http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-blurbs_abstracts_class_action_cases.pdf
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial-Discipline-Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com
Dear lawyers, journalists, professors, experts, students, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
- This is a proposal to prosecute cases jointly as class actions on behalf of sizable segments of the national public, doing so in our personal as well as the public interest. These cases are described in the below short blurbs and the longer abstracts of the detailed articles to which they make reference.
-
The cases are of interest to all of you because they involve abuse of power by public officers. The proposed publication of the articles, their presentation at press conferences, and their prosecution as class actions are intended to expose the abuse to hold the abusers accountable, demand collective compensation for the abusees, and launch transformative judicial reform of the system of justice.
-
This proposal for professionals to form a team as needed to prosecute each case and for abusees to join the respective class action is realistic, for it recognizes the substantial amount of effort, time, and money required for its implementation. In this vein, it is pertinent to consider that:
a. ‘Scandal sells’ and can win Pulitzer prizes. Indeed, ProPublica won this year’s Pulitzer for Public Service for its investigative work that in a series of articles exposed corruption between justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and ‘friends of the justices’.
b. Martin Luther King said in effect that ‘abuse tolerated of someone leads to abuse inflicted on everyone’.
c. Successful class actions with counts under RICO -Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; 18 U.S.C. §§1961 to 1968- and their state counterparts -e.g., NY Enterprise Corruption– can lead to settlements of $10s of millions, the award of compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a significant reputational enhancement, a bestseller, a blockbuster movie, a tour of presentations, an influx of new clients, etc.
T4. The blurbs and the abstracts contain links to articles that I already wrote and you all can review. My articles have proved their appeal for the public: I have posted some of them to my website, Judicial Discipline Reform, at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and elicited such a positive reaction that as of 7 November 2024, the number of visitors who had become subscribers was 52,566+.
a. How many law firms, let alone individual lawyers, do you know that have a website with so many subscribers?
55. I have written many other articles(§A) cum chapters of my three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries* † ♣. They are the product of my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking so that they propose action that lawyers and lay people can take severally and jointly. The study is titled thus:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
6.6. The site, the study, and the articles support the several proposals for a journalistic, business, and academic joint venture, including:
a. the serial publication of the key articles of my cases, which I can edit as requested, simultaneously with the further investigation of the cases, which will be facilitated by the many leads that I have gathered, e.g., OL:194§E and the articles referred to in the blurbs and abstracts;
b. the creation of a new form of journalism: representative journalism. It will enable you to leverage your knowledge of the main players in the class action bar and other fields to put together ad hoc teams of lawyers, journalists, multidisciplinary experts, and media and academic entities that have the necessary investigative and financial resources and expertise to:
1) represent the abusees -e.g., those in my cases- in class actions with civil RICO counts against big unaccountable abusive entities;
2) lobby on their behalf in Congress, and state and local lawmaking bodies for official investigations, legislation, and law enforcement;
3) challenge the Establishment in the name of millions of people who individually lack the means of defending their rights, but whose strength in numbers representative journalism turns into a force to be reckoned with: a new powerhouse of American governance;
4) grow the readership, revenue, and reputation of representative journalists and their team members who engage in concrete actions guided by the principle “Making Money While Doing Justice”;
c. the development of my site from a news and analytical platform into a commercial undertaking that functions as a watchdog to advance the public interest.
1) Already attracted to my website, the subscribers to it constitute the initial client base of the site developed to run as do so many others that apply the TV and radio business model: You give viewers and listeners appealing programming or your basic goods and services for free, and charge a fee for premium ones and for carrying the advertisement of sellers of related goods and services, such as books, webinars, conferences, transportation and hotel accommodations, trial services, brief formatting, printing, and serving, etc.
d. the holding by academe and the media of unprecedented citizens hearings:
1) to be moderated by journalists and professors at university auditoriums and broadcasting stations;
2) to allow people to tell in person or via video conference accessible to the national public their stories of the abuse by public entities that they have suffered or witnessed;
3) to present the moderators’ report on the citizens hearings at the first national conference on public officers’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power;
4) to turn the report into the first edition of the Annual Report of Abuse of Power in America;
e. the creation of the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy, to be:
1) attached to a preeminent university or a national media network; and
2) run as a for-profit research, publishing, teaching, and public interest litigating and lobbying entity; etc.
7. I offer to present to you and your guests this proposal in person if in New York City, and anywhere else if my expenses and fee are paid; otherwise, via video conference. Please call me at 1(718)827-9521 to make appropriate arrangements.
Dare shout “I accuse!”
