Judicial Discipline Reform

Using your story for demanding that
the Biden Commission on Supreme Court reform
hear your testimony at its “public meetings”; and
asking universities and the media,
such as the news agencies Reuters, The Boston Globe, Propublica, and The Washington Post,
to let the national public hear you by holding the proposed
unprecedented citizens hearings

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_method_for_writing_your_story.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

A. Telling your story at the most opportune time: when people want to hear it

1. This article lays out a two-phase method for you to write in up to 500 words the story of the abuse of power by judges and guardians that you have suffered or witnessed.
2. Your effort in writing your story will pay off, for you will be doing so at the most opportune time: when the public, journalists, universities, and even many politicians want to hear about those stories in the context of what will soon dominate the national debate: the Commission nominated by President Biden on April 9, 2021, to study ways of reforming the Supreme Court; and the desire attributed to him and his party “to pack the Supreme Court”, that is, to increase the number of justices from 9 to 15 and reduce their life-appointment to a term of years.

B. Composing an informative and brief story to be read, heard, and investigated

3. You want to tell the national public your story of judges’ abuse of power and make the public share your outrage at it. You also want your story to be investigated by journalists.
4. But nobody is going to read the scores, never mind hundreds, of pages generated by your case in court to figure out what your story is all about.
5. Moreover, at a hearing you will have only 5 minutes to tell your story…a rambling account will not hold the attention of the audience even that long.
6. In addition, journalists will not investigate a story that is confusing and missing key pieces of information so that it fails to pique their curiosity and makes them feel that it would not interest their own audience.
7. Therefore, you will benefit from applying the method set forth below for writing an informative and brief story. You will use it to rehearse your oral delivery of it at a hearing.

C. Not a professionally written story, but written after doing one’s homework

8. Research your own documents and cite them so that your story is accurate and verifiable.
9. Write a story that is significant to the audience: You are not writing a diary for your private reading. You are writing a story to be read by others, your audience. Organize it chronologically so that it can be easily followed by people who are totally unfamiliar with you and it.
10. Highlight the most outrageous events and avoid getting bogged down in details unimportant to the story even if they are important to you. After reading it, your audience should be able to exclaim: ‘The judge in this story did A, B, and C. How outrageous!”
11. Edit your writing to make it as grammatically correct as you can so that the audience’s attention is concentrated on your story without grammatical mistakes distracting it and reflecting poorly on your degree of education and attention to detail.
12. Your objectives are clear: Your accurate and verifiable story earns you the respect and trust of your audience. Its significance to them earns you their gratitude. All this may makes you attain your most important objective: your audience’s action in support of your cause.
13. Your audience’s support will be more likely and stronger if you apply to the writing of your story a principle of strategic thinking: “People never listen so attentively and react so positively as when they listen to avoid harm to themselves and their loved ones.”
14. Make your audience feel that the abuse by judges that you suffered or witnessed can happen to them too. They can fall prey to the abusers. “No! That is unacceptable. That is outrageous! I must support this victim to end this abuse before it gets me!”

D. You need intermediaries to bring your story to the national public

15. That must be the reaction of your ultimate audience: the national public. Only that public, informed about, and outraged at, judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power, can force the reform not only of the Supreme Court, but also the lower federal court and even the state courts. Your story alone will not attain that objective, but it must contribute to attaining it.
16. To tell your story to the national public you need the Biden Commission as well as journalists and universities to become interested in it and let you use their means for publicizing it.
17. So, it is shortsighted and counterproductive to disparage the media. They are not your enemies. They are your loudspeakers. They do not form a monolithic entity. There are thousands of media outlets and tens of thousands of journalists. Not all of them have the same point of view, means, or standing: The New York Times and The Washington Post do not behave the same way as a new outfit with a handful of journalists trying to breakthrough in the world of digital investigations.
18. Yet, they share a common interest: their commercial and reputational advancement. In addition, they can pick and choose among the scores of millions of people who have been abused by judges. You need journalists more than they need you. Treat all of them with respect. That is required by ethical considerations, professional standards, and strategic thinking.

E. Advice on story writing tested and applied successfully

19. I have applied the advice given here to produce my three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries. The study rests on professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. It is titled and downloadable thus:

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

^♣ Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144 (This article is at OL3:1329.)

20. This article is also posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. It and similar ones have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 38,962+ have become subscribers to it as of June 27, 2021(Appendix 3).
21. How many law firms, never mind lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
22. You can join the subscribers thus: go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or + New   or   Users   >Add New.

F. The two-phase writing method

1. In phase one, use your unrestrained creative spirit to draft your story

21. In the end you want to produce a story that flows smoothly into your audience’s mind and that is accurate, significant, and verifiable. But at the beginning, there is the big bang of story creation: The story bursts out of your mind chaotically onto a computer page (or paper). Anything makes its way out. Nothing is subjected to critical thought controls. If it pops up, jot it down.
22. Sit at your computer and write on a word processing page whatever word, term, or phrase identifies a person, event, place, document, thing, idea, concept, etc., apparently associated with your story. They are your story’s informational dots. Each opens a crack in your mind and lets other escape.
23. You are not yet trying to write grammatically correct and complete sentences. You only want to get started telling your story. Blurt anything and everything onto the page.
24. Let your stream of consciousness bubble out unrestrained by your thinking mind so that it sprinkles dots of your story all over the page. As related words, terms, and phrases flow out of your mind, keep adding them to or between the other dots on the page.
25. Widen and multiply the cracks in your mind by asking yourself about your story the journalists’ W-questions: What!? Who? Where? When? How? Why? What now?
26. Keep asking of every word, term, phrase, and sentence concerning an event: “then what happened?…and then what did they say?…and then what did I do?…and then…?” They are alive in your mind. They can hear and answer you. They can even ask you questions.
27. If informational dots or you ask questions that you cannot answer right away, only jot them down. Do not interrupt the fireworks of dots. Let it rip! Enjoy. Search for answers and evaluate their significance in phase two. Gradually questions will become more complex:

a. What was the name of the opposing party’s attorney?…and her law firm?

b. Did the judge issue an oral order from the bench or did he read one that he had written? Did he cite any law or rule?

c. Why did the judge order me to pay rent because the landlord had fixed the plumbing? I never told him; and the landlord never filed an answer! So how did the judge know? Did she confused me with another tenant? How many times has this landlord or his lawyer appeared before this judge?…Mmm. I’ll have to look into this later on.

23. When you have about ten informational dots, move them up and down in a rough chronological order of appearance in your story. As you do so, add to them any other words, terms, and phrases that enlarge their meaning, identify them more narrowly, or should be inserted between them.
24. Keep reading the dots, even aloud. Put them in a jingle, make them rhyme even if they make no sense…and they will come alive!, dancing in your mind and inviting to dance other words, terms, and phrases that are also dots. Let them jump onto the stage of your page.
25. Something like sentences will begin to appear. Keep ordering them chronologically and inserting more dots between them or enlarging them with details.
26. Painting by numbers, using stars to draw a constellation, you are connecting the dots into the sketch of a figure. It seems to be telling a story…your story! You can do this. You did it! You are telling your story!
27. Use a ‘balancing test’ to compare the dots’ weight of outrageousness for the story to make sense and be significant to them: the ones who do not know you or your story. Remove to another page dots that feel of ‘lighter’ significance. You are starting to recognize a hierarchy among the dots. That will help you stay within the 500-word limit. Combine the dots into rough sentences.
28. HOURS later you will feel that you have told your story from beginning to end. Let it sit for a day. You are not done, not even close: You only wrote your first draft. But you did!

2. In phase two, use your critical judgment to edit your story

26. Come back to your draft and read it through. Only thereafter start moving around and connecting the sentences in a way that will make sense to a person who does not know anything about it.
27. Avoid confusing your audience: Use the same word to refer to the same person, idea, event, object, etc. Double check your dates; the names of places, people, and their titles. Make sure who said what to whom. Do not trust your memory. Case and other documents. Research the law to provide citations. Journalists will check them and you must ensure that they can verify them. Be accurate.
28. Right now you are writing for an audience of journalists. They are knowledgeable, critical, and demanding. But they do not know anything about your story. Do not assume that they can fill in the details that you left out that are necessary for your story to make sense to them.
29. Try to the best of your ability to tell them a story that persuades them of the outrageousness of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. But do not be melodramatic; do not exaggerate.
30. Never make up details. Always make a clear distinction between facts, opinion, and impressions. Admit that you do not know what you do not know. You may be able to tell a lie as to a dot here or there. But journalists look at the whole picture and realize how false dots do not fit in. Lie-ridden mouths are not invited to tell their story. Even if you did not intend to provide false details, as when lying, but your details are incorrect for failure to check them against documents and other sources, you become an unreliable storyteller. You lose credibility. Never compromise it.
31. Self-editing means revising and rewriting your draft story; and correcting your grammar and the position of paragraphs, sentences, and clauses. It will take longer than drafting it: Dots were connected into a sketch. Now you are painting the sketch with the colors of accuracy, verifiability, and significance that reveal the outrageousness of the abuse of power of the judges in your story.

a. What to omit

32. Abstain from outbursts intended to elicit pity and appeal for commiseration. Do not appear emotionally fragile, unstable, or hypersensitive. Do not come across as a basket case.
33. Do not dilute your story’s significance with trivial details and petty grievances. A barrage of charges betrays incapacity to identify what is legally relevant. Do not diminish the credibility of your story with unfounded accusations, speculation, and extravagant claims. Trying to turn your experience into a nightmare does not make for a serious story; you are not scripting a horror movie.
34. Do not impair your story’s verifiability by making unprovable claims. Fantasy allegations make your story a fairy tale. Let independent investigators reveal what coming from a party –and as such biased toward her side of the story− sounds preposterous. Turn ‘reality that is stranger than fiction’ into a question that becomes a lead for investigative journalists:
    a. Did the judge put his kids on food stamps although he earns a judges’ salary?!
    b. Did he have his niece hired by the winning party to have her pay his gambling debts?
    c. Does he tell his law clerks that if at the end of their clerkship when they search for a job they want him to write them a glowing letter of recommendation, which can earn them a substantial sign-up bonus from the hiring employer, they have to decide the cases assigned to him and write the decisions, which explains why the style of the decisions signed by him is so oddly different every year after the start of the new clerkship?
35. Also leave out anything on which honest people can reasonably hold different opinions. It falls within the judges’ wide margin of discretion. Your opinion is not entitled to more credibility than the judges’, especially since you are not a lawyer, but rather a biased party, as all parties are.

b. What to include

36. Focus on the judges’ violation of criminal law, which their fellow judges will not want to appear defending, lest they dirty their own image: e.g.,
    a. denial of due process and equal protection of the law;
    b. conflict of interests;
    c. abuse of public office and confidential information for self-enrichment;
    d. bribery;
    e. bankruptcy fraud, concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering;
    f. interception of people’s mail and emails to detect and suppress those critical of judges; disregard of rules of conduct;
    g. cronyism;
    h. cover-up;
    i. ethnic, racial, socio-economic, gender, or religious bias;
    j. physical or sexual abuse;
    k. arbitrariness; and
    l. what offends the common sense of decency and propriety.
37. Provide pieces of information, e.g., names and dates, that can be treated as data: They can be scanned into a database to find the most convincing type of evidence: patterns of abuse by judges and their cronies, formed by their recurrence in the stories separately provided by different people.
38. Let your story sit for a day or two. Come back to it for another phase-two session. You are writing your story to tell it first to journalists; and if it passes muster, they will bring it to the national public. Eventually it will be the basis for your claim for compensation. What you say now binds you later on. Do what it takes to get your story right. It must be accurate, verifiable, and significant.

G. Title, subtitle, and theme of the story

39. After writing your story, you will recognize a theme running through it. Turn it into the title that expresses the nature of your story and its main takeaway.
40. In general, the theme of your story and that of the other witnesses is “judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power”. In particular, emphasize, whether in the title and certainly throughout the story, the judges’ three most outrageous acts. “If the most cannot do it, the lesser need not try.” There follow sample titles that summarize their respective story in a sentence:

How a judge failed to recuse himself from a case where he approved the foreclosure on an apartment building, the eviction of all the tenants, and its conversion into an office building by a development company in which he is a shareholder

How a judge once more declared another wealthy senior citizen incompetent and appointed as her guardian a person to whom he regularly entrusts guardianships, who squeezed every penny from her, and then dumped her onto the state welfare system as an indigent

How a bankruptcy judge allowed the same bankruptcy trustee to hold yet another unannounced auction where only one and the same bidder showed up, bought the debtor’s assets for pennies on the dollar, flipped them, and made a killing…
leaving me as the financial corpse

Bonfire of integrity at the penthouse: Judges attending a judicial conference boasted about how they cut corners on the law, use parties’ information to enrich themselves and their partners, and have clerks fudge documents; and were overheard by the apparently invisible waiters and waitresses serving them, who reported them to their chief circuit judge; and although the chief deemed their reports complaints, she dismissed them without the waiters and waitresses ever being interviewed as part of any investigation

H. Additional information in links embedded in text and as endnotes

41. It is assumed that you will email your story. Attachments to them are risky because when opened they can release a virus into the recipient’s computer. As a result, some email computers (servers) do not accept for delivery emails with attachments. Do not send them.
42. Instead, turn a reference to a person, event, place, document, etc., into a linking blue keyword, which holds embedded in it a ‘hidden’, not visible, link to a supporting document: Click on the keyword >in the dropdown menu click on the word Hyperlink >in the box type in the hyperlink >click enter. The keyword should turn blue indicating that it has an embedded link.
43. Be reasonable: do not mar your story with dozens of blue words. Use your good judgment to identify the documents whose links should be embedded. If readers need more supporting documents, they can ask you for them. Store the linked documents either on your website, DropBox, Google Plus, Academia, or any other cloud storage facility.
44. If need be, you may provide at the end of your story a “List of links to supporting documents”. Add a brief description of what the corresponding document deals with.
45. Include in the list the documents of the opposing party and the decisions of the judges in your case. Be fair. Let them ‘talk’ too. Be helpful: spare journalists and other readers the need to search for those documents, which should be at your fingertips because you received them and should have read them. Do not give the impression that you are hiding the other side of the story or that you are so self-centered and small-minded that you think your story only has one side: yours.

I. Sign and date your story

46. If your address, telephone number, and email address were not stated at the top of your story, state that information at the end of it. Show that you take responsibility for your story.
47. Moreover, your contact information will facilitate getting in touch with you to ask for any needed clarification or additional information.
48. Provide the date when you submit your story. That information is useful, in general, to order documents chronologically and, in particular, to establish your story’s currency, i.e., its ‘as of date’.

J. Advocates’ reciprocal revision of their stories, checklist, and chapters

49. Before submitting your story, share it with the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to whom I send my articles –see the To: and cc: boxes of my emails and OL2:1140¶28–. Ask that they provide feedback on it just as you offer to do the same if they share with you their story.
50. A competition for the title of “Protagonist of the Worst Abuse by Judges Ever” or the attitude “My story is more importan that yours cuz it effects more people” does not improve any story. They are egocentric and wasteful of everybody’s effort, goodwill, and time.
51. Cooperate to identify and rephrase, eliminate, or correct what is inaccurate, insignificant, or unverifiable; ambiguous; inconsistent; contradictory; digressive; repetitive; pretentious; self-aggrandizing; defamatory; a poor word choice; trite; in bad taste; foul language, which is impermissible; misspelled; unidiomatic; wrong syntax (word order); ungrammatical; etc.
52. All of you can draw up a “Checklist and Evaluation Form for Stories of Abuse of Power by Judges”. It can be used when composing the proposed Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse of Power in America.
53. Reciprocal revisions will afford you the opportunity to know each other. You and others can form a chapter of Advocates who promote in turn the formation of a national, civic, single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform.

K. Blocs of email addresses where to send your story

52. When you are ready to send your story, copy the bloc of email addresses below and paste it in the corresponding box of your email:

To [for the commissioners of the Biden Commission]:

cristina.rodriguez@yale.edu, robert.bauer@nyu.edu, kandrias@umich.edu, jack.balkin@yale.edu, RBauer@perkinscoie.com, baude@uchicago.edu, madams@yu.edu, charles@law.duke.edu, acrespo@law.harvard.edu, wdellinger@omm.com, ecb95@law.rutgers.edu, justin.driver@yale.edu, rfallon@law.harvard.edu, heather.k.gerken@yale.edu, ngertner@law.harvard.edu, jgoldsmith@law.harvard.edu, tgriffith@law.harvard.edu, tgrove@law.ua.edu, bhuang@law.columbia.edu, mkang@northwestern.edu, ojohns@law.columbia.edu, lacroix@uchicago.edu, lemos@law.duke.edu, levi@law.duke.edu, trevor.morrison@nyu.edu, cnelson@law.virginia.edu, rick.pildes@nyu.edu, mramsey@SanDiego.edu, krooseve@law.upenn.edu, d-strauss@uchicago.edu, bross@law.berkeley.edu, tribe@law.harvard.edu, awhite36@gmu.edu, kewhitt@princeton.edu, development@naacpldf.org, michael.waldman@nyu.edu, caroline.fredrickson@georgetown.edu, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,

cc [for journalists]:

“Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff” <gpduf@aol.com>, “Veterans Today Managing Editor Jim W Dean” <jimwdean@aol.com>, ajaffe@thehill.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, “Todd Wallack” <twallack@gmail.com>, “Brian McGrory Editor” <brian.mcgrory@globe.com>, contact@go.reuters.com, charles.ornstein@propublica.org, tracy.weber@propublica.org, spotlight@globe.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, Thehill@email.thehill.com, patricia.wen@globe.comrs.com, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@thomsonreuters.com, ijerr@spectacularjournals.org, newstip@globe.com, newsletters@abovethelaw.com, drew@americanthinker.com, tips@publicintegrity.org, emily.holden@theguardian.com, NTotenberg@npr.org, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, andrea@americanthinker.com, Laura.Crimaldi@globe.com, inytletters@nytimes.com, info@elizabethwarren.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, info@AP.org, Elizabeth_Warren@warren.senate.gov, ginger.thompson@propublica.org, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, MCoyle@alm.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, aglantz@stanford.edu, watchdog@publicintegrity.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, joepatrice@abovethelaw.com, info@mail.huffpost.com, tips@thedailybeast.com, tips@latimes.com, aturturro@alm.com, Opencourt@cnn.com, letters@nytimes.com, contact_us@spectacularjournals.org, Matt.Rocheleau@globe.com, oped@nytimes.com, jmaxeiner@ubalt.edu, Jackie.Botts@thomsonreuters.com, hello@propublica.org, Jaimi.Dowdell@thomsonreuters.com, tips@propublica.org, Vernal.Coleman@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, Andrew.Chung@thomsonreuters.com, Lawrence.Hurley@thomsonreuters.com, Andrea.Januta@thomsonreuters.com,

53. Post the article to social media, such as: Facebook, Youtube,   LinkedIn,   Instagram,   Google Plus,   Pinterest,   Reddit,   Snapchat,   WhatsApp

Twitter: Request that the Biden Commission on Supreme Court reform hold public meetings & journalists and universities hold citizens hearings where people can tell their story of judges’ abuse of power; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_method_for_writing_your_story.pdf

54. Precede your story with this professional letterhead and introduction (which have 483 words and should give you an idea of the length of your story):

Your name and address,
phone number; email address

The Biden Commission on Supreme Court reform;
Investigative journalists; and
Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Dear Commissioners, Journalists, and Advocates,

Kindly find below my story of the abuse of power by judges that I have suffered and/or witnessed.

