneously two interests that are consistent with each other:

a. to work for the public good by making progress in the realization of the noble ideal of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(^*>OL:5fn6); and

b. to advance our careers by making nationally recognized names as well as earning tangible, valuable rewards(*>OL:3§6), eventually having the option of earning our living as members of the business.

E. The initial harmonious and coordinated activities that we can pursue to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

22. We can from now on engage in the following illustrative activities to inform the public about judges’ wrongdoing and so to outrage(^†>OL2:461§1) the public at judges that it is stirred up to demand that incumbent politicians and those who will soon run in the 2018 mid-term primaries and main campaign, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office(^†>OL2:517¶16), denounce judges’ wrongdoing and conduct or call for nationally televised congressional public hearings -like those being held by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey and others- on people’s own and third parties’ experience at the hands of unaccountable judges who engage in consequent riskless wrongdoing.

23. We all can strive to insert that issue among the core ones of the national debate and the mid-term election so that being either for exposing or for covering judges’ wrongdoing is a decisive choice for incumbents -including Trump and his decision to campaign for or against somebody- all candidates, and voters(*>OL:356). To that end, we can do the following:

1. The media members

24. A nationally known court reporter and a newspaper editor(^†>OL2:511) can:

a. investigate(*>OL:194§E), interview, and write articles on the issue(^†>OL2:483);

b. promote its investigation(*>OL:344; 374; ^†>OL2:524) at journalism schools(*>Lsch:23) or by individual(*>jur:xlvi§H) students or those taking a team reporting class;

c. facilitate the organization by students of a multimedia public presentation(*>jur:97§1) as part of a course(cf. *>dcc:31);

d. induce talkshow hosts(*>OL:222§1) to hold a weekly or monthly show(*>OL:146¶1) and even form a coalition(^†>OL:113, 142) for judicial wrongdoing exposure, which can become a powerhouse of American politics, just as Roger Ailes developed Fox News into a conservative politics force to be reckoned with;

e. produce a documentary(^†>OL2:464, 536, 537);

f. call for, and produce an unprecedented and potentially trend-setting nationally public hearings held in the public interest by a board of national media outlets, prominent court reporters, editors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and schools of law, journalism, business, and information technology;

g. thereby winning a Pulitzer Prize or commanding a higher salary with the same or a different employer;

h. see to it that a series of my articles is published; and

I. that I teach a related course at a school(cf. *>dcc:1, 23);

j. am invited to make a presentation(*>OL:54) to their colleagues or at a school(*>OL:197§G); and

k. am interviewed.

2. The law professors

25. A preeminent emeritus law professor(^†>OL2:542, 543) and a tenured law professor(*>jur:xi) at an Ivy League law school can:

a. draw the attention of deans(^†>OL2:539, 541) and the legal community(^†>OL2:453) to the issue, and thereby become courageous academic figures that pioneer the study of judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to in theory; cf. Professor John Banzhaf III of George Washington Law School taught a public integrity class that successfully led three of his students to sue Former U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for having taken kickbacks and bribes while governor of Maryland, which he was forced to pay into the state treasury with interest;

b. organize the first academic conference ever on the issue(*>jur:97§1; *>OL:253), to be held during the 2018 primaries;

c. innovate on the role of law schools to turn them into independent, apolitical entities that instill in students the moral strength and develop their skills to hold judges accountable(^†>OL2:452), thus developing an academic niche for the school and a practice area niche for students;

d. promote the creation of an institute of judicial accountability and reform advocacy(*>jur:130§5);

e. apply their influence to allow me to present(*>OL:197§G) to their students, faculty, and student organizations(*>Lsch:1, 2):

f. see to it that I teach a related course(*>OL:60, 42; dcc:1, 23); and they can

g. request of law journals and book publishers(*>jur:x) that they publish my articles(^†>OL2:483) and study(supra ¶2) of judges and their judiciaries.

3. The politician

26. A local politician(^†>OL2:487) can:

a. adopt the issue to appeal to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, placing the issue at the core of her platform and turning it into her brand to enter the national scene and become a national leader that runs for national office; and

b. invite me to address her supporters at her rallies and fund-raising events (*>OL:46, 51).

4. The members of courts

27. A member of a court, even a judge (*>OL:180), can:

a. share with me on a confidential, Deep Throat (*>jur:106§c) basis inside information on judges’ conduct, individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and operation of their judiciaries (^†>OL2:468); and

b. eventually become a whistleblower and end up:

1) on the cover of Time Magazine as the Person of the Year(*>jur:iv/fn.iv) and

2) as the main character in a blockbuster movie or bestseller, like All the President’s Men(*>jur:4¶¶10-14), for her courageous service in We the People’s interest(*>OL:4¶7) and practical support to the rule of law principle that Nobody is Above the Law,

3) thus earning the national merit and name recognition to become this generation’s version of the historic Watergate figure of Deep Throat(*>jur:106§c). Why should a president be investigated and leaked on but not a judge?

5. The members of district attorneys’ offices

28. A member of a district attorney’s office can

a. provide me confidentially inside information on:

1) how the assistant district attorneys (ADAs) perform in connivance(*>jur:L; ix/c-e) with judges to avoid the latter’s retaliation and abusive exercise of power by making capricious and arbitrary rulings and orders(*>Lsch:17§C), whereby ADAs try to preserve and enhance their “winning scores” and chances of a promotion;

2) how ADAs’ choice of both cases to prosecute and manner of prosecution is influenced by the district attorney’s dominating goal of securing his reelection to ensure a tenure at least as long as that of his predecessor; and

b. manage to pass on to defendants and other litigants the information on how they can work together in small groups to audit(*>OL:274) judges’ decisions and other writings in search of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:282, 304, 308); and refer them to me for a free of charge seminar on auditing judges;

c. eventually becoming a whistleblower(supra §4) and gaining enough public recognition and gratitude to run for district attorney; and

d. use his or her connections to cause community and grassroots organizations to invite me to present the issue in person or at a video conference.

F. Work through which we can have a consequential and historic impact here and abroad

29. By thinking strategically(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D), we can seize the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers to launch the process of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. We can even take advantage of the opportunity to set in motion the development of a Tea Party-like, single-issue civic movement(*>jur:164§9) that seeks to hold judges accountable through, among other things, citizen boards of judicial accountability(*>jur:158§§6-8). This out-of-court strategy(OL2:461§1) is justified by the incapacity of judges to hold their peers accountable and of politicians their appointees(supra §B.1).

30. This would constitute progress of historic(*>jur:xLv§G) proportions by We the People in asserting our status: We are the source of all political power. We are the masters of all our public servants. We have the right to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. That assertion will express the awareness of self-identity and power of the movement: The People’s Sunrise(*>OL:201§J).

31. As with so many socio-economic innovations that started in America and set the example for the rest of the world, our analysis, business plan, and experience can travel abroad. We can take action in our country that can reach The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System in other countries. We can inspire them with the ideal of Equal Justice Under Law and share with them our means to advance its realization. We can set a trend that makes them aware of who they are: We the Peoples of the World, asserting our universal right to justice and our power as masters to ensure that our servants administer it fairly and impartially according to the rule of law.

32. By initially joining forces and then developing into a well-integrated team of competent and responsible professionals ‘dedicated to a mission greater than ourselves’, our work in life can be consequential and historic. In addition to deservedly earning material and professional rewards(*>OL:3§6), we can earn the highest reputational one: We can become recognized here and abroad as the Peoples’ Champions of Justice.

G. Contact me to schedule a presentation in person or at a video conference

33. Therefore, I respectfully invite you to contact me to choose a convenient time for us to meet so that I may present to you, if here in New York City, in person, or if otherwise, at a video conference, my invitation to join forces to take advantage of the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. On that occasion, we can discuss the extent to which everyone can initially get involved and how discreetly or publicly.

34. Hence, I look forward to hearing from you. To that end, you may contact me by email sent to the following bloc of email addresses:
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com.

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.
* 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

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

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

A For-profit Business Plan for exposing how judges self-exempt from discipline by dismissing 99.83% of complaints against them, and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; and a proposal for public hearings conducted by Congress and/or a board of national media outlets on personal cases and the experience of litigants, lawyers, and others at the mercy of judges above discipline and their decisions by fiat

This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
non-commercially, in its entirety,
without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and
indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

To subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website go to:
+ New or Users >Add New

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your emails replying to my article on Judge Neil Gorsuch and his fellow judges (^†>ol2:546), and for letting me know about your projects and seeking my opinion thereon. Kindly consider the following comments on two projects that are representative of others.