You may trigger history and even enter it as
a Champion of Justice.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
tel. (718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com
A. Blurbs of cases for joint prosecution by a team of lawyers, journalists, multidisciplinary experts, et al.
.8. (cf. ¶16↓) Federal judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics, as shown by a statistical analysis.
9. (cf. ¶17↓) Indictments fabricated on false and insufficient evidence by prosecutors and police officers, and covered up by criminal term judges, administrative judges, and the judges of the NY State Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in NY.
10. (cf. ¶18↓) The Math of Abuse is a mathematical demonstration that judges do not read most briefs. It can cause a flood of actions for breach of contract, false advertisement, fraud, dereliction of duty, remand for new trial, null and void case disposition by clerks not vested with judicial power, which is not assignable; demand for refund of filing fees and compensation for causing wasteful litigation expenses; etc.
11. (cf. ¶19↓) Judges in the Federal Judiciary systematically dismiss 100% of the complaints filed against fellow judges. Thereby they abuse the self-disciplinary authority that Congress has granted them. By exonerating each other, they ensure their own impunity and elevate themselves to a position that nobody is entitled to occupy in “government by the rule of law”: Judges Above the Law.
- (cf. ¶20↓) The Follow the Money! And Follow the Wire! investigations(jur:102§a; OL:194§E) will apply forensic research techniques, e.g., Fraud and Forensic Accounting, big data search, and AI, to discover assets that judges have grabbed, concealed, evaded taxes on, and handled through money laundering(OL:1).
-
(cf. ¶21↓) Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme deals with $100s of bl. annually. It is covered up by the circuit judges who appoint the bankruptcy judges in their circuit for a 14-year term(28 U.S.C. §152) and can reappoint them if the bankruptcy judges share and make “cronies”(jur:32§§2-6) pay-to-play.
14. (cf. ¶22↓) Medicare works to maintain in, and increase, its network of thousands of medical services and equipment providers. Together they abuse many of its 67 million insureds, who appeal, if at all, their decisions pro se, for they are sick and cannot afford lawyers. They have little chance of prevailing against the battery of lawyers of Medicare and its providers. The recovery can be huge.
15. (cf. ¶23↓) Walgreens had $139.5 bl. in revenue in 2020 and 277,000 employees in 2021. Its purchase-incentivizing program is Cash Rewards, a bait and switch scam. A class action can hold it liable. It can also serve as a test case for suing other giant companies that abuse dwarf clients one at a time.
B. Abstracts: a more detailed presentation of the cases for joint prosecution
- Federal judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics, as shown by a statistical analysis. They have the technical expertise and equipment infrastructure to run a national IT network that allows filing, storing, and retrieving hundreds of millions of briefs, motions, records, petitions, applications, orders, decisions, reports, statistics, dockets, schedules, and emails to and from their case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) administered by PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).
a. The judges wield devastating decisional and retaliatory power over Internet-controlling companies(Lsch:17§C), which they can refrain from wielding if the companies assist them in their interception(OL:5fn7).
b. The U.S. Postal Service’s “Informed Delivery” service shows that the technology to intercept mail is in use(OL3:1304¶20). Register to be emailed every morning a photo of the front side of your mail for that day. Amazing computing power is needed to identify your mail since “The Postal Service processed and delivered an average of 318 million mail pieces daily”.
c. All public power belongs to We the People in a democracy. No abuse of it will outrage us more than the exposure of judges’ violation of our most cherished constitutional freedoms, i.e., of speech, press, and assembly -on social media too-. Informing the public of such violation will provoke Snowden/NSA–like national outrage.
d. Exposing such interception will provoke a constitutional crisis -which branch will prosecute the judiciary?-; launch a flood of lawsuits by abusees demanding compensation; may lead to a constitutional convention; etc.
- Fabricated indictments. As a lawyer and grand juror, I had the knowledge and was in a position to realize that the assistant district attorney and his supervisor(ADAs) had no evidence supporting their charge of murder brought against two defendants, and neither did the police officers who testified against them.
a. When I questioned what they were doing, the ADAs referred me to the grand jury judge, who discharged me from the jury peremptorily.
b. I have mailed complaint letters -see Exhibits 1-4– to the county and state administrative judges; the Judicial Conduct Commission; the NYPD commissioners and their Internal Affairs Bureau chiefs; each of the judges of NYS Court of Appeals; the indicted NYC Mayor and his probed aides; public advocates; city council members; et al. All of them have covered for their colleagues.
c. Lawyers can jointly defend thousands of ‘fabricated indictees‘ by impugning their indictments; and win punitive damages. Scandal sells.