I am sending it to support my request that you hear me and similarly situated abusees at the “public meetings” that the Commission is mandated to hold. You should allow your “meetings” and your report to inform the national public of how justices and judges behave in practice, abusing their power for their gain and convenience because they are unaccountable and their abuse is riskless.

By contrast, if you limit yourself to a mere discussion of the theory of constitutional law on the Supreme Court, you will have allowed yourselves to be manipulated as a pretext for implementing the foregone political decision to “pack the Court”.

I also request that you journalists join forces with journalism, Information Technology, and business academics to expose judicial abuse of power at the unprecedented citizens hearings proposed by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

At those hearings, multidisciplinary panels of journalists and academics can take the testimony of abusees. They can do so life at media stations and university auditoriums across the country as well as via video conference to make it inexpensive and convenient for them and the public to attend. This can launch a MeToo!-like trend of public accountability here and abroad.

It is overdue: In the 232 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is only 8! For comparison, the number of federal officers on the bench on September 30, 2020, was 2,341. Federal judges need not fear losing their jobs. In practice, they have turned public power entrusted to them into the power of a State above the state.

The “meetings” and the citizens hearings can expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse. On that factual basis, the reform can be undertaken of not only the Supreme Court, where in the October 2019-September 2020 fiscal year only “73 cases were argued and 69 were disposed of in 53 signed opinions”, but also the lower federal courts, which terminated 1,103,337(page 10) in the year to September 30, 2020.

The citizens hearings can be expanded to take the testimony of victims of state judges, who are just as outrageous in their abuse of power.

The hearings can thus lead to a reform that takes from judges the unaccountability that they have arrogated to themselves and gives back to We the People, the Masters of all public servants, what is our birthright: government by the rule of law where the People exercise their right to hold also their judicial public servants accountable for entrusted power and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

Therefore, I request the opportunity to be heard also at the citizens hearings.

Date:                                   Name:

L. My offer to present this articles

55. I offer to make a presentation on this article to you and your group of guests followed by a Q&A session. It can take place via video conference and, if in New York City, in person.
56. To ascertain the quality of my presentation, watch my video and follow it on its slides.
57. To schedule it and agree on its terms, use my contact information below.

M. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

Donate

to support the professional law research and writing, and
strategic thinking of

Judicial Discipline Reform

through Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ;

by making a deposit or an online transfer to Citi Bank,
routing # 021 000 089, account # 4977 59 2001; or

by mailing a check to the address below.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, 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.

                http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_citizens_hearings_outrage_compensation.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

A. How commissioners compromised by conflict of interests render necessary unprecedented citizens hearings

1. The formation by President Biden of his Commission to study ways of reforming the Supreme Court was announced on April 9, 2021 (discussed in an article hereabove and also downloadable). The biographical note on each of the 36 commissioners shows that they are former law clerks to judges and justices (herein “judges” includes “justices”, unless the context indicates otherwise), and/or current law professors.

2. As former law clerks, the commissioners are bound by the confidentiality agreements that they signed with the judges in order to be allowed to clerk for them. While clerking, they did whatever the judges asked them to do because that was the only way of obtaining the one thing that mattered to them more than anything else: a glowing letter of recommendation that would determine whether they could get any of the jobs for which they would apply at the end of their clerkship.

3. As current law professors, who are employees or officers of their respective law school, they cannot afford to expose by themselves or through the witness of third parties any illegal or unethical acts or improprieties (hereinafter referred to as abuse of power) committed by judges individually or as a class. Doing so would make the professors and their schools run the risk of becoming the target of judges’ power of retaliation.  Wielded by judges with a life-appointment, it is devastating, for it arises from both a very long memory for holding grudges and their position to judge each other, which allows them to execute their implicit or explicit mutual exoneration agreement.

4. It follows that the commissioners are compromised by a conflict of interests. It prevents them from doing what is indispensable for any study intended to provide the basis for reforming the Supreme Court: the findings of fact of how the justices conduct themselves in the Court and in dealing with lower court judges, as opposed to the theory of constitutional law that describes their job.

5. Consequently, it is all but certain that the commissioners will not hold public hearings to allow the national public to bear witness to the abuse of power by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.

6. The commissioners’ interest in protecting themselves and their law schools justifies the proposal for holding unprecedented citizens hearings.

a. They are supported by the findings and arguments presented in my three-volume study* ^{† ♣} of judges and their judiciaries, the product of professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
and Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

 ^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from OL2:394-1143

^♣ Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-latest article

i.  Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.

b. I  have also presented findings and arguments in the articles that I have written and posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 38,611+ have become subscribers to it(Appendix3) as of May 25, 2021.

1) How many law firms, never mind lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?

2) You can join the subscribers thus:
go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or
+ New   or   Users   >Add New.

B. Salient features of the unprecedented citizens hearings

7. The proposed citizens hearings are unprecedented because they will not be the traditional public hearings held in Congress or by another government entity, such as the Biden Commission.

8. Politicians are the very ones who after recommending, endorsing, nominating, and confirming judicial candidates to judgeships and justiceships, have connivingly protected them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ regardless of their abuse of power. Their sham hearings are pre-determined not to expose judges’ abuse and provoke their retaliation.

a. President Biden and the Democrats in the Senate nominated and confirmed, respectively, Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a former chief judge thereof, to become Attorney General. This fact provides probable cause to belief that they are committed to preventing any exposure of abuse of power by him and his fellow judges that could impair his authority and even lead to his resignation, e.g.:

b. Judge Garland abusively dismissed 100% of complaints filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(28 USC §§351-364) by anybody against any judge in his Circuit, as shown by the official statistics of his own Court submitted as a public document to Congress, as required under 28 USC §604(h)(2), in the Annual Report of the Director of the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(§604(a)(3-4)), who is an appointee of the Supreme Court chief justice(§601).

c. Through such systematic dismissal of complaints and abusive abrogation in practice of that Act of Congress, Judge Garland covered up the abuse by his fellow judges complained about. He left complainants without any relief or compensation, and subjected litigants and the rest of the public to the riskless abuse of judges, thus assured of their unaccountability.

d. The chief judges of the other circuits do likewise;  their abuse is condoned by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. They grab gain and convenience for themselves risklessly in reliance on their tacit or implicit mutual exoneration agreement.  By so doing, they intentionally inflict injury in fact on the public, for a principle of the law of torts states that “a person is deemed to intend the reasonably expected consequences of their acts and omissions”. They ‘take with notice’ the liability resulting from their conduct…which the class of self-exonerating judges take off their shoulders.

9. The citizens hearings will also be unprecedented because it will not be the media that will tell the national public how judges abuse their power in fact. Instead, it will be citizens who will at the hearings tell the rest of the public how the most powerful officers in our nation have abused their power at the expense of its citizens.

10. To that end, the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings will be:

a. organized by journalists, media outlets, and universities;

b. conducted by panels of journalists and multidisciplinary professors and experts in Information Technology; electronic transfer of money; asset concealment; bribery involving credit and debit cards; tax evasion; off-shore tax heavens; money laundering; banking, securities, and bankruptcy fraud; white collar crimes; breach of the oath of office and the implied contractual covenant and official duty of good faith and “traditional notions of fair dealing and substantial justice”; etc.;

c. held onsite but mostly via video conference so that they do not involve expensive travel and room and board away from home;

d. transmitted to the national public live, through multimedia, and interactively so as to allow the receipt of the public’s feedback in real time; and made available on the citizens hearings website for later viewing and through podcasts;

e. focused on taking the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, including current and former court/law clerks;

f. broad enough to expose the abuse committed and/or covered up by judges as well as the Supreme Court justices, whether the latter did so as lower court judges and/or are doing so as justices and circuit justices(28 USC §42) allotted to the several circuits for supervisory purposes;

g. affording the opportunity to advertise the formation of local chapters of abusees to jointly demand compensation from judges and their judiciaries for the abuse that they have committed as principals or enabled as accessories and as complicit supervisors; and

h. so outrage-provoking that the public will demand the formation of, and popular representation in, a grand jury-like commission to investigate, with subpoena, contempt, and indictment power, unaccountable judges and what they have turned into ‘their court system’: the State within a state.

C. Outrageous forms of abuse by judges that the citizens hearings will reveal

11. The stories told by citizens at their hearings will reveal abuse of power of such nature, extent, frequency, and gravity that it can only be the product of coordination among judges for use as their institutionalized modus operandi to run their judiciary as a racketeering enterprise.

12. Some forms of abuse will reveal that judges:

a. run a bankruptcy fraud scheme together with their “cronies”(*>jur:32§2) in the bankruptcy system;

b. according to none other than Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who dare reveal this form of abuse in her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too”, its judges engage in ‘abusive self-enrichment‘ by failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a financial interest and resolving the ensuing conflict of interests in their favor to protect and/or increase the value of their interest. Sen. Warren attributes this abuse to judges’ unaccountability;

c. count a case involving a pro se –a person not represented by a lawyer– as one third of a case(>OL2:455§B) thus giving the case one third of the attention, research, and time that they normally give a case. Thereby judges deny pro ses “Equal Justice Under Law”. Nevertheless, they require pro ses to pay 100% of the cost of gathering facts through discovery, such as by deposing witnesses and consulting experts, researching the law, writing a brief,  printing, binding and filing it in court, serving it on the parties, presenting their case in court, etc.;

d. require parties to file case and motion briefs but fail to read most of them, as shown by “the math of abuse”, which entails the breach of the contract for adjudicatory services; fraud; and compensable waste;

e. dump 93% of appeals(>OL2:457§D) out of the circuit courts through orders in forms filled out by their clerks that are “on procedural grounds [mostly the one-fit-all pretext of ‘lack of jurisdiction’], unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation;

f. intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress their critics’, thus depriving We the People of our most cherished rights, namely, those guaranteed under the 1^st Amendment to:

“freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including compensation for abuse]”

g. abuse their congressionally granted self-disciplining authority to ensure their own unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them and denying 100% of petitions to review their dismissals.

D. Some economic and institutional consequences of the citizens hearings

13. Judges’ abuse has harmed the parties that have appeared and that are currently appearing in their courts. Their abuse provides the basis for those who have appeared before the same judge or in the same court to form local chapters to jointly demand to be compensated by judges and their judiciaries.

14. As things stand now, any suit for such compensation will be dismissed summarily by application of the doctrine of judicial immunity that judges have conjured up in abusive self-interest, while holding accountable and liable priests, doctors, lawyers, politicians, police officers, their institutions, and everybody else.

15. However, the national outrage provoked by the testimony given at the citizens hearings will provide journalists and media outlets a professional and commercial incentive to further investigate judges’ abuse; their findings will exacerbate the outrage. A self-reinforcing cycle will ensue. The issue of compensation will become one at the center of the national debate. Ever more abusees will keep pressing for a resolution favorable to them.

16. The citizens hearings can become an annual event for the People to monitor the performance of the judges, to whom they have entrusted public power;  and for the organizing journalists and universities to publish The Annual Report on on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse of Power in America(*>jur:126§3).

17. Those hearings can shake public trust in the judiciary so profoundly as to stir up the public to demand and force the resignation of judges and justices, who depend on public trust to have their decisions respected and obeyed. Reliable precedent therefor is the resignation of:

a. Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, for ‘improprieties’ in taking income from an outside source in addition to its judicial salary and benefiting from relations with former clients;

b. Former Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on December 18, 2017, to avoid an investigation of sexual harassment assigned to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by Chief Justice Roberts under pressure from the MeToo! outrage provoked by the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation; and

c. Circuit Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of President Donald Trump, on February 11, 2019, upon learning that she and other family members were being investigated for tax evasion in connection with a scheme to avoid inheritance tax through the use of a complex system of shell companies.

E. Citizens hearings leading to a constitutional convention, thus setting in motion transformative change that results in a new form of government

18. The citizens hearings can be an opportunity for their organizers, witnesses, and the national public to form physical and virtual (on the Internet) groups in the guise of Tea Party local chapters to demand the calling of a constitutional convention.

19. That is the kind of convention that since April 2, 2014, 34 states, constituting the two thirds of states required by the amending provisions of Article V of the Constitution, have petitioned Congress to convene.

20. However, the congressional leaders will never convene it because the convention is all but certain to upset the status quo and diminish the power and privilege that they have accumulated over the 232 years since the adoption of the current Constitution in 1789.

21. The citizens hearings can take on a life of their own: People and local chapters may coalesce into a runaway national civic movement for a new People-government relation. It can transform itself into a constitutional convention that drafts a new constitution…as can a courageous Biden Commission(§A).

22. Outrage and compensation are the forces that can provide the citizens hearings transformative capacity: They can turn the system of justice that went in into one that comes out as a qualitatively and functionally different system of governance. The tandem of those forces was or is lacking in the chaos of the presidential campaign;  the challenges to the electoral results; and the conflict of interests pervading the Biden Commission and predetermining its final report.

23. The citizens hearings can set in motion the transformation of the People/government relation that has been in place for centuries.  They can have transformative capacity because the MeToo!, Black Lives Matter, LBTG, and Asian/Pacific Islander movements, and the protests against police brutality and for socio/economic equality have made the mood of the People ripe for it. That popular mood is expressed in the common self-assertive rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

24. The transformation can consist in a new form of government where the People assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power. As Masters of all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, the People can hold them accountable for the power entrusted to them and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of it.

25. The citizens hearings can expose abuse of power to have become such an integral part of judges’ and their judiciaries’ way of doing business that the outrage and demand for compensation can turn reformatory measures that today appear inconceivable into ones whose adoption becomes unavoidable. But everything begins with informing the People thereof.

F. How you can promote the holding of the citizens hearings

26. This proposal for holding unprecedented citizens hearings is timely. It shows strategic thinking. It can have a practical impact on exposing judges’ abuse of power…but only if it reaches people as opposed to being intercepted on its way to them or if their positive replies to it are intercepted.

27. Hence, it is in your own interest to distribute this article so widely and repeatedly that it has a chance of overwhelming any interception and going viral.

a. Share it with all your friends, relatives, and colleagues.

b. Post it to social media, such as:

Facebook, Youtube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram, Google plus, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, and Twitter: Tell your story of judges’ abuse & ask for compensation at unprecedented citizens hearings; the Biden Commission on SCt reform will not let you do it; invite your audience, the People; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_citizens_hearings_outrage_compensation.pdf

c. Organize a presentation on this article followed by a Q&A session by me to you, your colleagues, students, and other guests. It can be held via video conference and, if it is here in New York City, in person.

28.  To assess my capacity to make that presentation you may watch my video and follow it on its slides.

29. To set its terms and scheduling you may get in touch with me using my contact information below.

G. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE

to

Judicial Discipline Reform

by making a deposit or an online transfer to
Citi Bank, routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001;

through Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ;
or
by mailing a check to the address below.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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. and †>OL2:1114§G, 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.

 A. An investigation by you that launches a generalized media investigation

B. From a reform of the system of justice to a commission only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit its justices’ terms

11. The Republicans argued that the general election in November 2016 was so close that it should be left to the American voters to elect the president who would nominate a justice to a life-appointment office. On that basis, they denied Judge Garland even a hearing. Shortly after taking office, President Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed to the Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

C. AG Judge Garland’s conflict of interest was resolved to protect his interest in avoiding any investigation into judges

D. Public outrage’s role in energizing a generalized media investigation into judges and their judiciaries

E. Leads to investigate abusive judges and their racketeering Judiciary

F. Unprecedented citizens hearings for the People to reform the system of justice

H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-JudgeRPratt.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

U.S. Senior District Judge Robert W. Pratt
U.S. District for the Southern District of Iowa
123 East Walnut Street, Suite 300
Des Moines, IA 50309
https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/content/senior-district-judge-robert-w-pratt
https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/contact

Mr. Michael Messina
Judicial Assistant
tel. (515)284-6254
[Human Resources: 515-284-6392]

Mr. Ryan Foley, reporter; and
Mr. Ron Nixon, international investigations editor
Associated Press
tel. +1(202) 281-8604; +1(202) 641-9000
https://www.ap.org/contact-us/contact-newsroom
info@AP.org

All other journalists and media outlets

Dear Judge Pratt, Mr. Foley, Mr. Messina, Mr. Nixon, journalists, media outlets, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

1. You, Judge Pratt, made your views on the pardons granted by President Trump in December 2020 known to Associated Press (AP) reporter Ryan J. Foley, who wrote the article referring to you and titled “Federal judge in Iowa ridicules Trump’s pardons”, published on December 30.

2. AP reporter Foley explained that “Pratt made the remarks when asked for comment on pardons granted to two former top aides for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, who were convicted in a corruption scheme related to the Iowa caucuses”.

3. AP Foley quoted you as saying, “It’s not surprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals”.

4. This is an appeal for you to be consistent and honest by applying to yourself and your fellow judges that very same principle to expose judges’ pardons of each other. Doing that requires more integrity and therefore is riskier than being flippant in ‘ridiculing Trump’s pardons’. However, you can do that on the solid basis of the facts discussed hereunder, which are known to you given that you have dealt as an insider of the judicial class for the more than your 20 years on the bench.

5. By exposing judges’ reciprocal pardons, you can set off in the administration of justice, not only by the Federal Judiciary, but also by its state counterparts, transformative change: what goes into the process of change comes out transformed into a different system of justice, one where judges are held accountable for their conduct and liable to compensate their victims.

6. If you can muster the necessary consistency, honesty, and integrity, you can exit the judiciary into retirement, not as yet another judge among thousands. Rather, you can bring down, not merely a top official and all his aides, as occurred in the Watergate scandal, which forced President Nixon to resign and sent all his White House men to prison in 1974, but a whole branch of government that judges, rendered unaccountable through reciprocal pardons, risklessly run, as shown below, as a criminal enterprise.

7. That is how instead of ridicule as a hypocrite, you can earn praise as the main character of the bestseller and protagonist of the blockbuster movie/documentary ‘All the judges’ exposer’.

A. Federal judges pardon each other by dismissing 100% of complaints against them

8. The Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 USCode §§601-613; here with bookmarks added to facilitate navigation) is submitted to Congress and made available to the public (§604(a)(3, 4)), e.g., on AO’s website. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and can be removed by him and the other members of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which includes, among others, all the chief judges of the 13 federal circuits and two national courts (§331). They are imputed with knowledge and approval of the Annual Report.

9. The 2019 Report is the latest version available, covering the fiscal year October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019. If the norm holds, the 2020 Report will be published in March 2021.

10. The Report contains the official statistics of the U.S. courts, titled Judicial Business [year]; e.g., Judicial Business 2019.

11. Some of AO’s official statistics (§604(h)(2)) deal with the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, (the Act; §§351-364).

12. The Act entrusts federal judges with the exclusive authority to self-discipline. This means that any complaint against a federal judge must be filed with the respective chief judge, whose decision is reviewable only by the circuit’s judicial council, composed of the chief and circuit and district judges. They are not independent and unbiased. By definition, the chief judges and the judges on the judicial councils are the peers, colleagues, and friends of the complained-against judges.