† See my study of judges and their judiciaries as they perform in practice as opposed to the conduct prescribed for them in their codes of conduct and statutory rules. It 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

and

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

A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

You want to ensure that “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals” are appointed to the bench. Yet, they must also have the academic qualifications and professional experience needed to perform competently as judges so that they are acceptable to the nominators and confirmers; otherwise, you and the nominees are headed for an exercise in self-embarrassment.
The appointment of a judge, whether to the federal or a state judiciary, is a political act intended to assure that the laws enacted by the appointing party will be upheld as constitutional and interpreted as intended by their adopting party. A group like yours does not offer anything as important as that intended assurance. On the contrary, your demand for honest judges works against the interest of politicians:
Known for their double-talk and opportunism, not their principles, politicians have an interest in appointing people of their ilk, willing to play the power game. They have no use for the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.
Hence, your Washington sit-in will be an exercise in futility that will only waste the effort, time, and money of your group and cause through disappointing results an erosion of commitment.
Neither the President, a governor, nor a legislative body will ever nominate a person who is not a lawyer and a judge, or who does not have the qualifications to be a judge –Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge but was a lawyer and former dean of Harvard Law School–. The risk is too great that the lack of such qualifications may lead to public criticism of the nominee, embarrassment of the appointer, and the forced withdrawal by the nominee of his or her name.
You only need to remember the embarrassment of President George W. Bush when he nominated Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. She was roundly disapproved by even fellow Republicans as unqualified and had to withdraw herself from the nomination. Bush did not risk nominating even his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Instead, he went for a sure name, Then-Judge John Roberts, a member of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
This shows that what appears to advocates of honest judiciaries to be a good idea must be evaluated in the context of one’s resources, the facts, and other people’s interests to determine how to turn it into a reality. This calls for pragmatism enhanced by dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests underlying strategic thinking and resulting in a strategy(^†>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

Even if that circuit were broken up into two or more circuits, the judges that have been appointed for life would remain on the bench. Belonging to a smaller or a new circuit is not going to cause them to become “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals”, never mind political neutral and committed to applying only and always the rule of law. They will remain political appointees expected to rule along political lines.
That is shown by the politically motivated controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of Judges Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, nominated to the Supreme Court by Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively.
Worse yet, their respective interests favor maintaining the status quo: The politicians will not dare investigate for misconduct the judges for whose honesty they vouched, lest they indict their good judgment and vetting procedures and provoke the retaliation of all judges, for each could be investigated next. They will continue to hold them unaccountable and allow them to self-exempt from discipline, as shown by the analysis of the official statistics(ol2:546).
The judges will keep risklessly engaging in wrongdoing for their gain and convenience at the expense of everybody else.
Politicians and judges have a harmonious interest in frustrating the advocates’ conflicting interest in non-political judges. The Circuit break-up is not a strategy for judicial honesty. It is an effort that proves that in the absence of strategic thinking and its analysis of interests, there is only wishful thinking, amateurism, and improvisation that do not attain the intended objective.

C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

The first step to reform the judiciary is to show why it needs reforming: Judges abusively exempt themselves from 99.83% of complaints, are held unaccountable by their Republican and Democratic appointers, and risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3) harmful to everybody else.
For instance, circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., a mere ‘for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect’] by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(ol2:455§§B-E). These decisions are so “perfunctory”(*>jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”…in a legal system rooted in precedent –as opposed to a code of rules– to prevent arbitrariness and off-the-cuff decision-making, and promote predictability and thus, conformance by the man and woman in the street of his or her conduct to reliable legal expectations.
Circuit judges mostly affirm the decisions on appeal and deny motions raised in the appeals(ol2: 457¶26). District judges, who weigh pro se cases as 1/3 of a case and treat them accordingly(ol2: 45§B), know that most of their decisions will be affirmed pro-forma and act perfunctorily.
Their decisions, whether reasonless or cobbled together, are the ad hoc fiats of the judges of “the swamp of the Establishment”(ol2:453), for their life-appointment and in effect irremovability –only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789(jur:21§a) – make them the Establishment’s most established members.
So, We the People are at the mercy of judges who risklessly deny us due process and equal protection of the law, which are reserved for the 7% of decisions that, intended for public scrutiny, are reasoned, signed, and published.
If this information, based on official statistical facts, is made known to the national public -not just the passers-by at the time of a sit-in in D.C.-, it can outrage the People and cause them to demand that their senators and representatives, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call on Congress to conduct public hearings on the experience of the People at the hands of the judges that they hold unaccountably independent.

D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

You and other advocates should meet locally to discuss the above facts and out-of-court inform-and-outrage strategy before embarking on any trip. Even demonstrating at your courthouse has no chance at present of accomplishing anything: Your demands will not imperil legislators’ electability or even make it to the newscast; they will be ignored like those of most demonstrators.
Your focus should not be on your personal, local cases, which are of as little interest to anybody else as theirs are to you. Rather, highlight through the use of the official statistical tables accompanying the article on Judge Gorsuch and his peers^‡ how judges in your circuit abusively dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them, enabling their riskless wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) that harms and interests everybody else.
1. If your appellate attorney failed to disclose that his or her attorney’s fees would buy you a 93% chance of receiving only a reasonless 5¢ form decision, consider suing him or her for malpractice. If your doctor failed to disclose that he or she would charge you thousands of dollars for medical treatment that for 93% of patients was useless but caused 100% of them a lot of anxiety for months on end, what would you do?
Meet(cf. ol:274) with other advocates to use the table template (ol2:555) to draw up the table concerning your judges. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Gain and wield it to implement the inform-and-outrage strategy that can earn you public respect and attention, and make future demonstrations numerous and effective.
You and others can inform the public by distributing that article by email and social media and discussing it with local groups.
This will allow you to strategically pursue your and other people’s personal cases and share experiences involving wrongdoing judges by demanding that public hearings thereon be held with a view to judicial reform by Congress and/or a pioneering and potentially trendsetting entity: a board of national media outlets working in their commercial and public interest(ol2:558§§D,E).

E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

If you and your group are travelling for a demonstration to D.C. or anywhere else for free and without having to sacrifice time that you could or must use to earn a living, I would like to know how you have managed that feat. Such scenario is, of course, unrealistic.
Planning to travel there or just to demonstrate locally on a workday must have made you all realize that even the noblest objective requires effort, time, and money. Implementing any plan or strategy needs financing.
Thus, I have devised a for-profit business plan to pursue through strategic thinking the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform. Its table of contents is below. I welcome your ideas on how to raise the necessary investment capital to implement that plan. If you have any experience with Fund Me initiatives or access to individuals willing to put their money where their noble or business ideas are, I would appreciate your letting them and me know.
In this vein, I offer to present to you and your group by video conference or, upon your invitation, in person, why it is necessary and opportune to share and post widely the article that discusses judges’ official statistical facts; to implement a business plan that addresses the public harm caused by their unaccountable abuse of their power over your property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine your and everybody else’s life; and to hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, for they are not entitled to be Judges Above the Law.
Your contribution to informing We the People that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ they are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants; outraging the masters at their servants’ wrongdoing; and empowering them to hold their servants accountable can earn you the People’s recognition and turn you into their Champion of Justice.
So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

Part I. OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
their analysis points to its judges’ arbitrary handling of caseloads that denies due process and equal protection of the laws

Sections A.-E(†>ol2:454, 546)

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

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

Table of Contents of
Part II. THE BUSINESS PLAN
for raising investment capital
to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
through a for-profit business
that caters to professionals, litigants, and
The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal Systems

F. Executive Summary: Paying to acquire, and earning by providing, knowledge and services to counter judges’ power to harm by denying due process and equal protection of the laws and engaging in other wrongdoing

G. Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries: the foundation for the for-profit business of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. The publication of the study and the formats of publication

H. Dr. Cordero’s website: the storefront for the public to look in and the billboard to attract clients

I. The targeted segments of the market

1. The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

2. The market of professionals

3. Professors and students as a pool of employees

4. The market of pro ses

J. Activities to be financed to enable the offering of services

K. Formation of the team of professionals to pursue the multidisciplinary and business venture and its evolution into the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy

1. Desirable association with a prestigious academic institution from early on

2. The key members of the team or officers of the institute

3. The logistics of setting up and running the office

L. Key profit points of the business plan

M. What investors can provide in addition to investment capital

N. Conclusion: This is the most opportune time for a business intended to help “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”

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

How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

«An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

NOTE: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.–

After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9^th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9^th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!’
J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