- The Math of Abuse. This is a mathematical demonstration that the vast majority of case and motion briefs filed in the courts are not read by the judges. It is based on official statistics of the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division and those in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which is required to be filed with Congress as a public document (28 U.S.C. §§604(a)(3-4); (h)(2)).
a. Judges dispose of the brief-related cases and motions by having their clerks rubberstamp reasonless, unresearched, fiat-like 5¢ dumping forms. Their blanks are filled out with case-identifying data; and their boilerplate does not contain findings of facts or arguments of law.
b. The forms’ only operative words are “affirmed”, if the case was a decision appealed from; or “denied”, if slapped on a substantive motion, e.g., one that argues the rights and duties of a party, the basis of a charge, or the admissibility of evidence, as opposed to a procedural motion, for instance, one concerning the extension of a deadline or the substitution of an attorney. The status remains given that no judges’ action was needed, only clerks’ complicit obedience.
c. Filled out dumping forms are not judicial decisions, but rather arbitrary, capricious, and ad hoc fiats to dump off cases in judges’ caseload that based on a list of judges’ criteria their clerks must dispose of as ‘deadweight’.
d. Many dumping-form fiats can be found on courts’ websites, courts’ research rooms, some ‘Miscellaneous’ reporters -printed collections of decisions-, and legal notice newspapers, e.g., New York Law Journal.
e. Dumping-form fiats are such an abuse of power that judges may even conceal them under the “Not for publication” rubberstamp. Consequently, they may not be entered into the public record by either the clerk of court or the county clerk. The parties may have:
1) received a copy by mail;
2) been informed thereof when they called to ask about the status of their cases; or
3) found it after they were told by a clerk to come to the court’s in-take room to look for the decision in their case in the chest of drawers full of decisions waiting to be entered.
f. “Not for publication” rubberstamping and dumping-form fiats are means of judges not making public pro-forma decisions of which they are ashamed due to their perfunctoriness or to their having made them in their self-interest of preserving or increasing the value of their shares in one of the parties before them.
g. A contract for service is formed when a party pays the advertised brief filing fee to have its case or motion decided judicially, i.e., based on the brief and the application of the law. This requires that the brief be read by a judge, who were vetted publicly for their competence and honesty. Clerks were not; hence, judicial decisional authority cannot be delegated to them.
h. By instead issuing a dumping-form fiat, judges commit bait and switch false advertisement, breach of contract, dereliction of duty, and fraud on the public.
i. An informed and outraged group or class of parties so injured in fact can generate enough public pressure to force judges to recognize that those pro-forma decisions have the appearance of a conflict of interests; declare them null and void; call for a new trial; and recuse themselves from the cases. Cf. The Wall Street Journal’s serial article:
1) beginning on 28 September 2021, with “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”; and
2) followed on 2 November 2021, by “Hidden Interests – Federal Judge Files Recusal Notices in 138 Cases After WSJ Queries. Rodney Gilstrap initially argued he didn’t violate financial-conflicts law” (App6:30entry449 or thereunder).
- Federal judges’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their fellow federal judges. They abuse the congressional grant of self-discipline authority under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(28 U.S.C. §§351-364) by dismissing 100% of complaints filed against any of their own and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals.
a. Judges have institutionalized the implicit or explicit complicit agreement for mutual assured protection through their reciprocal exoneration from all complaints: ‘Today I exempt you from the complaint against you, and tomorrow you exempt me and my friends from any complaint against us, no matter the abuse’s nature, extent, gravity, or harm.’
b. Judges’ reciprocal exoneration corrupts judicial integrity as judges look after each other rather than to administer fair and impartial justice in accordance to law.
c. Judges have defrauded the public by pretending that they will process complaints fairly and impartially while in fact they dismiss the complaints to cover for each other as an integral part of their interpersonal relationship. By covering for the abuse that was committed, they have encouraged more abuse. That is how they have become accessories after and before the fact.
- The Follow the Money! and Follow the Wire! investigations. These investigations apply forensic research techniques, e.g., Fraud and Forensic Accounting(FFA), big data search, and AI(jur:102§a; OL:194§E), to discover assets that judges have grabbed, concealed, evaded taxes on, handled through money laundering(OL:1); etc.
a. Justice Thomas was shown to have received more than $4 million in gifts from billionaires with business before the Supreme Court. He has failed to declare those gifts in his annual financial disclosure report mandated under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S. Code, Appendix). He refuses to recuse himself from cases related to them.
b. The other eight justices, let alone lower court judges, abstain from exhibiting the moral courage necessary to criticize him, let alone demand that he resign.