13. In fact, their own official statistics contained in the Annual Report show that federal judges abuse their self-disciplining authority year after year by dismissing 100% of complaints against their fellow judges and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals.

14. These are the pardons that federal judges grant each other. They are not only the product of unprincipled friendship or of the gang mentality(>OL2:569¶¶13-16) that causes judges to conceive of themselves as ‘we against, and regardless of, the rest of the world’. These pardons are the means by which judges bribe and extort each other: ‘Today I pardon you and tomorrow you do likewise by dismissing any complaint against me or my friends…or else!’

B. Federal judges pardon each other preemptively, sparing each other any conviction

15. When judges pardon their fellow judges by dismissing 100% of the complaints against them, their effect is as that when “a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals”. However, the nature of their pardons is significantly more harmful to the administration of justice, for it entails evading its administration:

16. When Trump pardons anybody, there has already been a conviction. The pardonee underwent an adversarial confrontation with The People, represented by the prosecutor, in open court before, in most cases, a jury acceptable to the prosecutor too. This in turn occurs only after discovery of evidence, whose production the prosecutor has power of subpoena, search and seizure, and contempt to compel. And this takes place after the defendant receives a complaint to which he must answer by filing a response as a public document, which he must serve on the prosecutor.

17. That is essentially the same procedure followed in a civil case, which is started by the plaintiff filing a complaint and serving it on the defendant, who must also answer her through a written response; both are public documents. The plaintiff has the right to obtain discovery by compelling the production of evidence. At trial, she can call the defendant and cross-examine witnesses

18. By contrast, judges pardon each other before there was ever a conviction because they simply dismiss the complaint and do not allow the complainant any discovery. Worse yet, the complaint is not made public by the chief judge who receives it, who need not transmit it to the complained-against judge at all. This is what the Act provides:

§352. Review of complaint by chief judge

(a) EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW; LIMITED INQUIRY.—The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint received under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b). In determining what action to take, the chief judge may conduct a limited inquiry for the purpose of determining—

(1) whether appropriate corrective action has been or can be taken without the necessity for a formal investigation; and

(2) whether the facts stated in the complaint are either plainly untrue or are incapable of being established through investigation.

19. For this purpose, the chief judge may request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a written response to the complaint. Such response shall not be made available to the complainant unless authorized by the judge filing the response.

a. Imagine Trump’s pardonees filing a response that they do not authorize the court to make available to the prosecutor. Would you trust it to be truthful and complete?

20. The chief judge or his or her designee may also communicate orally or in writing with the complainant, the judge whose conduct is complained of, and any other person who may have knowledge of the matter, and may review any transcripts or other relevant documents. The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.

(b) ACTION BY CHIEF JUDGE FOLLOWING REVIEW.—After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection (a), the chief judge, by written order stating his or her reasons, may—

(1) dismiss the complaint—

If the chief judge does not dismiss the complaint, §352(a)(1) provides that the “chief judge shall promptly (1) appoint himself or herself and equal numbers of circuit and district judges of the circuit to a special committee to investigate the facts and allegations contained in the complaint [but not those made by the complained-against judge so as not to cast doubt on the word of a fellow judge]”.

21. The committee must file a report with the circuit’s judicial council; but has no authority to send the complainant a copy. The council can dismiss that report without serving a copy of it on the complainant. It may do anything and nothing else without giving notice to the complainant.

22. Actually, the complainant can only have a review of the chief judge’s order disposing of the complaint. To that end, the complainant must file a petition with the judicial council. Section 352(c) provides that “The denial of a petition for review of the chief judge’s order shall be final and conclusive and shall not be judicially reviewable on appeal or otherwise”.

23. So why would chief judges bother to transmit complaints to complained-against judges, appoint special committees, or pay any attention to their reports, given that they know that complained-against judges need not even respond to complaints?

24. If they do, they may tell ‘a bunch of lies and nonsense’ because their responses will not be transmitted to complainants, who will consequently not have the opportunity that any plaintiff has, namely, to scrutinize and challenge a defendant’s response, whether in the plaintiff brief known as the reply or in the courtroom.

25. In fact, years go by without a single special committee being appointed to investigate any complaint. It is the norm for judicial council members not to read petitions to review chief judges’ complaint dismissals.

26. The councils deny 100% of review petitions by the clerk of court rubberstamping a 5¢ form that dumps the complaint out of court without giving any reason. Its only operative word is “denied”. Criminals’ gang mentality is never to incriminate one of their own, for a violation of their conspiracy of silence is deemed treason and punished with treatment as a pariah or worse.

27. Complainants are limited to filing a complaint that launches from the outside the secret procedure of a star chamber, which they cannot enter. They are not allowed to compel the production of evidence, let alone call the judge to the stand and cross-examine her witnesses, to rebut what protects all fellow judges, the presumption of impunity, and dispute what it confers: unaccountability.

28. It follows that complainants are deprived of what all other plaintiffs and prosecutors are entitled to: the administration of justice through an adversarial proceeding that takes place in public because “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” (Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923). Cf. “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie et al., 475 U.S. 813; 106 S. Ct. 1580; 89 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1986)).

29. Complainants are denied due process of law while judges are afforded undue protection from process(28 USC §358(a)). Thereby judges place themselves beyond prosecution. As a matter of fact, they become Judges Above the Law.

30. Unlike Trump’s pardonees, complained-about judges remain with their reputation unblemished given that the complaint is kept secret. There is no register of judges who have ever been complained-against, the equivalent of the sex offender register.

a. Their names are as unknown as were those of the pedophilic priests that the Catholic Church transferred from diocese to diocese without ever warning churchgoers and the rest of the public that there were brought into their midst predators that would again abuse their power and trust and harm them too.

31. Judges have had no qualms about finding pedophilic priests and their complicit Church liable to compensate their victims. What an outrageous double standard applied in flagrant self-interest by hypocrites! By so doing, judges have breached their oath of office (28 USC §453) to “do equal right to the poor [in ties to them] and to the rich [in power to reciprocally dismiss complaints].

32. With their silence before and after dismissals of complaints and denials of review petitions, and about the underlying conduct complained-about, judges provide accessorial aid to their fellow ‘priests’ even if they, just as Then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett, have never dismissed or denied any, for they too have a legal (18 U.S.C. §3057) and ethical (Code of Conduct for Judges, Canon 3B(6)) duty to speak up to denounce their brethren and sisters so as to safeguard the integrity of the Judiciary and of judicial process.

33. If “a criminal like Trump [and the] other criminals” had the sole authority to process complaints against any of them, would they dispose of those complaints in any way different from that in which judges dismiss 100% of complaints against themselves and deny 100% of review petitions?

C. Sources of evidence of judges’ criminality

34. Through their preemptive reciprocal pardoning, federal judges ensure that they wear “The Teflon Robe”. That is the title of an informative and outrage-provoking 3-part report that beginning on June 30, 2020, was published by Thomson Reuters, a major news agency, with more than 2,500 reporters and over 600 photo journalists. On the strength of its manpower and concomitant financial resources, it conducted a nationwide investigation of judges. It found “hardwired judicial corruption”.

35. “Hardwired” are also judges’ pardons of each other upon complaint filing, for they have become part of their institutionalized modus operandi. They are integral to their interpersonal relations and provide the insurance upon which they rely to risklessly commit crimes.

36. In the same vein, Boston Globe, the main newspaper in Massachusetts and a reputable one, published on September 30, 2018, its report “Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings [conducted even by clerks with no law degree], who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”.

37. Evidence of federal judges’ criminality is also discussed briefly in the blurbs hereunder; in more detail in a general article thereon; and in even greater detail in the specific articles that form part of my three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries.

38. Based on professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking, the study* ^{† ♣} is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
and Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

 ^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from OL2:394-1143

^♣ Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-latest article

Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.

39. Some of those articles have been posted to my website:

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

40. They have attracted so many webvisitors and elicited from them such a positive reaction that 38,561 [as of May 23, 2021] and counting (>Appendix 3) have become subscribers.

41. You can subscribe for free to its articles, such as this one, thus:

go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register   or
+ New   or   Users   >Add New.

D. Examples of judges’ criminality

1. Abusive self-enrichment

42. Under their ‘Teflon Robe’, federal judges hide their own criminality. The latter finds a revealing example in a daring denunciation by a person as knowledgeable about financial matters as former presidential frontrunner Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is still a member of the Senate.

43. In her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too”, she stated that federal judges fail to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in one of the companies that is a party to the case before them in order to resolve the ensuing conflict of interests in their favor so as to protect or increase the value of their stock. Sen. Warren refers to such practice throughout the Federal Judiciary as its judges’ abusive self-enrichment. She attributes it to federal judges’ unaccountability.

44. To engage in such self-enrichment, federal judges necessarily commit the crimes of fraud on parties; concealment of assets; tax evasion; money laundering; fraud on, or collusion with, banks through misrepresentation of funds’ provenance; and breach of contract for judicial services, of the oath of office, and of public trust.

2. Fraudulent filing and approval of financial disclosure reports

45. To conceal assets and evade taxes, federal judges file fraudulent annual financial disclosure reports required under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S. Code, Appendix).

46. While their reports are public documents, they are filed pro forma (*>jur:65fn107c, d; jur:65§§1-3) with, and approved as a matter of course by, not an independent reviewing body, but rather other judges, who are their peers, colleagues, and friends; and depend for their survival on reciprocal approval of their own reports since they too commit and cover up crimes as principals and accessories.

47. The unaccountability resulting from the fraudulent dealing with those reports removes the moral reins on greed and allows it to run amok throughout the Federal Judiciary.

3. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme

48. People who go bankrupt by definition do not have enough money to meet their needs. The vast majority of them cannot afford a lawyer and must appear without one (pro se) in court. They are overwhelmed by the mindboggling complexities of bankruptcy law and procedure.

49. As a result, they fall prey to judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme. Its spread to Covid-caused bankruptcies will allow judges and their cronies in the bankruptcy industry to take advantage of people’s financial and emotional distress, thereby harming them even more grievously.

4. Interception of emails and mail

50. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics. This is a crime under 18 U.S.C. [Federal Criminal Code] §2511. Their interception is enabled by the Federal Judiciary’s nationwide computer network, vast expertise, and devastating power to retaliate against even the largest recalcitrant mass communication entities.

51. This judges’ crime is likely to set off the most intense national outrage because it affects directly the largest number of We the People and deprives us of our most cherished rights, to wit, those guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of :

“freedom of speech, the press, and assembly [on the Internet or by letter] to petition the government [of which judges constitute the third branch] for a redress of grievances [which includes compensation, similar to the more than $2.5 billion that the Catholic Church has had to pay to the victims of its pedophilic priests and its covering up of their crimes]”.

52. The exposure of judges’ interception can provoke the gravest institutional and national crisis, for which of the other two branches will dare exercise constitutional checks and balances to hold the Federal Judiciary and its judges accountable? Only an informed and outraged People can so disregard their rulings and shame them as to deprive them of any moral standing and force them to resign.

5. Failure to read the overwhelming majority of briefs

53. The official statistics of the federal courts show that federal judges dump 93% (>OL2:457§D) of appeals to the circuit courts through orders that are “on procedural grounds [mostly the one-fit-all pretext of ‘lack of jurisdiction’], unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation”.

54. “The math of abuse” demonstrates judges’ failure to read most briefs. Yet, judges advertise that upon a party filing a brief, which costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce, and paying the filing fee of $505, they will provide the service of determining the appeal by applying the law to the facts of the case. Instead, they have their clerks dispose of the corresponding case or motion by rubberstamping a 5¢ dumping form that neither discusses the facts nor applies to them the law. It contains only an unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like order.

55. This constitutes fraud in the advertising inducement and in the performance; breach of a service contract; intentional causation of emotional distress; and compensable intentional waste. The call for parties to jointly demand that they be compensated for such waste and fraud will attract a large segment of the national public.

6. Sham hearings on the Rules for Processing Complaints

56. To implement the Act, the judges adopted the Rules for Processing Judicial Conduct and Disability Complaints. Initially, they adopted rules in each circuit; thereafter, they adopted and amended nationally applicable ones in 1986, 2000, 2008, 2015, and 2018.

57. The Rules have changed nothing, for the judges have kept dismissing 100% of complaints against them.

58. On each occasion, they have held a public hearing on the proposed new rules to pretend compliance with that requirement (28 USC §358(b)), but they held it in bad faith, for they had no intention of applying the new rules to hold each other accountable. The judges’ public hearings on the rules have been a sham.

59. Their sham constitutes fraud on the public that has caused foreseeable and thus intentional injury:

a. The judges have made witnesses write and submit comments; prepare to deliver them orally; and spend, just as the audience have had to, on travel to a single place in the nation and on room and board to attend the hearing.

b. They have frustrated the reliance interest that they created in witnesses, the audience, and subsequent complainants, all of whom reasonably expected that the judges would apply the new rules fairly and impartially.

60. The judges have caused these members of the public compensable injury in fact.

E. Proposed plan of concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions for exposing judges’ crimes

61. You, Judge Pratt and reporter Foley, can take the lead in exposing judges’ “bad Behaviour”, to which the Constitution refers in Article III, Section 1, as the basis for terminating judges’ holding office. Their “bad Behaviour” includes their crimes as well as abuse of power, unethical behavior, and their failure to abide by the injunction of Canon 2 of their Code of Conduct, which requires judges to “avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety”.

62. You should undertake that exposure to be consistent with your views and values, as reported by Mr. Foley: “[Pratt] said those who abuse positions of public trust for personal gain must face severe consequences, in order to deter misconduct and promote public confidence. Otherwise, he warned, “political corruption will slowly corrode the foundations of our democracy until it collapses under its own weight”.

63. For the sake of your integrity and that of our democracy, you can proceed alone or together; with fellow judges, journalists, or me; whether openly and notoriously or as a discreet informant, to:

64. publish in a national newspaper or magazine the equivalent of the famous open letter I accuse! of French writer Emile Zola to the President of the French Republic to expose the military’s anti-Semitic conspiracy against Jewish Lt. Alfred Dreyfus, except that yours would be addressed to President elect Joe Biden as he prepares to establish the commission for the reform of the judicial system that he announced in an interview with CBS newsanchor Norah O’Donnell on October 22, 2020.

a. Your letter can be the first step in transformative change, just as the exposés by reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey of The New York Times and journalist Ronan Farrow writing for The New Yorker informed the public on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, and thereby set off within a week here and abroad the MeToo! movement, which has transformed society.

b. That constitutes a reliable and repeatable precedent for the reasonable expectation that your I accuse! letter can lunch a national and international movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform through transformative change;

65. present your letter at a press conference;

66. ask that President Trump and President elect Biden release the secret FBI vetting reports on judicial candidates and nominees, which are apt to contain incriminating information about them and others, obtained in part by the FBI exercising powers that the media lack, e.g., of subpoena, search and seizure, contempt;

67.  approach national publishers to request that they publish one or a series of my articles (App:6) exposing unaccountable judges risklessly running the Federal Judiciary as a criminal enterprise;

68. ask that AP, Reuters, Boston Globe, and other media join forces to investigate with me judges’ “bad Behaviour”, which they can start and conduct cost-effectively by using the abundance of leads that I have gathered (*>OL:194§E);

69. endeavor to hold unprecedented citizens hearings on judges’ “bad Behaviour”, to be conducted by multidisciplinary panels of journalists, professors, and experts; at media stations and university auditoriums; where the victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ “bad Behaviour” can tell their story to the national public; and do so mostly through interactive video conference to reduce travel expenses; reach the largest life audience possible; and receive their feedback in real time;

70. encourage the formation of local chapters of parties who have appeared before the same ‘badly behaving’ judge or in the same court that covers up for them, to demand collectively compensation for the abuse and waste that they have suffered;

71. promote the holding of the first-ever, and national conference on judges’ “bad Behaviour”, where the report of the citizens hearings will be presented;

72. advocate the calling of the constitutional convention that since April 2, 2014, Congress has been petitioned to convene by 34 states, a number that satisfies the amending provisions of Article V of the Constitution. A runaway convention may fashion a new constitution that enables We the People, the Masters of all public servants, to hold our judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate their victims.

73. foster the development of the website of Judicial Discipline Reform, as proposed in my business plan, to turn it from an informational platform into:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by anybody;

b. a research center for fee-paying clients auditing judges’ decisions and searching many other writings from many sources that through computer-assisted statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis can reveal the most persuasive type of evidence: judges’ patterns, trends, and schemes of “bad Behaviour”; and

c. the digital portal of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture, which should be the precursor to the creation within a top university or think tank of the institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy.

F. My offer to present this article and its proposals

74. I offer to make a presentation of this article and its proposals to you and your guests followed by a Q&A session. To set its terms and scheduling you may get in touch with me using my contact information below.

75. The presentation can take place via video conference on short notice. In fact, there is already an agenda, to which can be added the elements particular to this article.

76. To decide whether to organize the presentation you may watch my video and follow it on its slides.

77. To consult with others on this article and/or interest people in attending the presentation you may widely share this article and post it to social media, such as:

Facebook, Youtube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram,

Google plus, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, and

Twitter:    An appeal to US Judge Robert Pratt & Associated Press Ryan Foley to dare expose judges’ criminality, not only P. Trump’s; and hold unprecedented citizens hearings for victims of their crimes to tell their story; https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-JudgeRPratt.pdf

G. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

Donate to

Judicial Discipline Reform

by making a deposit or an online transfer to
Citi Bank, routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001;

through Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or

by mailing a check to the address below.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, 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. and ^†>OL2:1114§G; when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: box of your email so as to increase the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

Reuters, a major news organization,
investigated state judges,
found “hardwired judicial corruption”, and
asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges

To write a story of outrageous abuse that may be further investigated and reported, apply the two-phase method for writing it provided below

Ask that Reuters together with universities and
other media outlets, such as Boston Globe and LexisNexis,
hold unprecedented citizens hearings
via video conferences and interactive multimedia
where you too may have the opportunity
to tell the national public your story of abuse by judges
and cause the public to feel in its bones
the total impotence and vulnerability
of your piercing cry:

“The judges had all the power…and I was nothing!“

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_your_story_for_Reuters.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

To join the 35,207+ subscribers to articles like this one,
go <left panel ↓Register
or    + New   or   Users   >Add New.

Abstract

Reuters is a major U.S. news organization with some 2,500 journalists and some 600 photojournalists. In “The Teflon Robe”, it reported “hardwired judicial corruption”: corruption that is an integral element of state judiciaries and that intertwines their judges and the conniving entities duty-bound to supervise them but in practice covering up their abuse of power by not investigating, let alone punishing, them, not even disclosing the names of complained-about judges. Reuters asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges. That is what victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power have always wanted: to tell journalists their stories.

Likewise, Boston Globe published “Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings, who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”.

LexisNexis is Reuters’s main competitor in computer-assisted law research. It and similar companies may be presumed not to want to cede to either Reuters or Boston Globe the “pioneering of the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”.

In this article, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., provides his creative/editing two-phase method for you to write your story for these media outlets: ask yourself the journalists’ W-questions to answer with informational ‘dots’; ask ‘Then what?’ of the ‘dots’; and connect them into a story that consists of the relevant and verifiable facts most capable of outraging the reader and the rest of the national public at judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power.