NOTE: The file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546 and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10^th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

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

A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(^†>ol2:455).
The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(^*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

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.
* 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, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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

Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10^th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548

Line	Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10^th Cir., filed with AO¹	‘06[5]’	‘07[6]	‘08A[7]	‘08B[8]	‘09A[9]	‘09B	’10[10]	’11[11]	’12[12]	’13[13]	’14[14]	’15[15]	’16[16]	totals
1.	Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year *	2	14	7	–	0	52	18	26^♦‡	8	9	11	17	12	176
2.	Complaints Concluded					0	–
3.	Complaints Filed[17]	49	37	17	58	[18]–	73	62	64	33	59	33	37	51	573
4.	Complaint Type/Source
5.	Written/Filed by Complainants	49	37	17	58		71	61	64	33	59	33	37	51	570
6.	On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges	0	0	0	0		2	1	0	0	0	0	–	0
7.	Complainants^♦♦
8.	Prison inmates				50		47	26	37	13	27	15	22	13	250
9.	Litigants				8		23	33	19	25	25	16	11	20	180
10.	Attorneys				0		0	0	1	0	7	3	4	2	17
11.	Public Officials				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
12.	Other				0		3	2	7	0	0	0	0	4	16
13.	Judges Complained About **
14.	Circuit Judges	24	18	3	29		21	10	12	3	28	1	4	14	167
15.	District Judges	40			27		43	34	35	22	16	23	29	22	291
16.	Bankruptcy Judges	2			0		3	1	2	2	1	0	0	3	14
17.	Magistrate Judges	8	12	7	2		6	17	15	6	14	9	4	12	112
18.	Nature of Allegations
19.	Erroneous Decision				2		46	50	57	30	53	16	28	46	328
20.	Delayed Decision	1	7	4	1		5	10	1	4	7	4	6	0	50
21.	Failure to Give Reasons for Decision				0		1	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	4
22.	Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel				4		9	6	6	6	8	7	2	0	48
23.	Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney				0		7	6	7	3	6	14	4	1	48
24.	Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias	14	19	13	28		2	3	9	0	1	3	4	3	99
25.	Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney				3		13	20	21	7	14	18	5	10	111
26.	Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse)	2	4	1	0		7	4	5	1	4	10	2	3	43
27.	Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements				0		2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	3
28.	Improper Outside Income				0		0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
29.	Partisan Political Activity or Statement				0		4	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	7
30.	Acceptance of a Bribe				0		0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	3
31.	Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative				0		0	1	0	0	0	0	1	4	6
32.	Solicitation of Funds for Organization				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
33.	Violation of Other Standards				0		1	1	2	1	0	10	0	1	16
34.	Other Misconduct				57		48	23	28	14	23	0	25	40	258
35.	Disability				5		5	0	7	0	0	0	2	10	29
36.	ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
37.	Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn				0		0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	3
38.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals
39.	Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge				0		0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0
40.	Withdrawal of Petition for Review				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
41.	Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
42.	Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee				0		0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
43.	Complaint Dismissed ^♦in Whole or in Part				32		78	51	75	33	57	26	42	37	431
44.	Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability				1	0	4	4	3	5	0	2	4	2	25
45.	Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related				30	0	74	43	68	30	49	21	35	33	383
46.	Frivolous				1	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	0	0	18
47.	Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence				30	0	46	43	61	18	32	19	32	36	317
48.	Allegations Incapable of Being Established				0	–	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	3
49.	Filed in Wrong Circuit				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
50.	Otherwise Not Appropriate				1	–	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
51.	Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part				0		8		2	0	0	0	2	2	14
52.	Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed				0		0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0
53.	Voluntary Corrective Action Taken				0		4		1	0	0	0	0	1	6
54.	Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event				0	0	4	0	1	0	0	0	2	1	8
55.	Appropriate Action Already Taken				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
56.	Complaint Withdrawn				–	0	–		–	–	–	–	–	–	0
57.	Subtotal				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
58.	Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee				0	0	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	4
59.	Actions by Special Committees					–
60.	Matter Returned from Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	0	0	0		0	0	0
61.	New Matter Referred to Chief Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0		0	0	0
62.	Judicial Council Proceedings
63.	Matter Returned from Judicial Conference				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
64.	Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
65.	Received Petition for Review[19]	–	–	–	0	–	58	13	43		0	23	13	26	176
66.	Withdrawn					0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
67.	Action on Petition for Review				0	–									0
68.	Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied				21	–	54	19	45	17	37	18	16	15	242
69.	Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
70.	Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
71.	Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
72.	Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	2
73.	Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report				0
74.	Complaint Dismissed				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
75.	Not Misconduct or Disability				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
76.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals
77.	Merits Related				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
78.	Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
79.	Otherwise Not Appropriate				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
80.	Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
81.	Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference				0	0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0
82.	Remedial Action Taken				0	–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
83.	Privately Censured				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
84.	Publicly Censured				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
85.	Censure or Reprimand				0	–	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
86.	Suspension of Assignments				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
87.	Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
88.	Removal of Bankruptcy Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
89.	Request of Voluntary Retirement				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
90.	Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
91.	Additional Investigation Warranted				0	–	0
92.	Returned to Special Committee				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
93.	Retained by Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
94.	Actions by Chief Justice							0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0
95.	Transferred to Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	–	0	0	–	0	1	1
96.	Received from Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	–	0	0	–	0	0	0
97.	Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
98.	During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year	37	48	24	0	0-	96	50	83	33	57	47	40	36	551[21]
99.	Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year]				26	0	29	30	7	8	11	18	14	27	170
1.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals

[These notes are in the original.]

^♦Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

^♦♦Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

^♦^‡Revised

Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

* Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

ENDNOTES

The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

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

The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10^th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

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

[1] This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

The above table for the 10^th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

[2] Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; ^‡http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

[3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see ^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

However, the website of the 10^th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

[4] On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

[5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

[6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

[7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

[8] The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

[9] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

[10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

[11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

[12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

[13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

[14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

[15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

[16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

[17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

[18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

[19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

[20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

[21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.

How the Women’s March, One Day Without Women participants, and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment can seize the opportunity of P. Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” and “transfer power from the Establishment to the people”, and his nomination of a judge to the Supreme Court to set in motion an investigation of connivance between politicians and the wrongdoing judges that they nominate and confirm, whose findings can so outrage the public as to provide the necessary impetus for the Women and The Dissatisfied to “move forward” to a new constitution under which they need not march to beg for permits from the Establishment, but rather in which they assert all the rights of the sovereign source of all political power: We the People

[NOTE: If you agree with this open letter and its supporting article below, copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and share and post them widely.]

Ms. Tamika D. Mallory
Ms. Carmen Perez
Ms. Linda Sarsour
Ms. Bob Bland
Women’s March Co-Chairs and
National Committee Members

Dear Misses. Bland, Sarsour, Perez, Mallory, and Committee Members,

I would like to praise your values and objectives, as expressed by Ms. Perez and Ms. Bland in their interview on PBS Newshour on January 20; your superb organization of the January 21 Women’s March; and the principles that you have stated on your website.

We have harmonious interests that make us advocates of a common cause: to enjoy, assert, and acquire the rights of women, of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, in general, and of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system, in particular, and of everybody else who makes up We the People.

Therefore, I want to join forces with you.

To that end, I bring to the table a concrete, realistic, and feasible answer to the question that you asked on your website:

We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

I respectfully submit this answer: We “move forward” to a new constitution.

This answer is realistic: 34 states have demanded Congress since April 2014, to convene a constitutional convention.

A new constitution is a concrete rallying cry.

More importantly, a new constitution is the embodiment of an inspiring ideal as well as of the foundational terms of a new relation between the people and their government to emerge after breaking with the Establishment:

We “move forward” to a new constitution under which people need not march to beg the Establishment for permits, but rather in which We the People assert our status as the sovereign source of all political power and as such the masters of government, who hire public servants to safeguard and facilitate our enjoyment of what are our rights, and who retain and exercise the power to hold our servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

The “move forward” to a new constitution is feasible by applying the inform and outrage strategy. I developed it in my study of judges in connivance with politicians, which is titled and downloadable thus.

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

The inform and outrage strategy is non-partisan, non-denominational, and non-violent.

It is the product of strategic thinking: We analyze the interests of people and entities to determine who has harmonious and conflicting interests(^†>ol2:465§1), which if strengthened or weakened can allow us to form or break up explicit or implicit alliances so that we may become stronger or clear the way to advance our cause(*>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

Strategic thinking allows us to obtain in practice support from unwitting sources that we need not approve and are not part of.