1) Their reciprocal cover-up through silence is explained by the capacity that each justice has to bring down all the other justices and many judges as accessories before and after the fact, and for willful ignorance and blindness, culpable indifference, dereliction of duty to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system, obstruction of justice, their own abuse of power, about which they may even have boasted(jur:88§§a-e), etc.
c. The justices and judges tacitly shout at each other, “If you help them take me down, I’ll bring you with me!” As a result of their complicit silence, they are beholden to each other. Their reciprocal cover-up is their institutionalized modus operandi. Their silence and cover-ups are the pervasive means of controlling and corrupting the judicial system. See the analysis of the official statistics(OL2:455§§B, D) and hereunder.
d. Judges’ abuse of power and cover-ups can be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO; 18 U.S.C. §1961 (U.S. Code of federal criminal law) and its version in the law of the several states; cf. NY Enterprise Corruption Law.
- Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme. Bankruptcy judges are appointed to a term of 14 years (28 U.S.C. §152) by the circuit judges of the circuit where they will sit, who can reappoint them if the bankruptcy judges share and make “cronies”(jur:32§§2-6) pay-to-play.
a. Those circuit judges will decide any appeal from the decisions of their bankruptcy judges. Appointers loath to reverse the decisions of their appointees, which incriminates them as having appointed an incompetent or corrupt judicial candidate. Rather, appointers cover up for, and do not appreciate lawyers who attack, their appointees.
b. The majority of bankrupt parties are individuals, as opposed to companies. Almost all of them appear pro se, for they lack the money to mount costly and time-consuming appeals. They also lack knowledge of the intricacies of bankruptcy law. Thus, appeals from bankruptcy judges’ decisions are extremely rare. What the bankruptcy judge says, goes.
c. In most of the 90 bankruptcy courts across the country -all of which are federal- there is only one, two, or three bankruptcy judges. As a result, bankruptcy lawyers, whom companies must retain to represent them, hardly ever challenge their decisions, whereby they would risk the retaliation of the judge presiding over their case as well as that in solidarity of his/her fellow judges when they preside over their cases and teach them the lesson: ‘Don’t you ever mess with any of us!‘
d. Moreover, a bankruptcy judge can have a bankruptcy trustee removed from all the trustee’s thousands of cases by filing a complaint against him in one single case(28 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 58.6(a)(4)). Obviously, the trustee has every interest in never even appearing to challenge or otherwise displeasing the judge, and in showing his gratitude for every day that the judge allows him to keep his job.
e. A bankruptcy trustee wields enormous power in his dealings with the debtor: He recommends to the judge what assets to exempt from distribution to the creditors and the dollar percentage to which debts must be paid. Appreciation for a recommended lower percentage may be shown with a kickback, as may be the judge’s approval of the recommendation.
f. In 2005, Congress found an “absence of effective oversight”, and in 1979, “cronyism”, in the bankruptcy system.(jur:32§§2-6) The result was and still is the unaccountability of the system cronies, e.g., circuit and bankruptcy judges, the bankruptcy trustees, and the service providers that they hire, such as accountants, appraisers, warehousers, and lawyers. They take care of, and cover for, each other, thus evolving into a tight-knit racketeering enterprise.
g. Held unaccountable by the bankruptcy judges, the cronies are free to run risklessly an abusive bankruptcy petition mill. Thereby money becomes accessible by approving for processing every petition for protection from creditors regardless of its merits under bankruptcy law. After all, only if petitions are in the system can the cronies grab the money through their bankruptcy fraud scheme.
h. Consequently, bankruptcy judges exercise unaccountable power over $100s of billions every year. Their ‘absolute power’ over so much money degenerates into ‘absolute corruption’(jur:27fn28). Their unaccountability enables them to run risklessly their bankruptcy fraud scheme and makes its workings understandable.
i. These are some of the mechanisms that provide motive, means, and opportunity for abuse of power in the bankruptcy courts and their running of a bankruptcy fraud scheme. The scheme has millions of victims, namely, the debtors and creditors in one-off cases, who are unlikely to be among the cronies. The latter are repeat players and thus, the beneficiaries.
j. An investigation must determine whether bankruptcy and circuit judges abuse the Federal Judiciary’s national IT network to illegally transfer, conceal from individuals and the IRS, and launder onshore and offshore money that they have grabbed through the scheme(OL:1).
k. A group of lawyers, journalists, multidisciplinary experts, professors, and students can join forces to work as a team to expose the schemers. The team members can shake to the core not only the bankruptcy system, but also the rest of the judicial system that appoints and covers for bankruptcy judges, and abets and benefits from their bankruptcy fraud scheme. In the process, the team can earn a lot of money and make a name for themselves.