Dr. Cordero proposes that these and all other media outlets jointly investigate federal judges, who are life-tenured, in practice irremovable regardless of what they do, and the models for their state counterparts. They can publish one or a series of articles on judges and their judiciaries that Dr. Cordero has written and made downloadable for them to review. They together with universities can hold unprecedented citizens hearings. Conducted via video conferences before a national public with access to them through interactive multimedia, the hearings will enable people to testify to the abuse by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.

Thanks to your stories, the investigation, the articles, and the citizens hearings, the issue of judges’ abuse of power can be inserted into the 2020 campaign and the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, which will focus the attention of the national public on all things judicial. These sources of information will make it possible to inform that public about, and outrage it at, how federal judges risklessly grab gains and convenience by coordinating their individual and collective abuse as their modus operandi to run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise.

Until and on Election Day and thereafter, an informed and outraged public can hold accountable the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and since then connivingly protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ regardless of the harm that they inflict upon parties in court and the rest of the public nationwide.

That is how transformative change in the judicial and legal system can be set in motion by you, the media, and universities. It can lead to a new form of “government of, by, and for” We the People in the United States and the rest of the World. In that government, the People will for the first time in history assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power, entitled and empowered as masters of all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, to hold them accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power.

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

Introduction

1. For decades, parties to lawsuits, whether represented by lawyers or without legal representation, i.e., pro ses, and other people have complained that journalists do not pay attention to their stories of abuse by judges that they have suffered or witnessed. But presently you and each of them have the opportunity to provide your respective story to a major news organization: Reuters. Last June 30, it published the first of its three-part report “The Teflon Robe” on its massive investigation of state judges. It found “hardwired judicial corruption”. Reuters asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges.
2. You endured judges’ abuse and fought back alone. That was a losing battle. Now you can fight back with Reuters on your side. That can be a winning battle. Endure the effort to read on, learn how to write your story, and send it to Reuters.
3. If you find it unreasonable to be asked to read an article written by a lawyer to help victims of, and witnesses to, judges, who are unaccountable and risklessly abuse their power, you did not suffer or see any abuse; the abuse was less painful than having to read; or you do not want to be compensated. Or maybe it is that you do not care that when you have to go to court, you will not be administered Equal Justice Under Law, but rather will be abused by “hardwired judicial corruption”.

Seize this opportunity to tell your story to Reuters and
through it perhaps to the rest of the world!

Table of Contents

    [¶¶1-3] Introduction

A. [¶¶4-6] The failure to read dooms pro ses to being disregarded and abused

B. [¶¶7-8] On being yet another lawyer or a historic Champion of Justice

C. [¶¶9-11] References to the paragraphs¶¶ that address readers’ frequent concerns

D. [¶¶12-13] What you and all Advocates stand to gain by reading on and writing your story

E. [¶¶14-17] Reuters has been “inundated” with stories; make yours light to float to the top

F. [¶¶18-22] Free aids to researching and writing your story

G. [¶¶23-24] Instructions for writing your story of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

1. 1. 1. 1. [¶¶25-31] Length of your story for Reuters: 500-words
         2. [¶¶32-36] The risk of opening an attachment and how to deal with its content
         3. [¶¶37-40] Subject, addressees, email addresses, and introductory paragraphs
         4. [¶¶41-49] The contents of your story: kind and quality of its information
         5. [¶¶50-55]  The two-phase method for writing your story
         6. [¶56]          Title and subtitle of a story of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
         7. [¶¶57-62]  Additional information in links embedded in text and as endnotes
         8. [¶63-65]    Sign and date your story

H. [¶¶66-69]  Advocates’ reciprocal revision of their stories, checklist, and chapter

I. [¶¶70-76]  Proposals to the media outlets and how they can benefit them

J. [¶¶77-81]  Offer of a presentation that can lead to forming a national movement

K. [¶¶82-84] Unique opportunity arising from the concurrence of circumstances

L. [¶85]         Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

A. The failure to read dooms pro ses to being disregarded and abused

4. The questions that some pro ses have asked, the concerns that they have expressed, and the way they wrote their story and sent it to me rather than to Reuters, make me wonder whether they read the article hereunder or received only part of it.
5. Failure to read invites abuse. Most pro ses go to court, Congress, or state legislatures without having read even the brief of the opposing party, never mind the record of the case, court decisions, not even those on appeal!, treatises, law journals, the law that they want to apply or have amended, its legislative reports, history of enforcement, etc. Judges, politicians, and opposing counsel pick up in a second that they have no idea what they are talking about and take advantage of their ignorance to disregard and abuse them. Their abuse of pro ses as well as of represented parties and their lawyers is totally wrong. But pro ses went to court ignorant of the law and came out ignorant of their case. Theirs was willful ignorance…and laziness too, for one need not be college-educated to realize that if one is sent papers as part of a process in which one is a key participant, one needs to read them. What they got in court, they had it coming! If a lawyer goes in so unprepared, he or she is in addition liable to a malpractice suit.
6. There is self-contradiction in expecting many pro ses to read this article since it criticizes their failure to read. My criticism is born of tough love and practical considerations. So I share the article with everybody else. At least I do not waste all my effort and time writing it and encourage others to read and derive the benefit of reading: KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

B. On being yet another lawyer or a historic Champion of Justice

7. If you are a lawyer, you too are abused by judges, who risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience, as shown by the official statistics^‡ of the federal courts submitted annually to Congress as a public document.
   ^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_accountability_presentation.pdf >OL2:455§§B, D

8. You can continue to go to court as one of the scores of thousands of lawyers in our country to argue yet another case. Or you can out of court expose the judges for the public to see their abuse of power. If you choose the latter, you will set in motion transformative change in the judicial and legal system. The public will recognize you here and abroad as a historic Champion of Justice. It is your choice.

C. References to the paragraphs¶¶ that address readers’ frequent concerns

9. You need not be proficient at writing. Simply follow the instructions in “The two-phase method for writing your story”, ¶¶50-55
10. Include in, or omit from, your story the kind of information stated in ¶¶41-49 to make it relevant, verifiable, aTnd illustrative of judges’ outrageous conduct.
11. Send your story to the writers of the Reuters and Boston Globe reports and to LexisNexis to their addresses in ¶37 using the subject set forth there.

D. Reuters has been “inundated” with stories; make yours light to float to the top

12. When Reuters published its “Teflon Robe” report on state judges, its reporters asked that people send them their stories of abuse by judges. Since scores of millions have been abused, many must have written to them. In fact, those reporters have stated that they have been “inundated” with their readers’ stories.
13. Thus, if you want your story read, you have to send it to Reuters written in only 500 words. The effort is more than worth it, considering the significant impact that your story and those of other people can have by limiting your story to 500 words.

E. What you and all Advocates stand to gain by reading on and writing your story

14. Underlying the sharing of this article and the asking of others to do likewise is enlightened self-interest: When we continue on our stubborn, self-centered way by “doing the same thing while expecting a different result”, which Einstein said “is the hallmark of irrationality”, and do so by going it alone in court, judges pick off each of us one at a time and wipe us out!
15. But thanks to the light that shines upon us when we inform ourselves by reading and think strategically, we recognize that only We the People, informed about, and outraged at, judges’ abuse of power, can compel politicians to take a stand on the issue at their every public appearance. Thereby the issue can be inserted into the 2020 campaign so that it becomes a decisive one on Election Day.
16. Such insertion will advance your, our, and the People’s interest in asserting our status as the masters of all our public servants, including judicial ones, entitled to hold all of them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.
17. It is in our enlightened self-interest to make this email go viral. It can thus cause many victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse to send their stories to the Reuters reporters. Those stories can convince Reuters and the reporters that they can advance their commercial and reputational interests by investigating federal judges, as proposed briefly infra §I and in detail at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf and
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Boston_Globe_judges_investigation.pdf

    F. Free aids to researching and writing your story

18. I offer various aids for you to write your story. The main one is my two-volume study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries, the product of professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

   ^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf  >from page OL2:394

a. Open the downloaded volume using https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

19. I also offer access to the website of Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. The articles posted there have so positively impressed its countless webvisitors that it has turned 35,207 and counting into subscribers. You too can subscribe for free thus:

go to [here http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org]
<left panel ↓Register
or    + New   or   Users   >Add New.

20. Moreover, I offer advice herein on how to make your stories relevant, verifiable, and newsworthy because they inform the Reuters reporters –and through them possibly the national public too– of judges’ conduct that is outrageous. To benefit from it, you must, to begin with, read this article.
21. Actually, to EMPOWER YOURSELF WITH KNOWLEDGE read and reread and read again what follows until you understand it and can apply it to write your most relevant and verifiable story of judges’ outrageous abuse of power. This is your chance to tell your story to a major news organization, Reuters, that wants to hear it. Do your best job!
22. Any additional assistance from me can be obtained at the rate of my attorney’s fee of $350 per hour to be deducted together with all necessary and incidental expenses from a retainer paid in advance, whose amount is determined in light of the assistance that I am asked to provide.

G. Instructions for writing your story of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

23. You are not expected to write a story of publishable quality as if you were a professional journalist. But if you do your homework of research, writing, and editing to provide a relevant, verifiable, and outrageous story of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, you will appear honest and your story will sound credible. It may lead the Reuters “Teflon Robe” reporters to investigate and report it.a. Apply this strategic thinking principle: “People never listen more carefully than when they listen to avoid harm to themselves”. Make your story personal…to your readers. Let it be moving enough to cause them to take action to protect themselves; protest judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power; and join forces with you in a national movement to hold them accountable for their performance and liable to compensate their victims.
24. The “Teflon Robe” reporters are your most knowledgeable, demanding, and important readers: the ones who decide whether your story is representative of the suffering of millions of people abused by unaccountable judges so that it is worth investigating, editing, and publishing it. You are writing for them. They are your audience.

1. Length of your story for Reuters: 500 words

25. The “Teflon Robe” reporters have stated that they have been “inundated” with the stories of abuse by judges sent them by readers of their report. Therefore, do not expect them to read scores, let alone hundreds, much less thousands, of pages of documents and other papers relating to your one single story.
26. “Less is more” effective in causing those reporters to read, understand, and be outraged by the abuse committed by the judges in your story. Hence, limit your story to 500 words.
27. Make each of the 500 words count. If you cannot outrage readers with the most outrageous elements of your story told in 500 words, you will not outrage them by adding less outrageous details in the next 500+ words.
28. You know your story better than anyone else. Do not shift onto the Reuters reporters the task of figuring out what happened during the years of your struggle in court. Be the one to choose what is most relevant, verifiable, and outrageous.
29. Consider rewriting your story to reduce it to 500 words following these instructions and resubmit it to the Reuters reporters. If they need more information than what you provided in your word-limited story, they will contact you to ask for it.
30. A 500-word story that outrages readers at judges’ conduct takes more effort to write than page after page of rambling blather; but causes a more undiluted, concentrated, and memorable impact. Similarly, slapping a whiner’s tale onto the back of a napkin and without a second look sending it is not the sign of a great writer that states his message fast and concisely: It is what lazy people do.
    .
              a. If a victim of, or a witness to, a judge’s abuse takes the easy way out in writing her story, she is bound to make all sorts of grammatical, contents, and format mistakes. She will come across as a careless person, driven by the impulses of the moment, and unreflective. Her character will increase the plausibility that the way judges treated her was because ‘The paper that she filed in this court wasn’t a brief of legal arguments, but rather a personal, incoherent anecdote that she cobbled together, with all sorts of inconsistencies, absurd charges, and trivia that nobody could make heads or tail. Now she’s acting up as another disgruntled loser!’
31. “A genius”; said Thomas Alba Edison, the inventor, among many things, of the incandescent bulb that sheds light, “is 5% talent and 95% sweat”. Hard work is what turns the scribblings of the first draft into a piece of writing so significant that readers pay attention to it…and even act on it.

2. The risk of opening an attachment and how to deal with its content

32. An attachment is a security risk. By opening it, you may release into your computer malware that is hidden in the attachment as a Trojan horse, which can roam through your computer, steal private information, and delete files.

33. This explains why people who know anything about the Internet and the dangers lurking in it do not open attachments. Some email servers are configured not to accept and to bounce back emails with attachments.
34. It follows that you cannot tell your story by taking the easy way out of attaching a bunch of files to an email and sending it. “Lazy doesn’t work.”
35. If you have a file that you want to attach, copy its content and paste it to the body of a regular email.
36. In any event, today people receive an enormous amount of reading materials. Hence, it is much more effective for you to provide the attachment’s title and summarize its content. But you can do so much better for your story and yourself if you write it out in up to 500 words.

3. Subject, addressees and their email addresses, and introductory paragraphs

37. In the Subject: line of your email, use the subject used by all other victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse. This will help the Reuters reporters realize that many people have not only appreciated their investigation of state judges, but also are requesting that they extend it to federal judges. You hinder the consideration of your story when you appear as the self-centered, odd man out, seeking  only your personal benefit without any regard for the interests of Reuters –which would bear the cost of any investigation– its audience, and the rest of the national public.

Subject: Reuters investigated state judges’ abuse of power and requested victims to share with it their stories. How you can write a newsworthy story for Reuters and ask that it investigate federal judges

To: michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com

cc: tyler.duke@lexisnexis.com, austin.dunn@lexisnexis.com, Lane.Okney@lexisnexis.com, john.caminiti@lexisnexis.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, todd.wallack@globe.com, spotlight@globe.com, patricia.wen@globe.com, brian.mcgrory@globe.com, mark.morrow@globe.com, comments@globe.com, newsletters@email.bostonglobe.com, newstip@globe.com

38. Provide the information normally found in the letterhead of a business letter:

Your full name
address,
phone number,
email address, and,
if any, the link to your website.

39. Identify your addressees thus:

Reporters Michael Berens and John Shiffman, and editor Blake Morrison,
Reuters
victims of, and witnesses to, judges abuse of power,
lawyers, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Dear editor Morrison, Messrs. Shiffman and Berens, victims, witnesses, lawyers, and Advocates,

40. Establish the connection between your story and the Reuters reporters. These introductory paragraphs do not count toward the 500 word of your story:

I read with interest your investigative report “The Teflon Robe”, published by Reuters on June 30, 2020. You reported having found “hardwired judicial corruption” among state judges. You invited your readers to submit a brief statement of their stories of abuse by judges. Kindly find mine hereunder.

My story took place first in state court and has now moved, or is likely to move, to federal court.

The federal rules of procedure and evidence have been adopted by all the states. What federal judges allow themselves to do, the state judges feel confident to do likewise. ‘As the federal judges, so their state counterparts’.

Frequently, state judges are elevated to the federal bench. Once there, they are not going to incriminate their former state peers, colleagues, and friends, whereby they would run the risk of incriminating themselves. It follows that removing a case to federal court does not provide a victim of an abusive state judge with any effective recourse.

Federal judges are the only ones with national jurisdiction. What they do or not do affects everybody in our country. Accordingly, it interests your current and potential audience.

Their abuse of power is even more outrageous than that of state judges because they are the only officers in the U.S. with a life appointment. In the 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8! Their irremovability in practice explains why they abuse their power: It is riskless and profitable. Such abuse is what awaits those who file in federal court by removal or originally.

Moreover, federal judges dismiss 100% of complaints filed against any one of them, which by law must be filed with the respective chief circuit judge; and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals. They ensure their own unaccountability! http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_complaint_dismissal_statistics.pdf

Thus, I respectfully request that you extend your investigation to federal judges and expose their abuse of power. In this vein, I suggest that you examine the proposals for such extension made by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., in his article addressed to you at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf.

4. The contents of your story: kind and quality of its information

41. What is outrageous is not what goes outside the realm of reality or seems implausible or contrived, but rather what oversteps the bounds of moral and ethical standards and reasonable expectations of care, sense of duty, and decency. Outrageous is what a person does who has no shame . Your story must be based on relevant and verifiable information that outrages readers and stirs them up to protest.

42. Write a sober story: Avoid epithets, exaggerations, and self-serving ratings like ‘this is the most corrupt judge ever and done the most terrible abuse you can imagine in your dreams’. You do not have the breadth of knowledge needed to justify such baseless and pompous claim, most likely never having read anything other than your story. You are an abusee; the experts are the Reuters reporters, who have read thousands of cases. ‘Just give ‘em the facts’ and let them assess your story’s outrageousness from the judges’ conduct. They can draw comparative conclusions, if warranted.

43. What to omit. Abstain from emotional outbursts intended to elicit pity and appeal for commiseration. Do not appear emotionally fragile, unstable, or hypersensitive. You should not come across as a basket case.

44. Do not dilute your story’s relevance with every conceivable insignificant detail and petty grievance. A barrage of charges betrays incapacity to identify what is legally relevant. Do not diminish the credibility of your story with unfounded accusations, speculation, and extravagant claims. The account of a nightmare does not make for a serious story; it belongs in a horror movie.

45. Do not impair the verifiability of your story by making unprovable claims. Fantasy allegations turn your story into a fairy tale. Let professional investigators reveal what coming from a party, and as such biased toward her side of the story, sounds preposterous. Turn ‘reality that is stranger than fiction’ into a question:
.
a. Did he put his kids on food stamps although he earns a judges’ salary?!
.
b. Did the judge have the winning party hire her nephew only to have him pay her gambling debts?’
.
c. Does he tell his law clerks that if at the end of their clerkship when they search for a job they want him to write them a glowing letter of recommendation, which can earn them a substantial signing-up bonus from the hiring employer, they have to decide the cases assigned to him and write the decisions, which explains why the style of the decisions signed by him is so oddly different every year after the start of the new clerkship?
.

46. Also leave out anything on which honest people can reasonably hold different opinions. It falls within the judges’ wide margin of discretion. Your opinion is not entitled to more credibility than the judges’, especially since you are not a lawyer, but rather a biased party.

47. What to include.  Focus your story on the judges’ gross disregard for duty and the rule of law, especially their own violation of criminal law: e.g., denial of due process and equal protection of the law; conflict of interests; abuse of public office for self-enrichment; breach of confidential information; bribery; concealment of assets; tax evasion; money laundering; other violations of criminal laws; disregard of professional and ethical rules; cronyism; cover-up; ethnic, racial, socio-economic, gender, or religious bias; physical or sexual abuse; arbitrariness; and what offends the sense of decency and propriety of the man or woman in the street.

48. Provide pieces of information that can be treated as data: They can be scanned into a database to find the most convincing type of evidence: patterns of abuse by judges and their cronies, formed by the recurrence of the same information in the stories separately provided by different people.

49. You were an actor when almost everything happened and know almost everybody else who was involved. Do not expect the Reuters reporters to scramble for those pieces of information. Do the necessary research to find them. State them accurately. Indicate the source of the information whenever possible. What matters is, not the amount, but rather the quality of the information: relevant, verifiable, outraging, and useful as leads for journalists to conduct a professional investigation. So include the following:
.
a. the names of judges, parties, prosecutors, companies, government officers and offices, etc.
.
b. any meaningful, suspicious, or bias-inducing relation to each other:

1)  X and Y were former partners at Jay and Associates until May 2002, when X went to work for the DA’s office of D County in my state

2)  A and B had the opportunity to know each other when they attended W Law School in 1996-1999 or in 1998, when they were members of Law Review, according to their profiles in Facebook, W Alumni Association website, and W University quarterly magazine. [NOTE: In a law school there can be dozens of student clubs or societies for different types of law or social or political issues; check them!]