A public dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment; a President who has promised to “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment” and to transfer power from the self-enriching Establishment to the people, whom it has harmed; and the two thirds of the states that have formally demanded Congress to call a constitutional convention, are our main ‘allies’. Their interests are harmonious with ours. They render us stronger; render the concrete goal of the “move forward” to a new constitution realistic; and render the inform and outrage strategy to attain it all the more feasible.

I offer to make a presentation on the “move forward” and the strategy to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip.

The article below previews my presentation. It shows that my answer to your question is indeed concrete, realistic, and feasible. Just as my above-mentioned study, it also shows my thoughtful commitment to our common cause and the value that I can add to your effort to advance it. We are implicit allies; my presentation can contribute to turning us into explicit allies.

Consequently, I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, for the most opportune occasion for launching the strategy to “move forward” to a new constitution is during the investigation of the justiceship nominee that the media will naturally launch upon President Trump announcing his or her name on January 31.

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, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

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

How the Women’s March and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment
can “move forward”
thanks to a concrete, realistic, and feasible strategy
in the context of P. Trump’s justiceship nomination
by informing the public about
two unique national stories
of swamp politicians conniving with
life-tenured federal judges ‒who
are the most established of the corrupt Establishment and
unaccountable and consequently engage risklessly in
routine, widespread, and grave wrongdoing‒
and so outraging the public as to
increase the ranks of Marchers and The Dissatisfied and
make them strong enough to
force Congress to call the constitutional convention that
has been demanded by 34 states since April 2014, and
to emerge therefrom with
a new constitution
under which people need not march to beg the Establishment for permits,
but rather in which We the People
assert our status as the sovereign source of all political power and
as such the masters of government,
we hire public servants
to safeguard and facilitate our enjoyment of what are our rights, and
we retain and exercise
the power to hold our servants accountable and
liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

[NOTE: If you agree with this article and its cover letter above, copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and share and post them widely.]

**A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world**

Proposing that the Women’s March and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment “move forward” to a heavily amended or formally new constitution may appear right now inconceivable, the product, not of strategic thinking, but rather of wishful thinking.
However, hundreds of years ago, the 13 colonies also deemed inconceivable having a constitution. But they managed to give themselves one. It required them to wage a war.
Giving ourselves a new constitution that corresponds to the demands of a radically different world requires us to devise and implement a reasonable strategy. Its objective is not to take up arms or become partisan supporters of a person or an entity. Rather, it aims to form or break up explicit or implicit alliances of result that in effect advance our cause.
More importantly, the objective of the strategy requires a justification, that is, a theoretical explanation of why we need a new constitution. The justification must convince the mind and inspire people so profoundly that they commit their soul and body to achieving the objective. It must motivate people to coalesce into a movement that they energize and that energizes them. Reason and passion are indispendable to realize a great objective. That way it becomes an inspiring ideal.
Without the inspiring ideal of freedom and self-determination that found its expression in the motto ‘not taxation without representation’, we would be paying taxes to the queen of England for the tea that we drink.
We, Women’s Marchers and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, also need and want an ideal: We want a country where instead of having to march with our hands stretched out begging the King-like Establishment to give us permits , we “move forward” to give ourselves a constitution that is the expression of the rights that we the living today, assemble in a constitutional convention, decide that we have in today’s radically different world.
We want to give ourselves a constitution where we assert and which reflects the fact that:

a. We are the People in reality, not merely a character in a bookish description of democracy.

b. We are the sovereign source of all political power. We do not draw our power from any constitution. We are not subservient to the constitution that we received from the past. We are not bound to preseve its future existence at the cost of the life that we want to live in the present. We hold the sovereign power, not Congress or the states, to decide when the time has come for us to change or do away with an old constitution in order to give ourselves a new constitution.

c. In our new constitution, we will assert our status as masters. We will exercise the fundamental right to hire public servants to safeguard our rights and facilitate our enjoyment of them. As masters of all our public servants, we will retain the right and provide for the way to hold all our servants accountable for the service that they render and fail to render and everything else that they do that affects the service for which we hired them, and therefore, we will hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

By giving ourselves a new constitution, we will throw over board a constitution imposed upon us by the male Establishment of 228 years ago, i.e. 1789, when

a. women could not even read, never mind vote on a constitution, and could only live to raise children and work in the kitchen or their husbands’ farms;

b. only white men with property could vote; and

c. nobody could or would have dare think of rights concerning abortion, illegal immigration, universal health care, gun violence, same sex marriage, minorities voting, LBTG, equal pay, criminal reform, campaign financing, environmental protection, public education, big corporations, indigenous people, stalking, consumers, emancipation of slaves, workplace safety job security, drugs, living wages, overincarceration, feminism, deceptive advertising, truth in lending, balanced budget, reverse discrimination, admission quotas, equal opportunity employment, anticompetitive practices, overregulation, redistricting, entitlements, term limits, social security, the Internet, digital profiles, unaccountable judges’ consequent riskless wrongdoing, etc.

As a result, since then nine unelected, Establishment-appointed, politicized, and unaccountable justices form a standing constitutional convention where even as few as five of them routinely amend that constitution of the past for a long gone world by reading into it whatever they fancy necessary to adapt it to a radically different world and protect the privileges of the faction of the Establishment that they represent.
That is why We the People living today want to give ourselves a new constitution where we assert the rights by which we want to live our lives in today’s world.

B. A demand by 34 states for a constitutional convention is before Congress, whose members have disregarded it in the interest of preserving their power and privileges and avoiding accountability and liability for their wrongdoing

Realistically, we can “move forward” toward a new constitution given that since April 2014, the constitutional requirement of Article V that a constitutional convention be demanded by two thirds of the states -currently 34- has been met.
But the members of Congress have disregarded that demand because the Establishment abhors a process that is bound to escape its control and strip it of its privileges and, worse yet, expose its wrongdoing. Only if forced to will politicians cause Congress to vote to convene a convention.
That is the justification for the inform and outrage strategy: the public, informed of the routineness, extent, and gravity of politicians’ and judges’ wrongdoing, will be so outraged that it will be stirred up to “move forward” in an unconventional, imaginative way to force politicians to do what they and Congress abhor.
To that end, the inform and outrage strategy provides that we should confront politicians with the only “concern and fear” that they respond to, i.e., that the public, informed of, and outraged at, public wrongdoing, may vote those politicians out of, or not into, office, if they fail to condemn, investigate, expose, and punish such wrongdoing. We play on politicians’ paramount “concern and fear”: their political survival.
The precedent for this tactical element is the “concern and fear” that caused politicians in the 2012 presidential campaign to reject reasonable compromises and embrace extremist positions, lest they be terminated politically by the Tea Party supporters.
The confirmation of this “concern and fear” came in the 2014 mid-term primaries in Virginia when no less prominent a politician than House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by a newcomer, Dave Brat, for supporting positions on immigration and other subjects that though seemingly reasonable, outraged the Tea Party.
Consequently, from now on, we “move forward” to generate in politicians “concern and fear” that they may not survive next year’s mid-term election if they do not support our demands in their public statements, in practice, and effectively.

C. Informing and outraging the public by taking advantage of President Trump’s nomination of a justice on February 2

1. This is the most opportune time for implementing the strategy

The inform and outrage strategy takes advantage of the fact that Trump ran his presidential campaign on the promise to “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”.
What is more, in his inaugural speech, he berated both Republicans and Democrats as abusers of their position for self-enrichment at the expense of the people; and promised to transfer power from Congress to the people. Thereby he announced that he does not feel committed to protecting and covering up corrupt politicians even if they are Republican. He will govern in effect as the president of a third party: the Trump Populist Party.

2. Informing of wrongdoing through the investigation of two unique national stories of politicians’ and judges’ wrongdoing that can outrage most intensely

The first step of the inform and outrage strategy is for us:

a. to seize the opportunity of P. Trump’s nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court and the investigation of the nominee by the media that will naturally follow;

b. to call a press conference and/or discreetly make private presentations to journalists to persuade them to investigate the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA, described below, which will reveal politicians conniving with judges engaged in wrongdoing(ol:154¶3; jur:5¶3) so that:

c. the public:

1) composed of:

a) the millions who participated in the historic and indepensable Women’s March on January 21, 2017;

b) the scores of millions of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment who elected Trump president;

c) the segment thereof that is dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system and made up of:

(1) the more than 100 million people that every year go or are taken to court(jur:8fn4,5);

(2) plus the scores of millions who are parties to lawsuits pending or deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided,

(3) plus the scores of millions of related people, such as their family, friends, peers, employees, customers, employers, etc.; and

d) the rest of We the People;

2) informed through the media and us of:

a) politicians who for the benefit of their own political careers and the avoidance of judges’ retaliation, have condoned and held unaccountable

b) “their men and women on the bench”, who for their own gain and convenience abuse their power to dispose of the property, liberty, and all the rights that litigants and the rest of the public have;

(1) To understand judges’ abuse consider this: If you had power to dispose of the property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape the life of everybody in the Women’s March, would you be tempted to abuse it for your benefit if you could do so risklessly? If instead you were so abused by the co-chairs of the March, would you be dissatisfied?