- Medicare administers a budget of $900+ billion for the benefit of its more than 67 million insureds. It has thousands of HMOs, other health insurance entities, and medical services and equipment providers in its network.
a. Medicare has an interest in attracting to, and maintaining in its, network the largest number of medical services providers, which makes joining and remaining in Medicare more appealing for potential and current insureds.
b. But it is also in its interest to pay the fewest claims by, or on behalf of, the insureds. Those entities that receive a lump sum of money from Medicare to manage in line with certain guidelines, also have an interest in paying the fewest claims.
c. For their part, providers have an interest in receiving not just what Medicare pays according to its schedules, although they agreed contractually to accept as full payment the amount set forth in the schedules. So, the providers bill the insureds for the balance unpaid by Medicare, never mind that such balance billing is legally prohibited.
d. However, if Medicare were too strict in enforcing the balance billing prohibition, it would run the risk of providers quitting its network or even not joining it. As result, it looks the other way and lets its network providers balance bill its insureds.
e. After all, the insureds can hardly do anything about it. They are sick and burdened with medical bills. Hence, they cannot afford a lawyer. But they do not know the law, which means that they cannot represent themselves effectively pro se. It follows that they end up being abused by both Medicare and its providers.
f. The recovery for holding Medicare and its providers accountable and liable for their abuse of insureds can be huge. A successful class action or perhaps only informing the public about, and outraging it at, the abusers, can force transformative change in not only Medicare, but also the rest of the national health care system.
- Walgreens is described as having had $139.5 billion in revenue in 2020 and 277,000 employees in 2021. Its purchase-incentivizing program is Cash Rewards.
a. It is a misnomer, for rewards are not earned by paying in cash and cannot be redeemed for cash despite the statement on its false advertisement: “Save time. Redeem your rewards instantly at checkout”. But at checkout you cannot pay the total of the purchase with your Cash Rewards. You can only apply one single “tier” of $1, $3, $5, $10, or $20 that is equal to or less than the total purchase cost. The balance must be paid with your money. Your rewards, though earned, are not yours, for they expire.
b. Cash Rewards are a bait and switch scam. Walgreens has shown its propensity for abuse: For its involvement in the opioid epidemic, ‘It will pay $4.95 billion, plus more than $750 million in fees for attorneys and costs’.
c. This is a test case for going after big businesses that make substantial gains by defrauding millions of customers of small amounts that do not justify the cost of individual prosecution.
C. Potential impact of the key articles published by a national media outlet
- The key articles of the above blurbs and abstracts have the potential for opening the floodgates for tens of thousands of motions by individual lawyers or better yet, by our teams:
a. to vacate decisions perfunctorily and fraudulently issued by judges’ clerks on a 5¢ ‘dumping form’, whose blanks are filled out with case-identifying data; whose boilerplate does not discuss either the facts or the law of the case; and whose only operative words are either “affirmed”, to rubberstamp a lower court decision; or “denied”, if slapped on a substantive as opposed to a procedural motion, e.g., one that argues the rights and duties of a party, the basis of a charge, or the admissibility of evidence.
b. to remand for a new trial or to enter judgment against the party in which the judge had an interest if that party knew or through due diligence could have known of the judge’s interest.
c. to be compensated by judges and their judiciaries for the waste of effort, time, and money involved in writing a brief -an appellate brief can cost between $20,000 and $100,000- and the foreseeable and thus intentional frustration of the reasonable expectation that the brief would be used as the source of facts and law for judges to administer justice although the judges knew that they would not read them;
d. to recuse themselves for engaging in a pattern of abuse of power coordinated fraud on the public; dereliction of duty; intentional infliction of emotional and financial distress; etc;
e. to unscramble all the transactions and events based on the now vacated decisions so as to place the parties in the position in which they would be if those decisions had never been issued or to compensate the losing party; etc.
- These motions will give rise to a new and high-stakes law practice: judicial accountability and liability practice. Students who learn in a law clinic to argue them may develop an expertise that they can market to recruiters or from their boutique law firm after graduation.
-
We will present our proposal for unprecedented citizens hearings. They will be held at university auditoriums and media stations; monitored by journalists, professors, students, and other qualified members of the audience; and intended to give abusees the opportunity to tell the national public present in the hearing venue and virtually there through the Internet their stories of the abuse of power by judges that they have suffered or witnessed. The report on the hearings will be presented at the first national conference on unaccountable abuse of power and in the first Annual Report on Unaccountable and Riskless Abuse of Power.
Dare shout “I accuse!”
You may trigger history and even enter it
as a Champion of Justice.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
tel. (718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.