3)  S is identified as the sister in law of J in a photo, which I found by using face recognition software, in the 2019 annual report of Downtown Developing Company, which was in charge of the renovation of the W University Library and acknowledged all donors at a gala dinner in their honor

4)  court documents available through PACER –Public Access to Court Electronic Records; https://pacer.uscourts.gov – and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records, show that Judge P habitually orders a forensic accounting of cases before him by the accounting firm of CGV Accountants, whose bills are assigned as court costs payable by the party suing, or being sued by, a landlord or an insurance company

5)  annual financial disclosure reports required by the Ethics in Government Act are filed as public documents; those of judges are collected at https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/categories/financial-disclosure/. The reports of Judge G show that the mortgage on his home is held by Bank E, the defendant in my case. This points to a gross conflict of interests along the lines, ‘if you make me win, I let you refinance your mortgage at no cost’.

c. the title, i.e., Plaintiff v. Defendant, docket number, and date of any case mentioned in your story; the names of the courts where it was filed and, if any, to which it was removed, city, state, and telephone number; the names of judges and court/law clerks that signed any decision, order, or letter; etc.

d. the dates of events and court filings and appearances, trying as hard as possible to include the day and the month, not only the year. A lazy reference to ‘some time ago’ or ‘several years back’, is unacceptable. Thanks to your effort, keen attention to detail, and analytical capacity to realize that ‘this is not normal’, ‘something like this doesn’t happen by coincidence’, you may be able to tell the Reuters reporters:

a. Strangely enough, on the day before every long weekend and travel to judicial conferences a lot of motions before Judge Q were entered ‘denied’, according to the docket available on the court’s website. With the stroke of a pen, he enhanced a care-free ‘holiday’, the harm to the rights of the parties and the waste of their motion filing fees notwithstanding. What other judicial duty does he treat with the same contempt and disregard for the consequences on other people?

5. The two-phase writing method

50. In phase one, use your creative spirit to draft your story: Sit at your computer and write on a word processing page whatever word, term, or phrase identifies a person, event, place, document, thing, idea, concept, etc., associated with your story. They are your story’s informational dots.

a. You are not yet trying to write grammatically correct and complete sentences. You only want to get started telling your story.

b. Let your stream of consciousness bubble up unrestrained by your thinking mind so that it sprinkles dots of your story all over the page. As related words, terms, and phrases flow up, keep adding them to the other dots on the page or between them.

c. To pull up dots from the well of your memory, ask yourself about your story the journalists’ W-questions: What!? Who? Where? When? How? Why? What now?

d. Keep asking of every word, term, phrase, and sentence concerning an event: “then what happened?…and then what did they say?…and then what did I do?…and then…?” They are alive in your mind. They can hear you. They can answer you. They will engage you in conversation.

e. If related questions emerge to the surface, but you cannot answer  them, only jot them down. This is not the time to tax your memory anymore; pass judgment on the questions’ relevance; or interrupt the free flow of ideas. Search for answers in phase two:

……….1) What was the name of the opposing party’s attorney?…and her law firm?

……….2) Did the judge issue an oral order from the bench or did he read one that he had written? Did he cite any law or rule?

……….3) Why did he order me to pay rent because the landlord had fixed the plumbing? I never told him and the landlord never filed an answer! How many times has this ‘expert’ testified for P?’

51. When you have about ten of those dots, move them up and down in a rough chronological order of appearance in your story. As you do so, add to them any other words, terms, and phrases that enlarge their meaning, identify them more narrowly, or should be inserted between them.
.
a. Keep reading the dots, even aloud. Put them in a jingle, make them rhyme even if they make no sense at all…and they will come alive!, dancing in your mind and inviting to dance other words, terms, and phrases that are dots.
.
b. Something like sentences will begin to appear. Keep ordering them chronologically and inserting more dots between them or enlarging them with details.
.
c. Painting by numbers, using stars to draw a constellation, you are connecting the dots into the sketch of a figure. It seems to be telling a story…your story! You can do this. You did it! You are telling your story!

52. Use a ‘balancing test’ to compare the dots’ weight of outrageousness for the story to make sense and be relevant. Remove to another page dots that feel ‘lighter’. You are starting to recognize a hierarchy among the dots, which will help you stay within the 500-word limit. Combine the dots into rough sentences. HOURS later you will feel that you have told your story from beginning to end. Let it sit for a day. You are not done, not even close: You only wrote your first draft. But you did!

53. In phase two, use your critical judgment to edit your story. Move around and connect the sentences in a way that will make sense to a person that does not know anything about you or your story. You are writing for the jury, which includes as jurors the Reuters reporters. Tell them your story. It must persuade them of the outrageousness of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and lead them to investigate your story and refer to it in their next report.

54. Revise your story; rewrite it; correct your grammar. Research it to provide accurate facts and relevant information that Reuters can verify; search for the answers to your jotted down questions. Avoid confusing your reader: Use the same word to refer to the same person, idea, event, etc. Self-editing will take longer than drafting your story: Dots were connected into a sketch. Now you are painting the sketch into the colored picture of a relevant, verifiable, and outrageous story.

55. Let it sit. Come back later for another session of phase-two. You are writing your story of being abused by judges and preparing your claim for compensation. Do the work that it takes to get it right.

6. Title, subtitle of a story of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

56. After you have written your story, you will recognize a theme running through it. Turn it into the title that expresses the nature of your story and highlights its most outrageous features.

[The title of your story: its summary in a sentence, e.g.]

How a judge failed to recuse himself from a case
where he approved the foreclosure on an apartment building,
the eviction of all the tenants, and
its conversion into an office building
by a development company in which he is a shareholder

How a judge once more declared another wealthy senior citizen incompetent and
appointed as her guardian a person to whom he regularly entrusts guardianships,
who squeezed every penny from her, and
then dumped her onto the state welfare system as an indigent

How a bankruptcy judge allowed the same bankruptcy trustee
to hold yet another unannounced auction
where only one and the same bidder showed up,
bought the debtor’s assets for pennies on the dollar, flipped them, and
made a killing…leaving me as the financial corpse

Bonfire of integrity at the penthouse:
Judges attending a judicial conference boasted about
how they cut corners on the law,
use parties’ information to enrich themselves and their partners, and
have clerks fudge documents; and
were overheard by the apparently invisible waiters and waitresses serving them,
who reported them to their chief circuit judge; and
although the chief deemed their reports complaints,
she dismissed them without the waiters and waitresses ever being called,
never mind heard, as part of any investigation

[subtitle of every story]

A reply to Reuters’s request for readers’ stories
of having been abused by judges

7. Additional information in links embedded in text and as endnotes

57. As stated in G2¶33 above, attachments are risky. Do not send them. Instead, turn a reference to a person, event, place, document, etc., into a linking blue text, which holds embedded in it a ‘hidden’, not visible, link. But it so happens at times that a reference loses its connection to the embedded link, whereby it becomes merely a non-linking blue text. So it is safer to provide a visible link right below the corresponding paragraph where the reference appears. Add those links after making sure that your story is within the 500-word limit.

58. Use superscripts if a paragraph contains one reference to X¹ here and another reference to Y² there, so as to identify the corresponding link.

¹ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

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

59. Be reasonable: do not to clutter your story with dozens of links. Use your good judgment to identify the key ones. If the Reuters reporters need secondary documents, they will ask you for them.

60. Store the linked documents either on your website, DropBox, Google Plus, Academia, or any other cloud storage facility. Be aware that links are so much more useful if they identify the corresponding document rather than consist of a meaningless string of alphanumeric characters.

61. If need be, you may also provide a list of links at the end of your story. Add a brief description of what the corresponding document deals with:

See these supporting documents:

1. 1. 1. For an explanation of how a bankruptcy trustee and a bankruptcy judge run a bankruptcy fraud scheme and involve in it debtors and creditors, see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_how_fraud_scheme_works.pdf
         .
      2. The exposure of how judges intercept the emails and mail of people in order to detect and suppress those of their critics can provoke national outrage more intense than did the revelation by Edward Snowden in 2013 of the collection of metadata of scores of millions of phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA), which did not eavesdrop on, much less suppress, any call; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_ intercepting_emails_mail.pdf
         .
         3. On bringing radio, TV, and podcast talkshow hosts together to form a coalition that becomes a powerhouse of American politics just as the national TV networks are, see https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Talkshow_hosts_coalition.pdf.

62. Be fair. Let them ‘talk’: Include in the list the documents of the opposing party and the decisions of the judges in your case. Be helpful: spare the Reuters reporters the need to search for those documents, which should be at your fingertips because you received them and obviously should have read them. Do not give the impression that you are hiding the other side of the story or that you are so self-centered and small-minded that you think your story only has one side: yours.

8. Sign and date your story

63. If your address, telephone number, and email address were not stated at the top of your story, state that information at the end of it. Show that you take responsibility for your story.

64. Moreover, your contact information will facilitate getting in touch with you to ask for any needed clarification or additional information.

65. Provide the date when you submit your story. That is a piece of information useful, in general, to order documents chronologically and, in particular, to establish your story’s currency, i.e., its ‘as of date’.

H. Advocates’ reciprocal revision of their stories, checklist, and chapter

66. Before submitting your story, share it with the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to whom I send my articles –see the To: and cc: lines of my emails and ^†>OL2:1140¶28–; ask that they provide feedback on it just as you offer to do the same if they share with you theirs.

a. A competition for the title of “Protagonist of the Worst Abuse by Judges Ever” or the attitude “My story is more importan than yours cuse it effects more people” does not improve any story. They are egocentric and wasteful of everybody’s effort, goodwill, and time.

b. Cooperate to identify and rephrase, eliminate, or correct what is irrelevant; unverifiable; ambiguous; inconsistent; contradictory; digressive; repetitive; pretentious; self-aggrandizing; defamatory; a poor word choice; trite; in bad taste; foul language, which is absolutely impermissible; misspelled; unidiomatic; wrong syntax (word order); ungrammatical; etc.

67. All of you can draw up a ‘Checklist and Evaluation Form for Stories of Abuse of Power by Judges’. It can be used when composing the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse of Power in America, as proposed at *>jur:126§3. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_unaccountability_brochures_report.pdf

68. Reciprocal revision will afford you the opportunity to know each other. You can give rise to a chapter of Advocates who promote the formation of a national, civic, single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform.

69. It will also give you an opportunity to show your willingness to work for free in the interest of We the People. By so doing, you will be working in your own enlightened interest (supra ¶¶14-17).

I. Proposals to the media outlets and how they can benefit them

70. After writing your 500-word story, point out to the Reuters and Boston Globe reporters(supra ¶40) that it is in their commercial and reputational interest to read and implement my proposals to them(^†>OL2:1125)^‡.
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf;

71. In brief, it is proposed that they:

A. Agree to a joint investigation with me that capitalizes on their experience investigating state judiciaries and my numerous leads(^*>OL:194§E) by applying them to expose federal judges’ coordinated abuse of power as their modus operandi to run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_institutionalized_judges_abuse_power.pdf >OL:194§E

B. Publish one or a series of my articles exposing federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power; https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_abuse_forms.pdf

1) One of those articles can expose Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s condonation of, and participation in, the abusive 100% self-exoneration of federal judges from complaints filed against them in the Seventh Circuit, and/or their underlying misconduct complained-about, similar to the articles collected in http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_complaint_dismissal_statistics.pdf

C. Hold unprecedented citizens hearings on judges’ abuse of power. They will be conducted at media outlets and universities by professors, journalists, and experts in Information Technology, forensic and fraud accounting, bankruptcy, money laundering, etc., to take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse as well as other experts wherever they are since they will be heard via video conferences, made accessible to the national public through interactive multimedia, thus inexpensively and without involving travel

D. Develop the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, as proposed in my business plan(^†>OL2:1022)^♠, to turn it from an informational platform into:

1) a clearinghouse for complaints uploaded by anybody; and

2) a research center for fee-paying clients searching many writings from many sources that can reveal the most persuasive type of evidence: judges’ patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse of power.
^♠ https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Capital_Investors.pdf

72. “Scandal sells”, every media outlet and journalist know it. Can you imagine a more outrageous scandal than the exposure of federal judges’ abusing their unaccountability to coordinate their power in order to risklessly run their Federal Judiciary for their gain and convenience as a racketeering enterprise?…and that at a time when the national public is shouting self-assertively the rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

73. The Reuters reporters can pioneer exposing federal judges and thereby win a Pulitzer Prize.

74. They can become recognized for prompting a generalized media investigation of federal judges’ individual and collective abuse of power.

75. That can set off transformative change in the judicial and legal system. From that change can emerge a different “government of, by, and for” We the People…and those of the rest of the World. Indeed, the demand for such change can become an international movement, as did MeToo! and the protest against police brutality and for racial and economic equality.

76. For the first time in history, the People, as the masters of all public servants, would hold their judicial public servants accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power.

J. Offer of a presentation that can lead to forming a national movement

77. I offer to make via video conference to you and your group a presentation on this article leading to a Questions and Answers session.

78. This presentation can be helpful in starting to do what is essential for a group of people to organize and develop into a national civic single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform: agree on division of labor. People agree to do what they are best at or what they recognize must be done to advance the interests of the group.

79. Any organization has staff and skills requirements. Organizing Advocates, victims, witnesses, and experts to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power calls for:

a. lawyers, journalists, and business people to “pioneer the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting“

b. community leaders and public relations officers to connect to people and organizations; develop local chapters, and coalesce them into a national movement

c. law researchers and online researchers who know how to use software for recognizing faces, voices, places, etc.; locating documents in public and private databases; etc.

d. computer forensic and Internet Technology experts to protect our digital network from interceptors and hackers, and find out whether the emails and mail of people have been intercepted to detect and suppress those critical of judges;

e. lawyers to provide the novel niche legal service of forming and representing the class of victims demanding compensation from judges and their judiciaries

f. organizers of online and field tour presentations; and half and one-day seminars on a variety of subjects dealt with in the study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries

g. monitors in charge of the technical aspect of online presentations, e.g., getting people connected, recording them, sharing documents during the presentation, etc.

h. experts in fraud and forensic accounting

i. strategists and lobbyists of Congress and state legislatures

j. advertisers of activities, e.g., by mass emailing and placing press releases

k. developers of Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

l. developers of software for conducting statistical, linguistic, and literary audits of judicial writings to ascertain authorship; detect behavioral patterns and biases; and impugn past and predict future judicial behavior

m. sellers of advertisement spots on that website to providers of goods and services

n. fundraisers

o. accountants

p. office managers

q. secretaries

r. handyman

79. A group to which a presentation is make can develop into a chapter of the national movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform. There is precedent for this:

a. People who deemed themselves Taxed Enough Already got together at homes and backyards to discuss how to spread the word. They did it so effectively that they formed groups nationwide. Those groups became chapters. In turn, the chapters coalesced into the Tea Party. In less than 10 years, the Party grew so strong that it dominated presidential politics!

80. To decide whether to accept my presentation offer, you may wish to watch my video and follow it with its slides:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

81. Thereafter you can get in touch with me using the contact information below to discuss the terms of the presentation and schedule it.

K. Unique opportunity arising from the concurrence of circumstances

82. Reuters and Boston Globe dare investigate and expose state judges. The national public has grown intolerant of any form of abuse and is wielding its strongest political power: voting at a presidential election, which is among the most polarizing and antagonistic ones in our history. The confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee will focus national attention on everything judicial.

83. These circumstances have given rise to a unique opportunity to persuade those and other media outlets to investigate federal judges for the stated reasons(supra ¶41) and publish this and my other articles exposing judges’ abuse of power. Thereby the issue of judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power can be inserted into the 2020 campaign and thereafter into the national discourse. Informed and outraged, the national public may turn that issue into a decisive one on Election Day and from then on. That Day is approaching very fast.

84. As a result, time is of the essence. Let’s get to work.

a. write your story of abuse by judges and send it together with this article to the media^‡ mem-bers whose emails are listed in ¶37 supra; encouraging them to accept the proposals in ¶71;

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf;

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

b. share this article with all your friends, relatives, and acquaintances; and

c. post it to social media, such as:

LinkedIn                      Facebook                       Youtube

Google Plus               Instagram                       Pinterest

Twitter: Share with Reuters your story of abuse of power by judges and ask that it also investigate federal judges, who are unaccountable and risklessly run their Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_your_story_for_Reuters.pdf

L. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

85. The study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries (supra ¶18) and this article were produced by the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking of:

Judicial Discipline Reform

Subscribe for free to its articles similar to this one:

go here [ http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org]  <left panel ↓Register   or
+ New   or   Users   >Add New.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE

through Paypal, https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

by making a deposit or an online transfer to Citi Bank,
routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001

or by mailing a check to:

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. Judicial Discipline Reform2165 Bruckner Blvd Bronx, New York City 10472

tel. +1(718)827-9521;  Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

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. and ^†>OL2:1114§G, 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.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

Their exposure can so outrage a public intolerant of abuse of power that the public forces the issue into the 2020 campaign, leading to transformative change in the administration of justice and the current form of government

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

The link to this file is: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

Reporters Michael Berens and John Shiffman,
and editor Blake Morrison
Reuters, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, editors@veteranstoday.com, “Veterans Today Managing Editor Jim W. Dean” <jimwdean@aol.com>, “VT Senior Editor Gordon Duff” <gpduf@aol.com>, Andrea.Januta@thomsonreuters.com, Caroline.Monahan@thomsonreuters.com, Corinne.Perkins@thomsonreuters.com, Isabella.Jibilian@thomsonreuters.com, Troy.Dunkley@thomsonreuters.com, Pete.Hausler@thomsonreuters.com,
and
all other reporters, editors, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Dear Messrs. Morrison, Shiffman, and Berens, reporters, editors, and Advocates,

I read with interest your investigative report “The Teflon Robe”, published by Reuters on June 30, 2020, which “exposes hardwired judicial corruption” whereby “[t]housands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench” even though they “have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench…sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct”.

In fact, your “findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system”. Despite judicial conduct review commissions, “state and local judges have repeatedly escaped public accountability for misdeeds that have victimized thousands…the system tends to err on the side of protecting the rights and reputations of judges while overlooking the impact courtroom wrongdoing has on those most affected by it”.

Commissions may take years to start investigating a judge; have “special rules for judges” because “[m]ost states afford judges accused of misconduct a gentle kind of justice” while other “rules can leave lawyers and litigants fearing retaliation” so that they “intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint”; drop a complaint after having “raised questions about whether proper procedures had been followed”; and allow judges to ‘return to the bench virtually unscathed’, while ‘victims of judicial misconduct are left uncompensated’, ‘“really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about”’.

No charge sticks to judges. Their Teflon robes cloaks them in impunity…while the public is exposed to misconduct by the complained-against judge and all the other members of the judicial system. Judges are unaccountable. The public is at their mercy and their victims are uncompensated. And state judges are not the only ones to wear Teflon robes.

A. Proposal for a joint investigation of federal judges and its justification

1. This is a proposal for a joint investigation extending yours of state judges to federal judges, the only ones with national jurisdiction so that their decisions and orders are apt to affect and even harm everybody in our country. Hence, the audience for its findings is the national public.