(2) Federal judges do wrong because they know that they are unaccountable: Whereas 2,293 of them were in office on September 30, 2015, the number of them impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789 is 8!(jur:22fn13, 14). This historic record shows that once a person becomes a member of that Judiciary, he or she can do any wrong without risking any adverse consequences. They do wrong with the assurance of impunity. This makes it understandable why judges dare wield abusively their decision-making power.

3) outraged, the public is stirred up to take further action.

The second step is for us to lead an outraged public to force Congress and the Department of Justice, and/or persuade the media themselves ‒which is unheard of but would be no less effective‒ to hold nationally televised hearings on those two unique national stories, in general, and on judges’ wrongdoing experienced or witnesses; and thereby

a. the public is

1) further informed of such depth and breadth of the swamp of corruption of the Establishment, especially of its most established and powerful segment, the life-appointed federal judges, that the public

2) becomes further outraged at conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges and so convinced that politicians cannot legislate against their own wrongdoing and that judges cannot apply the law against themselves; so that the public is stirred up to take further action.

The third step is for us to lead the public in:

a. demanding that politicians call a constitutional convention as the only process that will enable We the People to assert our status as masters who hold all our public servants accountable for rendering honest service and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing; and

b. generating the “concern and fear” in politicians that they will be punished at the polls unless they satisfy the demand.

The fourth step is to:

a. develop a draft new constitution(cf. jur:158§§6-8);

b. present it to the public;

c. persuade, organize, and raise funds for, Women’s Marchers and The Dissatisfied to run for delegation to the constitutional convention; and

d. lead our delegates so that we become the dominant bloc that causes the most provisions of our constitution to be adopted.

This “move forward” will benefit from any disruptive chaos and aggravated dissatisfaction generated by President Trump. We must be able to turn them into transformative chaos and the necessary passion and commitment to convert what is unthinkable and inconceivable now into what is inevitable and unavoidable: a constitutional convention where We the People give ourselves a new constitution.
Implementing the inform and outrage strategy is the first step and cannot be skipped: We must begin by exposing the depth and breadth of the swamp of corruption so that the drastic measures necessary to drain it become apparent and unavoidable. Drafting a new constitution now is inopportune. A full diagnose of the gravity of the ailment is a precondition to the acceptance of drastic treatment.

D. The “move forward” to a new constitution must from the beginning expose the scope of wrongdoing, and cause the resignation, of swamp judges, lest they declare it “unconstitutional” or interpret it protect their interests

In the same vein, if the swamp of the most established of the Establishment, the life-appointed federal judges, remain in place, they will strike down the new constitution as “unconstitutional” or apply it to ensure the preservation of their status as Judges Above the Law and the continuation of their consequent riskless wrongdoing for grabbing benefits.
Therefore, as many of those judges as possible must be forced to resign, removed or fired (see as precedent the Midnight Judges confirmed under the Judiciary Act of 1801 but removed by the Judiciary Act of 1802).
That is the objective of investigating the two unique national stories (see below): just to show, rather than prove, that judges have violated Canon 2 of their Code of Conduct, which enjoins them to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) by acting:

a. either as principals who have engaged in wrongdoing;

b. as accessories after the principals’ wrongdoing that they learned about but in self-interest covered up through their silence(jur:88§§a-c), whereby they violated Canon 1 requiring them to “uphold the integrity of the judiciary”; or

c. as accessories before their peers’ next wrongdoing that they encouraged with their explicit or implicit promise of silence.

Accessories are as culpable as principals, for instead of upholding the integrity of the Judiciary and judicial process by exposing or preventing their peers’ wrongdoing, they too have contributed to the festering of such wrongdoing. Due to them as much as the principals, the Judiciary operates as the safe haven of wrongdoers.
Swamp judges must leave the Judiciary, whether by resigning because the outrage at them makes their holding on to their office untenable –the precedent for this is the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d)‒ or because they are impeached and removed; otherwise, they will turn the “move forward” to a new constitution into Sisyphus’s uphill climb of futility.

E. The immediate steps that we can take to “move forward” together to a new constitution

1. My offer to make a presentation to you

I offer to make a presentation on this strategy for you to “move forward” to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip.

2. Share and post this email

You can share and post this email in its entirety and its recipients and readers can do likewise so that many Women’s Marchers, the Dissatisfied With The Establishment, the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system, those given hope by Trump, his supporters, and the rest of the People may join in the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy and the “move forward” to our new constitution.

3. Our presentation at a press conference and privately to journalists

You can take advantage of the clout of the Women’s March to call the media to a press conference or individual journalists to a private and discreet presentation by us of, in general, the goal of the new constitution, and, in particular, the two unique national stories(§4 next) for implementing the inform and outrage strategy.
The nomination of a new justice on February 2, will focus public debate on everything judicial. As a result, these stories can be of considerable interest to media outlets and journalists because through their investigating some of them will be able to:

a. offer a different angle on the subject that attracts audience away from their competitors and to themselves;

b. win a Pulitzer Prize;

c. enhance their reputation in the industry; earn a higher salary; receive a promotion in their corporate hierarchy; or secure a job at a more prestigious media outlet; and

d. attain the status that every ambitious journalist aspires: to become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and Editor Benjamin Bradlee. They broke the story of what appeared to be a mere “garden variety burglary by five plumbers” at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. They were most instrumental in pursuing the story until it developed into a generalized media investigation that provoked a historic scandal(*>jur:4¶¶10-14). It led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974. Subsequently, Congress passed laws to increase public accountability and transparency(jur:65fn107d).

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

4. Our demand for the investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA

By making a presentation on those two unique national stories (§§F, G below), the Women’s March and I can set rolling a Watergate-like investigative bandwagon that can propel us through the steps laid down in §C above. This can afford us the opportunity to keep the objective of a new constitution on the frontpages and the top of newscasts for a long time while growing our membership, assertiveness, and reputation.
We all can demand at the press conference, the private presentations, and when sharing and posting this email:

a. that President Trump, the media, and citizen and professional journalists(jur:xxxvi§§H,I) expand the investigation of the justiceship nominee to include the operation of the Supreme Court(jur:47§c) and the rest of the Federal Judiciary(jur:21§§1-3), and do so pin-pointedly and cost-effectively by investigating the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA;

1) The investigation of these stories can work as Trojan horses into the circumstances(*>ol:190¶¶1-7) of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness that enable wrongdoing by appointed judges in connivance with their appointing politicians to attain such routineness, extent, and gravity that wrongdoing has become the Federal Judiciary’s modus operandi.

2) Congress receives annually and disregards in self-interest the official statistics on the federal courts’ caseload showing that the circuit courts dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions on “procedural grounds, by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(^†>ol2:455§§B-E) so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the judges deprive them of precedential value…in a common law legal system based on precedent. The majority of those decisions are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”, mere ad hoc, arbitrary, reasonless fiats of the judicial swamp.

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

b. that P. Trump release the three secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor(§G below) to the district, circuit, and Supreme courts so that the public may be informed of what the FBI, exercising its power of subpoena and search and seizure, and President Obama(jur:77§5) and Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, who shepherded her through the confirmation process(jur:78§6), knew or learned about her wrongdoing before and after the series of articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) that suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets(jur:65fn107c);

c. that Congress and the Justice Department and/or the media hold nationally televised hearings on how the Establishment has allowed federal judges to abusively self-exempt from any liability by dismissing without investigation 99.82% of complaints against judges, which must be filed with their peers, and deny up to 100% of petitions for review of those dismissals(jur:24§§b-c).