2. The target of the investigation is not misconduct that can be explained away as limited to individual rogue judges, whose removal and punishment would suffice to deal with the problem.

3. Rather, the investigative target is forms of abuse of power so pervasive and necessarily coordinated among federal judges as to constitute their modus operandi: It is abuse so interwoven with their way of doing business that it has been institutionalized in the Federal Judiciary. Their motive is grabbing illegal gain and convenience. Given that their abuse is so organized and influences all aspects of their activity, federal judges run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise.

a. In fact, no lesser a politician than Senator Elizabeth Warren dare denounce in her “I have a plan for the Judiciary too” the systematic failure of federal judges to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold shares in the company of one of the parties before them and resolving the ensuing conflict of interests by favoring that party so as to maintain or increase the value of their shares. Sen. Warren has identified the circumstance enabling federal judges to commit such abuse to be their unaccountability. She has named it abusive self-enrichment.

b. Federal judges’ self-enrichment by abusing their power necessarily entails the crimes of:

1)  concealment of assets

2)  tax evasion

3)  money laundering

4)  fraud on the parties through intentional frustration of judicial process predicated on fairness and impartiality

5)  breach of contract for judicial services entered into with no intention to perform it and thus, in bad faith

6)  breach of their oath and of public trust causing injury in fact.

c. Federal judges have the means of committing those crimes:

1) The Federal Judiciary has a nationwide computer network run by expert personnel. It maintains a database that stores hundreds of millions of briefs, records, motions, applications, letters, decisions, orders, etc., and carries out electronic filings, retrievals, docket entries, daily schedule updating, database searches, etc.

2) It has leverage over the intelligence agencies, which run more extensive and sophisticated networks and whose secret requests for secret orders authorizing secret surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be approved by its judges.

d. Would you and the rest of the public trust federal judges to care about administering to you “Equal Justice Under Law” although they have no qualms about breaking the law to ensure their abusive self-enrichment? ‘He who can do the more can do the lesser.’

4. The exposure of federal judges’ institutionalized abuse will have a substantial financial and journalistic impact. “Scandal sells”, and it can sell for years. Thus, it can render the investigation more cost-effective. Also, it can lead to a permanent increase in a media outlet’s audience and reputation.

5. Moreover, the exposure can provoke such public outrage as to insert the issue of judges’ abuse into the presidential campaign. By journalism having such impact, it can set in motion transformative change in both the administration of justice and the rest of government, as discussed below.

6. The proposed joint investigation of federal judges is based on an investigative plan with many leads that allow for it to be focused and cost-effective(infra 1132§F; *>jur:194§E); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_institutionalized_judges_abuse_power.pdf.

B. Proposal for the publication of one or a series of my articles

7. An investigation takes time and Election Day is fast approaching. The nominating conventions offer a national digital or physical venue where to force some politicians to address in their own defense the issue of judges’ abuse of power or to enable others to address it voluntarily to position themselves as leaders of those who demand that such abuse be detected, punished, and prevented and that the victims be compensated.

8. Since time is of the essence and to take advantage of the conventions, I propose that you publish upon payment to me one or a series of my articles exposing institutionalized abuse of power in the Federal Judiciary. They are written and available through the links hereunder for you to review.

9. The foundation of the proposed articles as well as of the proposed joint investigation is my two-volume professional study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries. Its originality lies on its pioneering analysis of the courts’ official statistics and reports annually submitted by law to Congress, whose politicians have a vested interest in disregarding them, the detriment to the public notwithstanding. The study is titled and downloadable for free 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_Advocates2.pdf >from OL2:394

i. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

ii. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

iii. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue references) very easy.

10. Those statistics show that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.Code §§351-364, (the Act) entrusts federal judges with the exclusive authority to self-discipline. This means that any complaint against a federal judge must be filed, not with any alleged ‘independent’ judicial conduct review commission, but rather with the respective chief circuit judge, whose decision is reviewable only by his or her peers and colleagues in the circuit’s judicial council. All of them have abused their authority year after year by dismissing 100% of complaints and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals. They have turned their robes of Teflon into the wings of birds of prey to fly high above their bench and perch themselves as Judges Above the Law well above the people in the courtroom and everywhere outside it(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_complaint_dismissal_statistics.pdf

11. Other forms of judges’ abuse of power provide the subject for proposed articles, hereunder reduced to blurbs(more details at ^†>OL2:1097§G; and with articles downloadable through their respective links); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_abuse_forms.pdf

a. How unaccountability corrupts and institutionalizes abuse of power(*>jur:49§4; OL:265)

b. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment(^†>OL2:1003); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

c. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(*>jur:9; ^†>OL2:614); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_how_fraud_scheme_works.pdf

d. How Covid has ushered in a new legal market(^†>OL2:1066); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_new_legal_market.pdf

e. How Covid-caused bankruptcies will allow judges to take advantage of, and aggravate people’s financial and emotional distress(^†>OL2:984); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Thomson_Reuters.pdf

f. “The math of abuse” demonstrates judges’ failure to read most briefs, each of which costs a party $Ks and even $10Ks to produce and becomes a compensable waste(^†>OL2:760); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

g. The sham hearings in the Federal Judiciary and Congress on judicial accountability, involving judges/politicians’ connivance and their fraud on witnesses and the public(^†>OL2:1056); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

h. The Chief Justice’s presiding over Trump’s removal trial with disregard for “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” can on grounds of equal protection of the law and privileged communications be invoked by anybody as precedent for refusing discovery(^†>OL2:1040); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

i. The abuse of power committed or tolerated by Supreme Court justices provides the grounds for petitioning President Trump to authorize the release of the FBI vetting reports on them (^†>OL2:1095§D). The petition will open avenues of investigation, not to mention any report released; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_abuse_by_justices.pdf

j. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics This is the form of abuse likely to outrage the People the most because it affects directly the largest number of persons and deprives them of their most cherished rights, to wit, those guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of “freedom of speech, the press, and to assemble [on the Internet or by letter] to petition the government [of which judges constitute the 3^rd branch] for a redress of grievances”(OL2:1081, 781); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_intercepting_emails_mail.pdf

j. Other proposed articles are listed at ^†>OL2:719 and suggested by the program of activities(OL2:978§E) for a multidisciplinary team(^*>jur:128§4) to expose judges’ abuse of power.

C. Proposal for universities and the media to hold unprecedented citizen hearings

12. I also propose the holding of unprecedented citizen hearings(^†>OL2:1053§E; 1078§F). They are to be: https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_citizen_hearings-Professors.pdf

a. conducted jointly by journalists, professors, and other experts rather than the politicians who have connivingly elevated their judicial candidates to judgeships and justiceships and since then protect ‘our men and women on the bench’ despite the harm that they cause parties, the rest of the public, and the integrity of judicial process;

b. held at universities and media outlets;

c. intended for people to testify to the abuse by judges that they have suffered or witnessed;

d. broadcast nationwide through interactive multimedia so that witnesses and the public can participate inexpensively and in the largest number wherever they are; and

e. summited at the first-ever and nationwide conference on judges’ abuse of power, where the findings will be presented. The conference, which can be organized by university students (*>dcc:11, 31), can lead to events that bring about transformative change(^†>OL2:1069§E) in the administration of justice and the rest of government here and abroad:

1)  the grassroots formation of a constitutional convention, such as the one called by 34 states since April 2, 2014, thus satisfying Article V of the Constitution, but that the leaders in Congress have no intention of ever convening, lest they lose their position of power and privilege. In fact, the convention can run away from the given agenda as did the one called in 1787 only to amend the Articles of Confederation, but which ended up tearing them up and drafting the current Constitution of 1789. The convention can end up reasserting the People’s status as the sovereign source of all political power and the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom the People are entitled to hold accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse(*>jur:158§§6-8);

2)  the formation of local chapters -similar to those backyard groups of people fed up with high taxes, who became more structured in chapters, and coalesced into the national Tea Party, which in less than 10 years came to be unified enough to dominate presidential politics- where parties will collectively demand from courts and their judges the refund of court filing fees for services not rendered; compensation for wasteful briefs required but not read; punitive damages; etc.(^†>OL2:1074§C); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

3) the organization of pro se litigants, who constitute more than 50% of the parties to appeals to the federal circuit courts of appeals(^†>OL2:455§B). Their cases are officially weighted as a third of a case regardless of the nature of the subject matter and the gravity of the conduct of the parties or its consequences. As a result, judges are both authorized and expected not to waste on a pro se case more than one third of the effort, time, and resources that they do on a case where both parties are represented by attorneys. While pro ses are not alerted to the fact the they will be given a third rate day in court, they are required to pay the full amount of court filing fees and produce expensive briefs(^†>OL2:781§A). The conference will provide a propitious venue for pro ses to join forces with public defender and civil rights entities; lawyers who volunteer hours every month to work with indigent parties; law school law clinics run by professors and students; and law firms that take cases pro bono(^*>OL:131 and next article infra).

4) the drawing of the attention of talkshow hosts to their interest in forming the Coalition of Talkshow Hosts for Justice, intended to become the loudspeaker for victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, thereby turning the Coalition into a national TV-network-like political powerhouse. The conference can facilitate the hosts’ meeting in person or through video conference, thus boosting such formation; https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Talkshow_hosts_coalition.pdf

5)  a MeToo!-like worldwide movement can be launched that terminates the millennial impossible of holding judges accountable by eliminating their immunity as representatives of their appointers, “the king[, who] can do no wrong”, and subjecting them to the current reality that all other officers and everybody else are accountable for their acts and liable to compensation for even the accidents that they cause unintentionally, never mind their abuse, as are police and their departments, doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, priests and their churches, journalists and their media outlets, pharmaceutical officers and their companies, etc.; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-International_Team.pdf

6)  the meeting with officers of academia, the media, and investors to discuss the creation of the institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(^†>jur:130§5). The plan is for the institute to be attached to a top university; staffed by professionals and students(jur:128§4) who execute a program of activities in education, litigation, research, etc.(^†>OL2:978§E); and carry on as the advanced stage of the multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§A); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_Institute_judicial_unaccountability_reporting.pdf.

D. Proposal to develop a website as a multidisciplinary academic & business venture

13. I have posted some of my articles to my website, to wit, Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have elicited such a positive reaction in its many visitors that as of this writing [on 26july20] 32,935 and counting have become subscribers(^†>OL2:Appendix 3). This calls to mind the business model of the Internet: give free access to attractive basic contents put on a website; when there are enough visitors sell them goods and services that you and advertisers offer; and provide access for a fee to advanced contents.

14. The posted articles are in long form. They are written for an educated audience accustomed to concentrating on what they are reading, particularly since my website has no pictures or videos. My site is akin to a professional journal, e.g., a law review, and the articles are similar to briefs submitted to a court of appeals by a law firm representing well-heeled clients. Thus, the subscribers to my site are likely to be professionals, affluent, and so willing to make an effort to understand my articles as to subscribe for more…like those who pay to read The New York Times Sunday Magazine.

15. A business savvy publisher or venture capitalists can invest in further developing The Judicial Discipline Reform website as proposed in my business plan(^†>OL2:1022), whose implementation is guided by the principle, “Making money while doing justice”. It can become, among other things: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Capital_Investors.pdf

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:918) about judges by victims of, and statements of witnesses to, their abuse. Today they are held by judges secretly. However, they can be up-loaded for free by the victims and the witness exercising their 1^st Amendment right to freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [by email and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including the payment of compensation]”(OL2:792¶1)

b. a research center that upon payment of a one-time or subscription fee enables users to audit (*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints; judges’ annual mandatory filing of financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), which are misleading(jur:105^213b); and their decisions and other writings in search of the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(^†>OL2: 792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. It will develop software for statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis of writings to ascertain authorship, biases, impeaching-inconsistencies, etc.(OL:42, 60, 115, 255; jur:131§b)

c. an investigative center that coordinates and conducts here and abroad library, digital, and field investigations of judges’ abuse and their connivance with politicians; and disseminates its findings through a tour of presentations(OL:197§G) that promotes the formation of a civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and reform.

E. Inserting the issue in the 2020 campaign and sparking transformative change

16. The above proposals aim to form that movement by implementing the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy: inform the national public of abuse of power risklessly committed by federal judges due to their unaccountability and so outrage the public as to stir it up to demand of every politician, whether incumbent or running for election, to take a stand on the issue at every digital or physical rally, townhall meeting, interview, and press conference.

17. That information can outrage We the People. They can insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse of power in the 2020 campaign as a decisive one, setting in motion transformative change: what emerges from the change is substantially different from what was initially subjected to it.

a. Until the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse has not been fully exposed, no discussion of what to change and into what to change it is opportune. The outrage provoked by the information about their abuse will turn change inconceivable today into necessary and unavoidable measures to ensure transparency, integrity, accountability, and liability.

18. The objective of inserting the judicial abuse issue into the campaign has reliable precedents:

a. The publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse gave rise in a matter of days to the emergence worldwide of the MeToo! movement.

b. The news about the killing of George Floyd by white police officers provoked that very night protest demonstrations nationwide. Since then an outraged public has forced politicians at the municipal, state, and federal levels to take a stand on police brutality and even debate the adoption of the federal Justice in Policing bill and its state counterparts.

c. The People, outraged at lack of progress in racial equality, are now taking down the statues representing racial abusers.

d. The People will be all the more outraged upon being informed that even if a Justice in Policing bill were enacted it would be still have to be enforced according to its letter and spirit by the police, the prosecutors, and the judges. However, these are interdependent actors that need each other for their electoral survival, physical protection, and judicial exoneration, such as that enjoyed in effect by General Flynn, Michael Cohen, and Paul Manafort.

19. These precedents show that the present time is the most opportune to expose federal judges’ abuse: There is no better time to publish than when the audience is expecting avidly what one has to publish. The public mood is receptive to the exposure of abusers. The People are shouting self-assertively the rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

20. Nobody has more power to abuse than judges, for they are the ones who issue the ultimate orders disposing of our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities. Among them, federal judges have the most ordering and staying power:

a. Federal judges are the only officers in the country to have a life-appointment. Historically, it has ensured them of irremovability in practice regardless of their abuse(*>jur>21§a).

b. The Constitution, Article III, Section 1, forbids the diminution of their salary while in office.

c. Their power of retaliation is devastating: While in theory Congress could take back the self-disciplining authority that in the Act(supra ¶10) it granted federal judges and replace it with a mechanism that effectively held them accountable, it would never dare do so:

1) A single district judge suspended nationwide President Trump’s Muslim travel ban, and a three-judge appellate panel upheld that suspension nationwide, although two panel members would have sufficed to achieve the same result.

2) Federal judges can hold any law passed by Congress –and even any state legislature– unconstitutional. They can render null and void one after the other all the legislative pieces of the political agenda of a party who allows any of its members to do what is anathema to judges: ‘Don’t you ever try to hold us accountable!…If you need orders to force your political opponents to produce documents or appear to testify, don’t even think of asking us to issue them! They are already denied! denied! denied!’(OL2:546)

d. The corollary is that federal judges wield power of self-immunization: In fact, the Supreme Court has held, “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”(*>jur:26§d). The justices have arrogated to themselves and their peers what no person is entitled to in government by the rule of law: impunity. They have abused their power to strip Congress of its authority under the Constitution to apply checks and balances on the Judiciary and its judges.

21. Only one entity has stronger power than judges: an informed and outraged We the People, especially when voting at a presidential election and all the more so if assembled in a constitutional convention…or if the Judiciary loses its abusers in chief: the justices of the Supreme Court.

F. Beginning at the top: exposing the justices’ commission and cover-up of abuse

22. The proposed joint investigation, publication of my articles, citizen hearings, and the development of the website will enable initially one courageous and nimble media outlet, e.g., Reuters, and subsequently ever more outlets, to do what Congress not dare consider: Expose the abuse that the Supreme Court justices have committed since they were in the lower courts and continue to commit as justices and to cover up reciprocally as peers and as circuit justices allotted to the several circuits under 28 U.S.C. §42. Here applies the aphorism: “The cover-up is worse than the original crime”. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_abuse_by_justices.pdf

a. Those who ‘only’ have kept silent have become accessories after the abuse committed by the principal and which they knew or could have known about but for their indifference and willful ignorance or blindness(*>jur:90§§b, c), for they had a legal and ethical duty to report it -18 U.S.C. §3057; Code of Conduct for judges, Canon 3B(6) (*>jur:68fn^123a)-.

b. They are accessories before the abuse that the principal or others will be encouraged to commit by the implicit or explicit assurance that the accessories by silence will not report them.

c. In either case, the silent judges contributed to the principal going unpunished while keeping the benefit of the abuse; the victim going uncompensated while suffering more abuse or its consequences; and the system of justice deteriorating through the erosion of public trust because “unchecked abuse festers” until it becomes the institutionalized modus operandi.

23. There are precedents supporting the expectation that an informed and outraged public can make holding on to office untenable, forcing resignations:

a. Public outrage at the conduct of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas forced him first to withdraw his name as a nominee to the chief justiceship; and because the outrage would not subside, he had no choice but to resign from the Court on May 14,1969(*>jur:92§d).

b. After the MeToo! movement erupted overnight and Chief Justice Roberts had received almost 700 letters from current and former law clerks informing him of the abuse that they had suffered or witnessed in their respective court, the Chief Justice was forced to take action by referring for investigation by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a judge who had been known for decades to be an abuser: Former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. He chose to resign on December 18, 2017(OL2:645§A) rather than be investigated.

c. One report of abuse of power, i.e., that filed by the White House officer who blew the whistle on P. Trump’s Ukrainian quid pro quo affair, provoked such public outrage that it led the House to impeach the President and the Senate to hold a trial to remove him from office.

d. The Washington Post was the first to report on the break-in on June 17, 1972, at the National Democratic Convention located in the Watergate building complex in Washington, DC. Initially, it was derided as “a garden variety burglary by five plumbers”. But reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, supported by editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham, kept digging in. Their findings pointed to political espionage and a cover up plotted and executed by top Republican officers working for the reelection of President Nixon. Soon every other media outlet was jumping on their investigative bandwagon. Then the unthinkable happened: For their participation in those crimes, P. Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, and all his White House aides were convicted and sentenced to jail.(*>jur:4 ¶¶10-14); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Washington_Post.pdf

1)  A question asked consistently of every witness by Senator Howard Baker, co-chair of the Senate Watergate Committee, became a guiding and productive investigative tool and can be rephrased here thus: ‘What did the justices know about justices’ and judges’ abuse of power and when did they know it’?

e. The Catholic Church is an institution rooted in society and protected by the First Amendment state-church separation clause. Yet, due to its institutionalized condonation of abuse by pedophilic priests, it has had to pay its victims well over $2.2 billion in compensation. Outraged victims that had been left uncompensated by the running of the statute of limitations forced legislators in at least 15 states to enact lookback laws that allow the filing of sexual abuse claims stretching back decades. Some 5,000 new cases could force the Church to compensate the victims by paying them more than $4 billion. The Church runs the risk of going bankrupt.