1) Establishment politicians have been informed of, but have disregarded, such grab of impunity for over 35 years since 1980, when politicians passed and enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act(jur:24fn18a) authorizing complaints against federal judges and requiring the annual publication of statistics(jur:10-14) on their nature and handling. Connivingly, politicians have allowed the illegal abrogation in effect of an act of Congress intended for the first time in history to bring relief to complainants and bring down Judges Above the Law;

d. that Congress, the Justice Department, and the media investigate the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(§H below), which can lend credence to P. Trump’s distrust of the security Establishment if it reveals the interception(^†>ol2:425) by the NSA of communications of critics of federal judges and/or the use of its Information Technology expertise and network to conceal assets of, and launder money for, judges in exchange for the judges granting 100% of the NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance(ol:5fn7).

1) The precedent for government interception of communications of its critics is the current case of Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who broke the Fast and Furious gun-running debacle story; and revealed embarrassing details about the killing of the American ambassador and three other officers at Benghazi in Libya. She is suing the Department of Justice for hacking her office and home computers; and demanding $35 million in compensation(*>ol:346¶131; ^†>ol2:396§3).

These investigations can give rise to a constitutional crisis among the three branches and a crisis of trust between government and We the People. The crises can dominate the headlines for months or years to come, as the investigations of the Watergate scandal and 9/11 did.

F. Requested action
Therefore, I respectfully request a meeting with you either here in New York City, at a video conference, or elsewhere on a paid trip, so that I may present to you my strategy for the Women’s March to “move forward” and answer your questions.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, keeping in mind that P. Trump announced his nominee to the Supreme Court on January 31.

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.
* 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, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

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

The Two Unique National Stories of
President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and
Federal Judiciary-NSA

that through journalistic and official investigations can inform the public of judges’ wrongdoing and so outrage it as to stir it up to demand that Congress heed the states’ call for a constitutional convention where We the People can give ourselves a new constitution in which we are the masters who hold all our judicial public servants accountable and liable for their wrongdoing

By Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

[NOTE: The following two unique national journalistic stories have as their background the article and cover letter above. You are kindly invited to read them too, and if you agree with them, to copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and to share and post them widely.]

G. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

What did President Barak Obama(*>jur:77§5),
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten 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
(jur:65§§1-3) –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–
and when did they know it?

This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:194§E).
Its investigation can determine whether they covered up for Then-Judge Sotomayor and lied(ol:64§C) to the American public by vouching for her honesty because President Obama wanted to ingratiate himself with the people petitioning him to nominate to the Supreme Court 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.
The investigation includes a call on President Donald Trump to release unredacted all FBI reports on the vetting of J. Sotomayor as federal district, circuit, and Supreme Court nominee, as well as on J. Sotomayor herself to request that she ask him to release those reports.
The release of those FBI vetting reports can set a precedent for the vetting of judges and other candidates for office.
The investigation can reveal how routine(jur:21§1), grave(jur:27§2), and widespread(jur:28§3) wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by federal judges is(jur:71§4); and the circumstances(ol:190¶¶1-7) of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness that enable their wrongdoing(jur:5§3).
It can expose wrongdoing so outrageous as to force justices and judges to resign(jur:92§d), or be impeached and removed, for having violated their own Code of Conduct, which enjoins them both to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) and “uphold the integrity of the judiciary”.
‘Showing the appearance of impropriety’, not the commission of a crime, thus becomes the standard for the investigation and the publication of articles. Responsible, unbiased, and ambitious journalists can easily meet it.
Only in a criminal case in court is it required that the jury apply the most exacting standard of ‘proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ to reach its verdict. But even there the introduction of each piece of evidence by the prosecutor is not subject to that standard; and the jury can base its verdict on circumstantial evidence, the totality of circumstances, and reasonable inferences drawn from them.
The Follow the money! investigation is a journalistic activity; it is not a prosecutorial effort to obtain a conviction. By ‘showing the appearance of impropriety’ by a justice or a judge it can bring about his or her resignation. That is how the investigation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas by Life magazine provoked such public outrage at his improprieties that he resigned on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
Judicial resignations will open the door for the Federal Judiciary to be ‘packed’(jur:23fn17a) with people transparently found capable of rendering honest services and worthy of being entrusted with the power to dispose of our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape our lives.

All (blue text references) are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 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

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

To what extent do established, life-tenured 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
(National Security Agency)
–up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret orders of surveillance
are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7)
by the federal judges of the secret court established under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811; ol:20fn5)–:

a) to 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) in a money laundering operation intended to wash money of the taint of its illegal source; and

b) to cover up their interception of the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14)– of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges’ wrongdoing?

This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:194§E).
At stake in it is contents-based interception, that is, activity aimed at finding out what the participants in the communication said to each other so that the interceptor may determine whether to interfere with, or prevent, that and future communications.
Contents-based interception constitutes a deprivation of the 1^st Amendment rights to ‘freedom of speech, of the press, to assemble peacefully, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances’(jur:130¶276b).
A statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(^†>ol2:395, 405) give probable cause to believe that contents-based interception is going on(ol2:425).
It is reasonable to assume that the people who have the most to lose due to such criticism and the most to gain by interfering with it, namely, judges, are the ones conducting or who have instigated others to conduct on their behalf such interception.
The revelation of contents-based interception will provoke graver outrage than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leaked documents revealing the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications, that is, only telephone numbers, names of callers and callees, calls’ time, duration, frequency, and location, etc.
Public outrage will be driven to its paroxysm if it is shown that judges are behind the contents-based interception, not in “the national security interest”, but rather in the crass self-interest of preventing the exposure of their wrongdoing and preserving the flow to them of illegal or improper material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93).

**H. Judges’ wrongdoing and abuse of power with the connivance of politicians warrants the People giving themselves a new constitution**

Routine, widespread, and grave wrongdoing and abuse of power will constitute evidence that honest service by judges cannot be obtained either by giving them self-disciplining power under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(jur:21§1), which judges have abused by self-exempting from liability(jur:24§§b, c), nor by Congress and the president exercising constitutional checks and balances on the Judiciary, a function that they have failed to perform in the self-interest of avoiding retaliation from judges(jur:23fn17a).
As a result, judges harm litigants and the rest of the public by wrongfully and abusively disposing of their property, their liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape their lives. Connivingly, politicians have condoned and covered up their harmful conduct.
Consequently, the People are justified in demanding that a constitutional convention be called where they can give themselves a new constitution in which they assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and as such, the masters in “government of, by, and for the people”(jur:82fn172) who hire public servants, including judicial public servants, and hold them accountable(jur:158§§6-8) and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip, on these two unique national stories and his inform and outrage strategy, set forth in the email above and on his website^‡, for the Women’s March to “move forward” to a new constitution.

^‡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.

* 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, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

Federal judges with life-tenure are the Establishment by definition. Will President-elect Trump drain the judicial swamp or let it fester on the advice of the Establishment insiders that he is bringing into the White House and his cabinet, and to avoid judges’ retaliation against his 70 pending business lawsuits, thus leaving exposed to judges’ continued abuse The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, who elected him, and the rest of We the People?

President-elect Trump has stated that what follows in importance a president’s declaration of war is a Supreme Court nomination.
Indeed, until the Court upholds the constitutionality of a law, it is little more than a set of wishful guidelines envisaged by the 535 members of Congress and the president and expressed in black ink on white paper. Where would Obamacare be today if the Court had held it unconstitutional? In a footnote in the chronicles of the Obama presidency.
P-s Trump also campaigned on the promise “to drain the swamp of corruption of Washington insiders”. The latter constitute the Establishment. He accused Sec. Clinton of being its representative so that if she won the presidential election, she would protect the swamp and its corruption would continue festering. It stills festers although in 2006, Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, before becoming Speaker of the House, famously declared that “Washington is dominated by the culture of corruption” and vowed “to drain the swamp”(*>jur:23fn16). She miserably failed to do so because she was part of the Establishment.
By contrast, P-e Trump is an outsider. He is not tied, and does not owe his election, to Establishment members. Far from it, those who got him elected are precisely The Dissatisfied With The Establishment. However, in light of his nomination of Washington insiders for his White House and cabinet, how concerned should The Dissatisfied be about his becoming domesticated on those insiders’ advice to the Washington ways so as to become used to the continued festering of the swamp, in general, and its most harmful portion, the judicial swamp, in particular?

A. The abused powers that generate the judicial swamp

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 3, 1887.

The status of unaccountability is at the source of the capacity to turn power into absolute power that ends up forming a swamp of corruption.

1. Judges’ power to stay established: life-appointment and irremovability in practice

Federal judges are appointed for life. Worse yet, they are irremovable in effect: While 2,293 federal judges were in office on 30sep15, 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).