24. The national public’s outrage at abuse of power by police and federal militias can become so exacerbated by information about institutionalized abuse in the Federal Judiciary as to force the resignation of justices and even the Supreme Court as a whole. The Judiciary, exposed as a racketeering enterprise run by a board of complicit abusers, can go morally bankrupt and face crushing financial claims. The justices may find it unavailing to attempt to brush away the outrage by simply invoking the doctrine of judicial immunity that they have self-servingly conjured up(*>OL:158). http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_no_judicial_immunity.pdf

25. A whole branch operated by judges abusing their personal and institutional unaccountability can be found so inherently defective as to warrant its dissolution. The form of government of which it is part can likewise be so defective as to need its replacement by a new form yet to be devised by We the People, the ones entitled to do so in “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82¹⁷²).

26. Informed of, and outraged at, the abuse heaped on them, the People can bring about transformative change. They can ensure that justice is administered and government is operated by public servants who remain accountable and liable to them. They will be grateful to the journalists and the others who were instrumental in such transformation, honoring them with, among other things(*>OL:3§F), a Pulitzer prize, a bestseller, a blockbuster movie, the study of their feat at every journalism school, and the most valuable and enduring reward: historic recognition as Champions of Justice…not only of the People of this country, but of every country in the world(supra ¶12e) where they can spark a civic movement for judges’ abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform.

G. My offer to present this proposal to you and your colleagues and publisher

27. I offer to make a presentation on this proposal via video conference or in person. To decide whether to accept, see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4. and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf(^†>OL2: 958).

28. To arrange for it, please contact me using the information in the letterhead above.

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1125)^‡…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Judicial Discipline Reform

conducts law research and writing, and strategic thinking,
which have produced articles like the one below.

Visit its website at

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

Join its 32,935+ subscribers to its articles thus:

go to the site, <left panel ↓Register
or    + New   or   Users   >Add New.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

Donate

through Paypal

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, 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. and ^†>OL2:1114§G, 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; * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.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

The link to this article is:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_research_documents&sources.pdf

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

A. Finding pertinent quotations from judges’ decisions

1. You can easily cite quotations from court decisions like those that you read in any judge-written decision and attorney-written brief: You do law research in the books, called Reporters or Reports, that collect those decisions.

2. In their table of contents, they organize all the subjects of law alphabetically, like a dictionary, or chronologically, according to the procedural steps from filing a case in a trial court to enforcing a final decision from a court of appeals.

3. The subjects are organized under headings and subheadings, each of which is identified with a number, all of which form “the key number system”. With that number, you can find the same subject in any book of the same publisher, regardless of the main subject of the book; e.g., Witness k185 deals with the same subject, namely Attorney-client privilege, no matter where it appears in publications by Westlaw (see next).

4. You will be amazed by how easy it is to find quotations in paragraphs the length on average of this paragraph and frequently called headnotes. Those headnotes contain the gist of what judges have written on that very specific law subject, identified by its “key number”.

5. Those Reporters are published for decisions by the judges in the Federal Judiciary as well as each state judiciary –judiciaries are also referred to as jurisdictions-. The two main publishers are the following. Before clicking on the links below be aware that you only want to see the picture of their Reporters and Reports and read the description of their contents. Do not mind the price: you are not expected to buy any of them. They are sets of scores of volumes, not just one book. Thus, reporters are so expensive that only libraries and law firms can afford them.

a. Thomson-Reuters Westlaw:

1)  https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Reporters/Federal-Reporterreg-2d-National-Reporter-System/p/100000581

2) https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/search?r=13001&s=KEYWORDSEARCH&q=reporter >left panel under the heading –Jurisdiction.

3) The same law research principle described above applies to each particular subject of the law, e.g., the all-important area of court procedure, that is, what parties and judges do in court and in what order; https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Federal-Practice-and-Procedure-Wright–Miller/p/100028918?trkcode=recsbserp&trktype=internal&FindMethod=recs

b. LexisNexis:

1) All jurisdictions: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction

2) e.g., the Supreme Court: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/national-194/us-supreme-court-reports-lawyers-edition-cd47dvd-skuSKU7291/details

B. Learning by doing and doing it methodically: do not skip any step!

6. To begin your law research with an enlightening visual and tactile impression you could go to a still open public library with a law department or venture into the library of a law school or association of lawyers, called a bar association, and ask for permission to take a look at the Reporters. But due to Covid-19, those libraries are likely to be closed. Call them and find out.

7. Hence, plan B: You get that experience digitally by going to the websites of public and law school libraries that offer access to legal databases online, including those of Westlaw and LexisNexis, as opposed to their bookstores.

8. Today you can query those databases using natural language as opposed to Boolean operators, such as AND, OR, AND NOT. For instance, your write in the search box: “Can a landlord evict a tenant who cannot pay rent because he lost his job due to the Covid-19 lockdown?”

a. New York Public Library Science, Industry, Business, and Law (NYPL-SIBL), https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/search/C__Swestlaw__Orightresult__U?searched_from=header_search&timestamp=1593550493317&lang=eng

b. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law

9. The returns to your queries will contain headnotes, which are in essence the quotations that you are searching for. If you click the appropriate settings, your returns will contain the whole decisions of the judges as well as an abundance of other very useful information. Pay attention to detail and you will be richly rewarded. Practice, practice, practice for free there until you become familiarized with doing law research on a legal database online. Thereafter, if need be, you can take advantage of the 7-day free trial of Westlaw, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/forms/try-westlaw.

10. For more information on LexisNexis, go to page OL2:1066 in my 2-volume professional study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable for free 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:# up to page OL:393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue references) very easy.

C. Doing research only to be wiped out by judges: the alternative

11. In those two volumes of my study you will find an enormous amount of information about how the courts work. Click the binocular icon on the menu bar of each volume. In the search box, enter keywords that must appear in the text of the answer; this is not the type of box where to ask queries in natural language or with Boolean operators.

12. In that study you will find out what is so much more important to you than a nice quotation from a court decision: You will find out why a person like you, without a lawyer and thus called pro se, does not stand a chance of winning in court.

13. There you and scores of millions of other pro ses are wiped out by judges, who are unaccountable so that for their gain and convenience they risklessly abuse their power. Indeed, former Chief Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote belatedly: “Many judges are hostile to pro se’s, seeing them as a kind of ‘trash’ not even worth the courts’ time” (^†>OL2:932).

14. This means that if you do not know even where to find quotations from judges’ decisions, you have no business going to court as a pro se, never mind attempting to write a legal brief for the court and the opposing party. Here applies the legal aphorism: He who cannot do the least cannot do the more.

a. That aphorism applies to judges too: You will find below the references to the mathematical demonstration showing that it is impossible for judges or their clerks to read anything but a minimal number of briefs, regardless of who writes them. But if in addition they are written by pro ses, the chances that the judges will read them are practically nil. The judges have doomed your law research and writing effort and expense to be wasteful from the outset.

b. Quotations are not the equivalent, let alone a substitute for, legal argument. If you do not know how to “craft an argument”, even a string of quotations will not do it for you.

c. A quotation is only useful to support a legal argument. It is only meaningful if you know its context. To learn that context you need to do a lot of research even if you are a lawyer. You cannot skip three years of law school, where you learn that context, and simply jump to a Reporter to snatch some quotations and cobble together a string of them. You cannot improvise yourself as a lawyer after spending a few hours on a legal database online. It is intrinsically a folly.

d. The judges know it. Yet, they require the production of a brief with the inevitable incurrence of expenditure of effort, money, and time; take the pro ses’ court filing fees;…and DIT their briefs: Dump them in the Trash. It is the equivalent of a casino taking a bet despite knowing that the odds of the bettor winning are illusory. In that vein, judges’ conduct gives rise to the following causes of action and legal considerations:

1) concealment of a material fact

2) abuse of superior knowledge

3) intentional frustration of reasonable expectations

4) misleading advertisement of adjudicatory services

5) fraud in the inducement and the performance

6) breach of contract

7) invidious discrimination against a class of people, the pro ses

8) intentional infliction of emotional distress

9) denial of equal protection of the law relative to those parties whose briefs judges read

10) deprivation of due process by failing to “hear” the party whose brief is not read

11) judges’ unaccountability as the means for their abuse of power committed for the motive of grabbing gain and convenience at every opportunity upon a party taking someone or being taken to court.

15. Avoiding such waste and abuse foretold warrants the alternative: It is in your interest to read in this volume, which sets a strategy for forming a movement to expose judges’ abuse of power; jointly demand compensation for their victims, and bring about reform of the judicial and legal system through transformative change where We the People, the masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, hold them accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power(^†>OL2:1133); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Talkshow_hosts_coalition.pdf.

a. If you want to bring about change, you have to do things differently; otherwise, Einstein’s    aphorism applies: “Doing things the same way while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”. This is so because it betrays ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. This is in harmony with Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: bodies in motion tend to keep moving in the same direction and at the same speed; and bodies at rest tend to keep at rest until a force impels them to move. The force that you need to change your course of action comes from KNOWLEDGE [, which] IS POWER; and from the application of dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(^†>OL2:593¶¶15-16; dcc:8¶11).

16. I respectfully ask that you help make that article go viral by sharing, posting, and emailing it as proposed. See also the latest article posted to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

17. Life is a give and take. I have given. Now you can give back…and your giving will be in your own interest and that of your friends, relatives, and the rest of your fellow members of We the People.

D. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

Donate

to support the law research and writing, and
strategic thinking of

Judicial Discipline Reform

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

through Paypal

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

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

                Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1125)^‡…and you may enter it.
https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-International_Team.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

Editor Jacob Jude, International Journal of Educational Research and Review (IJER) ijerr@spectacularjournals.org, ijerr.spectacular@gmail.com, contact_us@spectacularjournals.org

Prof. Mortimer Sellers, University of Baltimore, msellers@ubalt.edu
Prof. James Maxeiner, University of Baltimore, jmaxeiner@ubalt.edu
Prof. Tania Sourdin, Newcastle Law School, Australia, tania.sourdin@newcastle.edu.au
Prof. Archie Zariski, Athabasca University, Canada, archiez@athabascau.ca
and
researchers, law and journalism professors, multidisciplinary experts, the media, students, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Dear potential team members and Advocates,

1. Thank you, Editor Jude, for your email calling for papers for the International Journal for Educational Research and Review.
2. Thank you, Professors Sellers, Maxeiner, Sourdin, and Zariski for your work on “The Responsive Judge: International Perspective”, published by Springer.
3. Kindly consider this article^‡ a submission to each of you for publication.
4. This article sets forth a proposal for join forces in a multidisciplinary team of researchers, experts -such as those in law, journalism, Information Technology, statistics, and fraud and forensic accounting (FFA)-, students, and the media, to undertake library research and field investigation reasonably calculated in light of precedent and current events to form an international civic apolitical movement to:
   aaaaa a. expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power;
   bbbbbb. enable the abusees to assemble in local chapters to demand compensation; and
   ccccccc. reform the judicial and legal system through transformative change.

   A. The root of judges’ abuse of power is that of police’s: unaccountability

   5. You and your counterparts at thousands of professional reviews and journals publish scores of thousands of articles and notes every year written by professors, experts, and students. But do they make a difference by improving the quality of the judicial and legal system? To answer this question these official statistical facts, taken from the U.S. context for illustrative purpose, are outcome-determinative:
   a. In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(*^†>jur:21§a; for(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) see infra §B) To gauge the implications of that number compare it against the 2,340 federal judicial officers on the bench on September 30, 2019.
   b. Federal judges dismiss 100%(*>jur:10-11; ^†>OL2:548, 748) of complaints against them, which under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 -28 U.S.Code §§351-364 (jur:24fn^18a)- must be filed with them, and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals.
   c.  Judges’ official statistics showing those rates of dismissals and denials are submitted to Congress as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(*>jur:21fn¹⁰), as provided for under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:26fn^23a; ^†>OL2:551fn¹). The Administrative Office (AO) was established under §601, which empowers the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint its director and deputy director.

1) Those statistics show that the judges have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect an act of Congress intended to hold them accountable for the benefit of everybody.

2) Yet, year after year the politicians disregard those official statistics: They are the ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed the judges and thereafter protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’…or else.

3) Indeed, politicians would not dare turn against their judges, whereby they would expose themselves to their devastating power of retaliation: Judges can hold unconstitutional any law and even the whole legislative agenda of a political party. Their power is so enormous that a single federal district judge, U.S. D.J. James Robart, suspended nationwide President Trump’s Muslim travel ban; and a panel of three appellate judges of the 9^th Circuit upheld the suspension nationwide.

6. The answer to the question is irrefutable: Judges could not care less what lawyers, professors, students, and editors crank out in their ‘publish or die’ articles, notes, and studies. Politicians do not dare care.
7. Judges rely on the historic record of their irremovability in practice, which insures their impunity. Once a judicial nominee is confirmed to the federal bench, he or she is endowed with an attribute that no other officer has: a life appointment. From that moment on, that judge can for personal or judicial class gain or convenience abuse risklessly their power over We the People’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities. They are unaccountable. Their ‘power is absolute; it corrupts them absolutely’(*>jur:27fn28).
8. Federal judges and their Federal Judiciary are the model of their state counterparts. When a case is appealed from a state highest court to the Federal Judiciary, federal judges allow state judges to do everything that they allow themselves to do.
9. The published articles, notes, and studies are irrelevant to federal and state judges. They cannot force judges to respect and enforce the due process and equal protection rights of the parties before them and those of the rest of We the People.
10. Proposal based on a study and a website with proven public appeal
11. The above statements rest on my two-volume professional study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

11. My study cannot force judges to curb their abuse of power any more than articles and notes can. However, my study has proven its public appeal: I have posted many of its articles to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have elicited such a positive reaction in the countless visitors to it that 32,141 and counting have become subscribers(^†>OL2:Appendix 3).
12. An enhanced website as the initial research center with a program of activities
13. That positive reaction to my posted articles can be broadened and intensified by enhancing that website as proposed in my business plan(^†>OL2:1022). The enhancement can turn it, among other things, into:
14. a clearinghouse for anybody to upload their complaints against judges’ abuse that they have suffered or the letters stating the abuse that they have witnessed, which today are unavailable because they are filed or submitted(^†>OL2:645§A) to judges as secret documents; and
15. a center for the research of those complaints and letters. The research can also include the type of document that sets my study apart: judges’ official statistics, reports, speeches, etc.(infra §H), which judges, as their authors, cannot contradict. Those documents can be used to show their abuse of power and impeach their honesty.
16. As a result of such enhancement, the website can be run as a profit center under the guiding principle “Doing Justice While Making Money”(^†>OL2:914)…for:

Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued,
let alone advanced,
without money(infra §H).

2. Strategy for introducing the issue of judges’ abuse on the world scene
3. The enhanced website will be the appropriate digital office of the initial center for the international team of professionals and students to work at(*>jur:128§4). There they will be able to do justice through a robust program of concrete, reasonable, and feasible activities(^†>OL2:978§E).
4. To begin with, the proposed international multidisciplinary team can work on exposing the abuse of power that the judges of the Federal Judiciary in the United States have institutionalized as their modus operandi. That way we can build a shared treasure of experiences, concepts, techniques, templates(*>OL:280, 304), etc.
5. Moreover, the hotly contested presidential campaign in the U.S. is being reported all over the world. If, as intended, the team manages to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power in the campaign, it will also be reported on. This will lead the media and the public abroad to ask themselves, ‘are our judges abusers too?’
6. That question will prompt the media and other researchers to report on the issue and thereby offer the answer demanded by the public. It will enable the members of the team to seamlessly shift the focus of their research onto the particular circumstances of their respective judiciary.
7. By that time, it might be too late for judges abroad to retaliate against the media and researchers as they would have done had those judges been the first target of the reporting and of the characterization as abusers. The international movement has already started to form.
8. A program of library research and field investigation activities
9. This strategy justifies the type of document and source that the team can research at the beginning.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_research_documents&sources.pdf

20. The team’s activities include the application of both Information Technology and fraud and forensic accounting to perform statistical, linguistic, literary, and accounting analysis(*>jur:131§b; *>OL:255) of documents to detect patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. Analyzed will be the misleading mandatory(*>jur:65fn^107.d) annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a and fn^213b) that judges file to commit concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering(*>jur:65fn^107.c).
21. The media can pursue the abundance of leads for their field investigation of judges and justices of the Supreme Court(*>OL:194§E).
22. At the appropriate time, the research center based on the enhanced website can acquire a physical presence as an entity attached to a top university or think tank. There it will continue its activity, with franchises in other countries, as the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy(*>jur:131§5).
23. Forms of judges’ abuse of power that will outrage the public
24. The team can begin researching concrete forms of judges’ abuse. Its findings together with those in my study will outrage the public. Those forms are stated hereunder only as blurbs; their summaries are at(^†>OL2:1097§G) ; and their fuller discussion is in the(^{* †}>references) and the linked articles:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_abuse_forms.pdf

1. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment by failing to recuse themselves and concealing their financial interests in cases before them and deciding them in their favor and to the detriment of parties and the rest of the public(^†>OL2:1003)

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

1. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme and its spread to Covid-caused bankruptcies(^†>OL2:984)^‡, whereby judges’ take advantage of, and aggravate people’s financial and emotional distress(*>jur:9; ^†>OL2:614)^ϕ

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

ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_how_fraud_scheme_works.pdf

1. “The math of abuse” demonstrates judges’ failure to read most briefs, each of which costs a party $Ks and even $10Ks to produce and becomes a compensable waste(^†>OL2:760).

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

1. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics and prevent individuals from exercising their 1st Amendment right to “assemble [on the Internet or by letter] to petition the government for a redress of grievances”(OL2:1081, 781)

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_intercepting_emails_mail.pdf

1. The sham hearings in the Federal Judiciary and Congress on judicial accountability, involving judges/politicians’ connivance and their fraud on witnesses and the public(^†>OL2:1056)

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

1. The Chief Justice’s presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial with disregard for “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” can be invoked by anybody as precedent for refusing discovery on equal protection grounds and privileged communications(OL2:1040)

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

1. Judges dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, while politicians condone such self-ensured unaccountability, thus conniving to leave complain-ants uncompensated and the rest of the public at their mercy(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748)

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_dismissal_statistics.pdf

1. The abuse of power committed or tolerated by Supreme Court justices provides the grounds for asking P. Trump to authorize the release of the FBI vetting reports on them(^†>OL2:1095§D). That will create its own set of outrage-provoking circumstances.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_abuse_by_justices.pdf

1. Precedents and current events make this proposal realistic and opportune
2. People across the United States who deemed that they were taxed enough already gathered in local chapters to advance the single issue of reducing taxes. Those chapters coalesced into the Tea Party. In less than 10 years, they came to dominate American presidential politics.
3. The articles exposing Harvey Weinstein’s decades-long unaccountable sexual abuse were published on October 5 and 10, 2017, by The New York Times and The New Yorker, respectively. They provoked public outrage. Within a week, they caused the eruption in our country and abroad of the MeToo! movement.
4. The footage that the national TV networks broadcast of a white police officer kneeling for almost 9 minutes on the neck of George Floyd and killing him in cold blood, and the ensuing reports and interviews by journalists have outraged the national and international public. That outrage has forced municipal councils, state legislatures, and even Congress to debate the demand that the police departments be defunded and the funds be reallocated to establishing and running a civilian entity that offers social services and hold the remainder of the police departments accountable for the training and performance of their police officers.
5. The cumulative effect of these precedents and current public outrage is that the public has been emboldened to shout ever more self-assertively the rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse from anybody anymore.