The above statistics originate in the official ones that the Federal Judiciary must submit by law(28 USC §604(d)(3); (h)(2); *>jur:26fn23a) , to Congress every year. They are analyzed in my study of judges’ performance in practice as opposed to as prescribed on rules printed on paper. It is titled and downloadable thus:

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

* 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

All the materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in that study.

Several justices have been on the Supreme Court for around 25 years, such as JJ. Thomas (29), Kennedy (28), Ginsburg (23), and Breyer (22). J. Scalia was in office for 30 years. That does not count at all the years that they spent in the circuit and district courts.
For instance, while J. Sotomayor has been on the Supreme Court only since 2009, she has been in the Federal Judiciary since 1992, when she was appointed a federal district court, followed by her appointment in 1998 to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Hence, she has already been in the judicial Establishment for 24 years.
It is a matter of fact that the Federal Judiciary is the quintessential Establishment. Its judges are established in power forever no matter the quality or quantity of their performance or conduct.

2. The power of connivance between appointing-politicians and their appointed judges

Federal judges are recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed by politicians. For the latter, judges are “our men and women on the bench”. They stand in an appointer-appointee relation(ol2:488¶¶3-6).
Politicians hold judges unaccountable in the expectation that they will hold the laws of their legislative agenda constitutional(jur:23fn17a) and not retaliate(Lsch:17§C) against the thousands of lawsuits that the government files every year.
Neither of the other two branches dare check that judges “shall hold their Office during good Behaviour” only, as provided for under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution(jur:22fn12). The relation of power between these branches is out of balance, but only due to pragmatic considerations, not because the Constitution holds the Judiciary superior to the other branches. Far from it. Nevertheless, the result is that judges neither fear nor respect politicians.

3. Judges’ vast power of the office

Judges act as a standing constitutional convention, for they give content to the mere labels of the Constitution(jur:22fn12b), such as “freedom of speech, freedom of the press”, “due process”, “equal protection of the law”. They even read into it new rights never imagined hundreds of years ago by a rural, religious, and mostly illiterate society and even diametrically opposite to its beliefs.
Judges interpret the meaning and scope of application of any piece of legislation enacted into law by Congress and the president. By exercising that power in its many forms(ol:267§4), they dispose of the property, liberty, life, and all the rights and duties that shape what people can and cannot do from before their birth, throughout their lives, and after their death(jur:25fn25, 26).
Judges abuse their power by the way they make decisions: The analysis of their official statistics shows that the 12 federal regional circuit courts dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds, by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”. They are so perfunctory that the overwhelming majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”(ol2:453), mere ad hoc, arbitrary, reasonless fiats of the judicial swamp.
Individually and collectively judges wield the broadest, farthest-reaching, and most substantial power of any public officer, including the most corruptive: the power ‘to tell what is good and evil’, that is, what is legal and illegal.

4. Judges’ power to grab benefits

Judges abuse their power to grab the social, material, and personal benefits within their reach(ol:173¶93) and for sheer convenience.
The opportunity to use power to grab can hardly be passed up under the influence of the most insidious corruptor: money!, lots of money!
In the calendar year 2010, the bankruptcy judges alone ruled on the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). The only ones watching with power to do anything about the disposition of such money were the circuit judges who had appointed them and they and the district judges who could remove them(jur:43fn61a). With them as their overseers, bankruptcy judges could do just about anything, except being too greedy and ungrateful(jur:42fn60).
In addition, there is all the money subject to judges’ decision involving probate matters, contracts, alimony, mergers & acquisition, product liabilities, initial public offerings, taxes, etc.

5. Judges’ power of growing well-connected
The arguments that militate in support of the two-term limit for holding the presidency, and of P-e Trump’s promise to push for legislation limiting the number of terms for members of Congress apply to judges too: The longer a person serves in public office, the more entitled they feel and the more their public office becomes their personal one. That feeling of entitlement is exacerbated for federal judges, who do not have to run for reelection and need not fear in reality being removed. They and their public office become one and the same.
Moreover, as public officers deal with ever more people, they become ever more powerful through the IOUs that they have collected from people who needed their help; and the more indebted they become to others whose help they needed to get their way. Hence, to an ever greater extent they move from doing the public’s business to ‘dealing for their own account’.

6. Judges’ power of camaraderie
To be in good standing with the other judges, a judge only needs to engage in knowing indifference and willful ignorance or blindness, which are forms of culpably looking the other way(jur:88§§a-c) and carrying on as if nothing had happened or will happen.

‘Keep your mouth shut about what I and the other judges did or are about to do, and you can enjoy our friendship.’

‘I will protect you today against this complaint and tomorrow you will protect me or my friends when we are the target of a complaint.’

That is how judges implicitly or explicitly ensure for decades their social acceptance and their self-preservation through reciprocal protection. They know from the historical record that nobody will charge them with accessorial liability after the fact that they kept quiet about or covered up, and before the fact of the next wrongful act that they encouraged others to do with their promise of passive silence or active cover-up.
By contrast, a judge who dared expose another judge’s wrongdoing would be deemed by all the other judges an unreliable traitor and cast out their social circle and activities as a pariah.
Such interdependent security(Lsch:16§1) gives rise to the judicial class mentality. It is similar to that found among police officers, doctors, priests, sports teams, sororities and fraternities, etc. It trades integrity for the benefits of membership.
The more time judges spend in the Judiciary, the more they transition from peers to colleagues, to members, to friends, and to co-conspirators(ol:166§§C, D). So instead of administering justice to We the People, they run their swamp as a private enterprise to make it ever more profitable, efficient, and secure for themselves.

7. Judges’ power of self-disciplining

In its Article III, the Constitution only creates the Supreme Court. All lower courts thereunder are created by Congress, which can also create tribunal-like administrative agencies under Art. II, Sec. 8; and appoint judges directly or by delegation under Art. II, Sec. 2.
The Constitution does not grant judges, not even those of the Supreme Court, the power to determine themselves what constitutes “good Behaviour” during which they can “hold their Offices”. Yet, politicians have relinquished that significant ‘check and balance’ to the judges by allowing them to exercise the power of self-disciplining(jur:21§1).
With the connivance of politicians, judges abuse that power by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against them filed by parties to cases and any other members of the People, as well as denying up to 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:24§§b-d).
The relation of political protectors-judicial protégés is anathema to the objective analysis of complaints against judges and the fair and impartial treatment of complainants. That is why judges have no inhibitions about abusing their self-discipline power to arrogate to themselves self-exemption from liability.
Complainants have no other source of relief. They are left to bob with their complained about harm in the middle of the swamp.

8. Judges’ power to show contempt for We the People and our representatives

It was We the People who, as the masters in “government of, by, and for the people”(jur:82fn172), hired judges as their public servants to deliver the service of administering justice according to the rule of law.
But judges need not serve the People to stay established in office. Voters neither elect nor reelect federal judges. Judges stay even when they disserve the People. There is no downside to disservice, for they can neither be demoted nor have their salary reduced.
To enjoy their lifelong stay on the bench, judges only need to serve their constituency: each other. If they stand together, nobody can bring them down…unless their swamp is drained through exposure, as proposed below.

9. Judges’ power to retaliate

Judges’ power to retaliate is not limited to declaring each of the pieces of a president’s or party’s legislative agenda unconstitutional.
Judges have a panoply of ways to engage in chicanery: They can:
1. sign search and seizure warrants broader than they should be, narrow them or refuse to sign them altogether;
2. grant, deny, or impose punitive, bail;
3. admit or exclude evidence, evidentiary and expert witnesses, and their testimony;
4. uphold or overrule objections and raise others on their own motion;
5. alter the dates on the docket of documents and events;
6. lose and misplace documents and make them reappear at will;
7. grant or deny hearings and leave to appeal;
8. meet with some parties in the absence of other parties;
9. grant or deny the sealing and unsealing of documents and leak sealed information or profit from it;
10. ignore, or grant more or less than, the relief requested;
11. enter judgment consonant with, or notwithstanding, the verdict;
12. grant a reduction or increase in the amount of compensation; etc.(Lsch:17§C)
Judges’ power to retaliate has an important limit: They cannot retaliate simultaneously against a large number of professional and citizen journalists participating in a concerted effort to drain their swamp through investigation and exposure, especially if the effort was launched by the president to deliver on a campaign promise. Such massive retaliation would unmask their actions as coordinated abuse of power to conceal their liability for, and preserve, their swamp benefits.

B. Judges’ unaccountability is the key corruptive component of their swamp
Unaccountability is the attribute that distinguishes judges individually as public officers and collectively as a class, the judicial class, a privileged one. Their privilege is at once the source and the result of their powers, which they leverage to preserve and exploit their privilege by adopting a black robe first mentality and letting it guide their professional and personal “Behaviour”.
Judges’ privilege is the product of corruptive components:
1. a sense of entitlement to their office for life;
2. the assurance of being held unaccountable by others and the capacity to assure themselves their self-exemption from discipline, never mind liability to others, which give rise to a sense and the reality of impunity; and
3. the most corruptive of all powers: the power to decide what is lawful or unlawful and thereby make anything either right or wrong…or simply go away. .
So, people are not merely elevated to the federal bench. Because they are allowed, and manage, to do from there whatever they want without being worried about its adverse consequences regardless of the nature and quality of their behavior and performance, they are given access to a status that no person is entitled to receive or grab in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6): Public Servants Above their Masters -We the People- and their Law.
Conferring a federal judgeship amounts to issuing a license to engage in wrongdoing for profit as a member of an independent, sovereign, and most powerful corrupt organization. Since P-e Trump wants to drain the Establishment swamp, he must begin by draining the one that dominates it: the judicial.

C. P-e Trump owes his loyalty, not to the judges of the swamp, but rather to The Dissatisfied With The Establishment who elected him
No federal judge has ever been nominated by P-e Trump. None of them owes him any loyalty. Instead, he owes his loyalty to the people who elected him, The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, and to the promises that he made them, such as the promise to drain the swamp of the Establishment.
The Dissatisfied encompass the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form a huge untapped voting bloc.
In fact, every year, more than 100 million parties take others or are taken to court in the more than 50 million cases filed in state and federal courts(jur:8fn4,5). To them must be added the scores of millions of parties to cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully as well as the additional scores of millions of affected related persons: their families, friends, employees, suppliers, shareholders, etc. But they are as unaware of forming a voting bloc as the Dissatisfied were until Election 2016.
The majority of them have been hurt profoundly, for nothing can so deeply offend people and commit them to fighting back with passion and unwavering determination as to feel that they were abused to be taken advantage of. When the abusers are the public officers hired to afford them due process and the equal protection of the law, that feeling is aggravated by a sense of betrayal.
Thus, if P-e Trump undertakes to drain the judicial swamp, he can count on the passionate support of all those dissatisfied with the judicial system and the legal system that works hand in hand with it.

D. P-e Trump’s first step: a press conference to call on the public and the media to expose the corruptive judicial powers and the resulting swamp
P-e Trump can call a major press conference(ol2:489¶¶10-11) to state that the system of justice that he accused of being rigged in favor of Sec. Clinton is actually rigged against We the People and that it is a swamp whose depth must be plumbed as the prerequisite to his nominating Justice Scalia’s successor and ushering in a fair and impartial system. Thereby, he can become the People‘s Champion of Justice.
In that vein, he can:
1. make an Emile Zola-like I accuse!(jur:98§2) denunciation of politicians/judges’ connivance;
2. ask the public to submit their judicial complaints(ol:311¶2; 362¶4) and the decisions of the judges in their cases(ol:274, 304) to his website for the public to examine them in search of the most persuasive evidence: commonalities forming patterns of wrongdoing;
3. call on professional and citizen journalists to investigate the two unique national stories (ol2:440, 480¶¶2-3) of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA.
  a. Judges are required by their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).
  b. Therefore, journalists only have to show, rather than prove, that judges appear to engage in improprieties, never mind criminal conduct, such as concealing assets to evade taxes and launder them of the taint of unlawful origin(jur:65fn107a,c). Such showing will cause outrage so intense in the public(ol2:461§G) as to provoke resignations among judges(jur:92§d);
4. announce nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing conducted by the Department of Justice with the assistance of its FBI to determine the nature, extent, and gravity of the corruption, and the needed reform(jur:158§6-7); (jur:xlv§G on millenial impossibles that are nonetheless part of today’s reality);
5. demand that Congress convene the constitutional convention that 34 states have formally called, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement of Article V for amending the Constitution, and advocate the adoption of term-limits for judges and the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and liability to compensate judges’ victims(jur:160§8);
6. encourage top universities to join forces with the national media and journalism schools, advocates of honest judiciaries, and groups of victims of wrongdoing judges to:
  a. organize a national conference on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(jur:97§1); and statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing research techniques(jur:131§b);
  b. publish print and/or digital journals on judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:97§1) with articles for scholarly and general audiences;
  c. devise and disseminate templates for the public to report judicial wrongdoing as one of the sources together with statistical research(ol:42, 60) for compiling the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America(jur:126§3); and
  d. create an institute(jur:130§5) of judicial accountability and reform advocacy.
  
  E. The action that you can take to ensure the drainage of the judicial swamp

donations@donaldtrump.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, leadright@gop.com, email@gop.com, info@nrcc-mail.org, teamtrump@trump2016.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, info@ourrevolution.com, contact@firedupconservative.com

50. I offer to make a presentation of this article in person or by video conference upon request. Contact me using this bloc of email addresses:

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of letters and articles 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

A. The math[3] of judicial perfunctoriness reveals the judiciary as a fraud scheme

1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

2. A fraud scheme run by judges in their own interest

3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

B. I accuse! with a ‘Metoo’ denunciation that makes you a Champion of Justice

Share this:

Like this:

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

Exposing the participation of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand in a conspiracy of silence about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets

2. The consequences of the People learning that they were defrauded by politicians and abused by judges

The Follow the money! investigation and its demand for reports that can shatter the People’s trust in a government of conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges

The strategic benefit for the Russians

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

1. The Follow it wirelessly! investigation and its current model

2. Starting the investigation with an IT inspection of Dr. Cordero’s computers and website

C. Letting the Russians know your support for this proposal

Share this:

Like this:

A. The development of a judicial auditing software product

1. The target: judges rather than the juries subject to their instructions

2. The auditable material: judicial statements

3. The aim: to reveal patterns of thinking with predictive value

4. Categories where patterns of abnormal frequencies reveal biases

5. Competitive advantage gained from using the product

6. Knowledge worth paying for

7. Product development financing

B. References for further reading because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

C. The more pressing objective of turning judicial wrongdoing into a key issue of the mid-term elections and national public hearings

D. An offer to present the proposals for a judicial auditing software product and judicial reform

Share this:

Like this:

A. Pervasive secrecy infects the Federal Judiciary with wrongdoing

B. Is there interception of our emails? How to find out

C. Implementing the inform and outrage strategy by joining in sharing and posting the article; and precedent for its success

D. Massive dissemination can lead to nationally televised hearings that boost the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing

E. Maximizing the joint effort to inform and outrage the public by emailing my articles to yahoo- and googlegroups

F. Division of labor to obtain the rosters of attorneys and invite them to join in the strategy and the dissemination

G. Sunshine can disinfect the Judiciary of its wrongdoing and wither impossibles

Share this:

Like this:

A. On the audience of my articles and my respect for all readers

B. Neither local corruption nor local, personal cases should cause us to miss taking advantage of the opportunity in Trump’s chaos to expose judges’ wrongdoing nationally

C. Joining forces to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

D. Joining forces and focusing them on implementing the inform and outrage strategy

Share this:

Like this:

A. Why you are invited to join forces to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. Knowledge prompts duty

B. The facts and tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. The facts

2. The tenet

C. The thesis: Trump’s chaos opens a realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform because it will suck in judges and enable The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to become a constituency

D. The need to join forces to realize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

E. The initial harmonious and coordinated activities that we can pursue to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

1. The media members

2. The law professors

3. The politician

4. The members of courts

5. The members of district attorneys’ offices

F. Work through which we can have a consequential and historic impact here and abroad

G. Contact me to schedule a presentation in person or at a video conference

Share this:

Like this:

A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

Share this:

Like this:

A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

Share this:

Like this:

A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world

B. A demand by 34 states for a constitutional convention is before Congress, whose members have disregarded it in the interest of preserving their power and privileges and avoiding accountability and liability for their wrongdoing

C. Informing and outraging the public by taking advantage of President Trump’s nomination of a justice on February 2

1. This is the most opportune time for implementing the strategy

A. The math^[3] of judicial perfunctoriness reveals the judiciary as a fraud scheme

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

**2. The consequences of the People learning that they were defrauded by politicians and abused by judges**

**The Follow the money! investigation and its demand for reports that can shatter the People’s trust in a government of conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges**

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

**A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world**

The Two Unique National Stories of
President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and
Federal Judiciary-NSA

**H. Judges’ wrongdoing and abuse of power with the connivance of politicians warrants the People giving themselves a new constitution**