1. The presidential campaign offers the most opportune time for the public to be informed and become outraged
2. This is the most opportune time to inform the national and international public about judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power. Outraged, the public can make that cry resonate most loudly and compellingly to protest their abuse and demand its full exposure:
3. We are in the midst of a hotly contested presidential campaign. Politicians need to appear sensitive to public demands, lest the public deny them the donations, campaign volunteer work, and word of mouth approval that they so desperately need. The public is at its strongest. It can demand that politicians take a stand on the issue at every digital or physical townhall meeting and interview; and even hold nationally televised congressional hearings on judges’ abuse of power.
4. If the public is informed of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse of power, it can become so outraged as to force the judicial and legal system to undergo transformative change: Reform that today is unthinkable becomes unavoidable. It can include judicial services being controlled by the only civilian entity entitled to hold judges accountable: We the People, the sovereign source of all political power and masters of all public servants, even judicial public servants.(*>jur:158§6-8)
5. The demand that the police be defunded and disbanded may be extended to their allies: the judges
6. The demand for change will be all the stronger once the public realizes that the prosecution of all abusive police and the enforcement of any federal, state, or municipal version of the “Justice in Policing Act” will end up before judges who have the mindset of abusers. How would you feel as the chicken trying to hold the fox accountable before the wolf?
7. In fact, judges count on the police to protect them. In light of the violent as well as peaceful huge demonstrations in hundreds of cities and even before the White House, judges will deem that if their own abuse of power is exposed, they will need the unwavering protection of the police. For judges to appear to be turning against the police would be suicidal.
8. In the same vein, prosecutors need the cooperation of the police and must avoid retaliation by judges to make their cases(*>Lsch:17§C). If the judges let one police officer after the other be convicted and interpret and apply any ‘Justice in Policing Act’ without watering it down until it is harmless, or even held unconstitutional, the police can put pressure on prosecutors to investigate judges’ abuse forcefully.
9. This means that judges, police, and prosecutors know that they have harmonious interests(^†>OL2:593¶¶15-16) so intertwined that they stand together or hang together. They are biased toward each other, regardless of the detriment to the public. They cannot be trusted to hold each other accountable, much less liable.
10. The realization that all the effort to hold police accountable and liable can be thwarted by judges, the police, and prosecutors looking after each other will further outrage the public. It will exacerbate its demand for change in a judicial and legal system that is rigged against the public.
11. The call for unprecedented citizen hearings and compensation of abusees
12. For the public to be outraged, it must first be informed. The media is indispensable. This explains the call for unprecedented citizen hearings.
13. In addition to, or in the absence of, congressional hearings, citizen hearings will be held at university and media outlets and conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts. They will take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse. Wherever they are, they will be able to participate inexpensively thanks to interactive multimedia broadcasting the hearings nationally. The experience gained during the Covid-19 lockdown with video conference platforms, such as Skype, Zoom, and Google Hangouts, will be put to good use: to do justice.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_citizen_hearings.pdf

38. The citizen hearings can boost significantly another potent motivator for the public to participate in forming the movement to hold judges accountable and liable: compensation of abusees by judges and their judiciaries for their abuse of power.
39. The demand to be compensated will include the refund of court fees, the expense of briefs not read, and compensatory and punitive damages for fraud and deprivation of honest services. Abusees who have appeared or are appearing before the same judge or in the same court will gather in Tea Party-like local chapters to assert their demand joint(^†>OL2:1074§C; *>OL:276§C). Springing up all over the country, they will be as forceful as the demonstrations against police brutality.
40. Action requested to inform; and a presentation offered to form the team
41. People who take action on a meaningful cause are the ones who make transformative change in their own interest and that of the rest of the world.
42. Thus, I respectfully request that you approve this email as a submission and publish it as an article.
43. In turn, I offer to make a presentation via video conference or in person to you and your guests on the proposed formation of the international team to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power.
44. Hence, you may share and post this email as widely as possible, making it especially available to professors, the media, lawyers, students, business developers, and civic organizations.
45. To decide whether to organize such presentation you may watch my video together with its supporting slides(^†>OL2:958) at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

45. You may use the information in the letterhead to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.
46. Time is of the essence: There is less than 5 months to Election Day on November 3 in the U.S.
47. The interception of emails containing this article and of replies to them
48. Since June 12, I have repeatedly emailed the above article to you and the others in the above bloc of addressees; the 12 researchers cited in “The Responsive Judge”(supra ¶2); and thousands of other professors, members of the media, lawyers, and students. Yet, I have not received any acknowledgment of receipt, much less a comment on it. This is not possible but for the interception(supra ¶23.d) of replies to me.
49. There is probable cause to believe that some of you have indeed replied to me: My website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org has received so many visitors and they have reacted so positively to my articles posted there that 32,141+ have become subscribers to it. To subscribe, go to the site <left panel ↓Register or + New or   Users   >Add New.
50. Those subscribers are likely educated and affluent people, who are attracted by college level text with no video or pictures. They are similar to the audiences of the likes of The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, and TIME. They are apt to form an opinion and be articulate enough to express it by email, mail, or phone call. Yet, I do not receive any from them.
51. In a country as divided as the United States and within a group of people with as different interests as professors, journalists, lawyers, and students, it is statistically impossible for 100% of thousands of them to have reacted in a unique way: ‘I won’t reply or otherwise communicate with Dr. Cordero’. Not even a single outlier so that the dependent variable on the Y axis has never risen above the origin point 0 regardless of the nature of the independent variable on the X axis. It is reasonable to conclude that some of you have replied to me but that your replies have been intercepted.
52. To achieve such 100% effectiveness, the interceptor must intercept the communications of everybody in the population so as to detect and suppress those of people like me and you that it does not want reaching their addressees. The intelligence agencies, e.g., NSA; the companies that control the central nodes of the Internet, such as the large telephone and email service providers; and the USPS -see its Informed Delivery service- have the capacity to conduct such wholesale interception.
53. The interceptor is likely to be an entity with the greatest interest in preventing me from communicating with you and you with each other because it is the target of my criticism and proposed expo-sure, to wit, unaccountable judges risklessly abusing their power(supra §C).
54. Such interception is unquestionably illegal, cf. 18 U.S.Code §§2511 and 1030(*>OL:5a/fn^{13, 14}).
55. Graver still, it is an outrageous infringement on We the People’s right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including the collective demand as members of local chapters of abusees for compensation for the abused suffered]”(^†>OL2:972¶1).
56. If you find probable cause to believe that judges intercept the public’s communications, including yours, and it outrages you, you can seize this opportunity to join forces to expose it(supra §B.3).
57. It is reasonable to expect that by joining forces and relying on the precedents of the Tea Party and the MeToo! movement(supra §D), and the current worldwide movement against police brutality, we can set in motion transformative change in a millennial impossible(*>jur:xlv§G) to compel historic reform(^†>OL2:1093§B): We the People can end up holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate their victims. That is change demanded by an honest belief that “Nobody Is Above The Law” or immune to the consequences of harming others in ‘government, not of men and women, but of the People by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn⁶; jur:82fn¹⁷²).
58. To discuss the publication of my article; forming a team to set off an international movement to expose judges’ abuse by promoting citizen hearings and compensation(supra §E); and my offer to make a presentation to you and your colleagues(§F), I invite you to call me at +1(718)827-9521 until you have me on the phone. I speak English, Spanish, and French, and you can speak to me in German and Italian. You can write to me in any of those languages, but will your email reach me?
59. Support Judicial Discipline Reform in its professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking

Visit the website at, and join its 32,141+ subscribers to its articles thus: http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or    + New   or   Users   >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and passion for justice are.

Donate
through

Paypal,
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ  or

at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1108)^‡…and you may enter it.
^‡ https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-International_Team.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York 10472-6506
United States
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
tel. +1(718)827-9521

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

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

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.

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

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-judicial_abusees&publishers.pdf

A. Going to court to seek protection and coming out abused

1. Everybody is affected by Covid-19 in our country. Tens of millions will have legal problems. Many will end up going to court or being taken to court. They may seek the protection of laws dealing with bankruptcy, landlord-tenant and employer-employee relations, business losses and claims, breach of contract, medical bills, etc.

2. The vast majority of them will fall victim to unaccountable judges, who for their gain and convenience abuse their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identities.

3. Key forms of judges’ abuse of power are described in the following article(next article infra §G). It is based on my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable for free 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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) very easy.

B. The inform and outrage strategy for advancing your interests

4. The preceding article aims to advance the interests of those who due to Covid or other circumstances will end up in court; and of print, digital, radio, and TV publishers of news, i.e., the media, who can increase their audiences by warning people about unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and those whom they protect: their cronies.

5. The article describes how that aim is being pursued by a CORE GROUP of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries implementing a strategy:

a. inform the national public about unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power; and

b. so outrage the public that

c. the public demands of all presidential and other 2020 candidates to take a position in every interview and other public communication on the issue of judges’ abuse.

6. This inform and outrage strategy will activate the only force capable of holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensation: the force of We the People, particularly strong when they are about to vote at the nominating conventions and on Election Day, thereby asserting their status as the masters who own all political power and ‘giveth to, and taketh from, its servants’.

7. An informed and outraged People interested in news about judges’ abuse of power will prompt ever more media outlets to further investigate the key forms of judges’ abuse(next article infra §G). By the People and the media reciprocally reinforcing themselves as the source of stories that grow audiences, a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse can develop that through its findings dominates the 2020 elections campaign, thus “Pioneering the news and publishing field”.

C. Congressional hearings and unprecedented citizen hearings

8. We want politicians to have Congress hold nationally televised public hearings on the judicial abuse that people have suffered or witnessed.

9. Candidates and other politicians will have to be pressed into doing so, lest people do not support their campaigns or disapprove of their performance in office. To generate that pressure, we are proposing unprecedented citizen hearings. They will be held at university and media outlets, conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts, and broadcast nationally through multimedia.

10. These citizen hearings will be the opportunity for you and so many other victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse to tell your stories to the whole nation. Your stories will outrage the national public at the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse. Hence, those hearings will generate significantly more outrage than your telling your stories to me and a few more victims.

D. How you can join in informing and outraging the national public

11. To turn the issue of judges’ abuse of power into a decisive electoral one, a core group of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries endeavors to make the article go viral on the Internet and through the national media. The article can reasonably be expected to go viral because it highlights how the readers can protect and advance their own interests, not ours:

a. people can protect themselves from abusive judges; and victims can join forces to demand compensation from judges and their judiciaries; and

b. the media can rehabilitate their public image and increase their audiences by warning the public about judges’ abuse, and holding citizen hearings thereon.

12. Those are two potent motives for victims, people, and the media to make the article go viral.

E. The victims and the media have interests that they can advance as allies

13. A victim of judges’ abuse can advance his or her interest, not by sharing their stories of abuse with a handful of other victims, but rather by sharing it with the national public so that an informed and outraged public forces transformative change. This is change so substantial that the thing changed emerges as a different entity.

14. Instead of judges being treated as extensions of the kings who historically appointed them and ‘can do no wrong’, they are only judicial public servants subject to We the People, the masters of all public servants.

15. The People are the principals entitled to hold their agents accountable for their exercise of power delegated for the People’s, not the judges’, benefit.

16. Achieving transformative change requires an alliance between the victims and the media. The latter have the means of informing the People of stories of abuse that can outrage them at judges’ abuse and stir them up to demand that judges be held accountable and liable, as are doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, priests and their churches, and everybody else.

17. The media and the People can denounce judges’ abuse and failure to comply with their own Code of Conduct mandate “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”. The media can make judges the target of a generalized media investigation that daily exposes more of the nature, extent, and gravity of their abuse. That will make the People’s outrage grow so intense that their delegation of public power to judges is deemed withdrawn and judges are forced to resign(^†>OL2:1094¶7).

F. Sharing, posting, and publishing the article so that it goes viral

18. That is our strategy: advance the media’s interests so that they advance the victims’ in obtaining compensation for the abuse that judges have caused us and all the other millions of their victims.

19. We want the proposal to go viral so that ever more journalists realize that exposing judges’ abuse of power can earn them what they want the most: a Pulitzer prize, such as those announced in May. A Pulitzer in journalism is the equivalent of an Oscar in the movie industry: the recognition by one’s peers that one was the best in one’s category the previous year. It can bring a journalist his or her editor’s approval for their proposed stories and offers of more lucrative and prestigious jobs.

20. Hence, I respectfully invite you to join the endeavor of the core group of Advocates: Forward this article together with its supporting one below(^†>OL2:1093) to your friends, colleagues, and family; and post it to social media as widely as possible. Encourage everyone to read it and do likewise.

21. In that vein, you can send three emails, one to each of the following blocs of email addressees. The latter have the means of forwarding it to many other people and publishing it as an article that sets forth the issue of judges’ abuse and contains many leads for further investigation.

22. Copy one bloc at a time, paste it in the To: line of the email, and send it. Do so daily for at least a week to try to overcome judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics, which is one of the most outrageous forms of their abuse of power(^†>OL2:1098§4):

a. Bloc 1

amber.phillips@washpost.com, Michelle.Singletary@washpost.com, tmauro@alm.com, colorofmoney@washpost.com, Jessica.wolfrom@washpost.com, staci@abovethelaw.com, “NLJ reporter Jacqueline Thomsen” <jathomsen@alm.com>, dan.roth@tr.com, Dan.Roth@thomsonreuters.com, connor.mcgovern@thomsonreuters.com, “VanityFair” <letters@vf.com>, tyler.murray@thomsonreuters.com, austin.dunn@lexisnexis.com, editor@newsday.com, expertanalysis@law360.com, austin.dunn@mail.lexisnexis.com, kayla.smalls@buzzfeed.com, letters@theatlantic.com, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,

b. Bloc 2

NTotenberg@npr.org, MCoyle@alm.com, tips@nypost.com, “The New York Times Syndicate” <mcnulaj@nytimes.com>, amiller@newshour.org, editor@nysun.com, membership@thirteen.org, support@bostonglobe.zendesk.com, dailybrief@huffpost.com, fready@alm.com, eric.sylvers@wsj.com, contactus@foxnews.com, newstips@kirotv.com, legaltechnews@alm.com, jeremy.stahl@slate.com, voicers@nydailynews.com, news-alt@law360.com, letters@theatlantic.com, pressroom@pbs.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,

c. Bloc 3

dersh@law.harvard.edu, lessig@law.harvard.edu, hello@lawyersdefendingdemocracy.org, John.Montgomery@ropesgray.com, info@casneredwards.com, info@newventurefund.org, joshua_benton@harvard.edu, Contact@thefreethoughtproject.com, tips@propublica.org, info@lawyerscommittee.org, tips@blacklistednews.com, anwar_kamal88@hotmail.com, media@propublica.org, info@srln.org, hello@peoplesparity.org, jacquelyn@srln.org, Opencourt@cnn.com, media@rcfp.org, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, sendtips@dailycaller.com

23. People who take action on a meaningful cause are the ones who make transformative change in their own interest and that of the rest of the world.

G. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE

to
Judicial Discipline Reform 

which through its professional law research and writing and
strategic thinking has
produced the article below and its supporting study, and
maintains a website that has 31,933 subscribers and counting at

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

PayPal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or at

the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1051)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
tel. +1(718)827-9521

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

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

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

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

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

Reporter Amber Phillips, The 5-Minute Fix
      Amber.Phillips@washpost.com
Columnist Michelle Singletary, Color of Money
      Michelle.Singletary@washpost.com
The Washington Post
      colorofmoney@washpost.com

Dear reporter Phillips, columnist Singletary, Washington Post editors, and all other publishers,^‡
‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Washington_Post.pdf

I read with interest your articles “Early warnings about coronavirus went straight to Trump” and “If you’re still waiting on your $1,200 stimulus check…”.

A. A proposal to publish and investigate that advances your interests

1. The Washington Post does not spare President Trump any embarrassment. To that fact I apply a key principle of strategic thinking: ‘dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests’(*>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3, OL:52§C). You, The Post, and I each have ideological, commercial, and reputational interests. They are harmonious. Embarrassing P. Trump will advance them.

2. The fostering of our respective interests underlies this proposal^‡. It seeks to join you, your assigning editors, editor-in-chief, publisher, and me in exposing the riskless abuse of power of unaccountable judges and their judiciaries; demanding that they compensate their victims; and eventually advocating the reform of the judicial and legal system. To that end, I propose that you:

a. publish one(e.g., ^†>OL2:608, 614, 760, 781) or a series of my articles(OL2:719§C); or commission me to write them; which can appear in a column, maybe a syndicated one; and

b. jointly undertake related investigations(*>OL:194§E) intended to expose the full nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse. Our findings will outrage the national public and prompt their victims into forming local chapters to demand that the judges before whom they appeared and their courts refund court filing fees abusively collected for services not rendered; and upon waiver applications being denied arbitrarily with no explanation; and compensate parties for wasteful briefs that they did not, and knew that they would not, read.

c. Such exposure, investigations, and popular demand are the prerequisites for any reform.

3. No partisanship or political consideration motivates the effort to embarrass Trump. Rather, it is a means to attain an end: create a situation where he, in all likelihood acting in his own interest and not “in the interest of justice”, either joins the exposure of judges’ abuse or comes to their defense, thereby further outraging the public. Embarrassing Trump with this choice applies another strategic thinking principle: ‘Turn a party into the enemy of your enemy and you have given yourself an ally’(cf. ^†>OL2:445§B).

B. Repeating history to transform a millennial impossible into historic reform

4. By exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse of power, you can become this generation’s counterparts to your iconic figures of Watergate fame: reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They were the first to report on the break-in on June 17, 1972, at the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. Thanks to the unwavering support that they received from editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katharine Graham, they continued investigating, and reporting on, the story.

5. Yet, many of their peers inside and outside the Post derided it as dealing with “a garden variety burglary by five plumbers”…until Woodward’s and Bernstein’s findings exposed the gravity of the break-in as political espionage organized by President Nixon and his White House aides with the help of the top officers of his reelection committee.

a. They also exposed what so very often is graver than the initial crime: its cover-up: A hush fund at the committee was used to pay the burglars and what they would not have been able to afford, that is, their first-rate, D.C. lawyers; and the FBI and the IRS were misused to harass, publicly denigrate, and silence P. Nixon’s political opponents.

6. Woodward’s and Bernstein’s articles and the public interest that they elicited prompted ever more journalists and media outlets to investigate the story. So developed a generalized media investigation of, and reporting on, the story. It became a runaway media bandwagon that neither Nixon nor his aides could stop. It arrived at an unprecedented point, one that was not envisioned initially: the announcement by the President on August 8, 1974, of his resignation; and the imprisonment of ‘All His Men’ for plotting and executing the break-in and its cover-up.(*>jur:4¶¶10-14)

7. What you can do today is more significant for our ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn⁶): set in motion the exposure of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power as their institutionalized modus operandi. Their abuse can so outrage We the People as to force judges and justices to resign, as Former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski had to do on December 18, 2017(^†>OL2:645§A), and Justice Abe Fortas did on May 14, 1969(*>jur:92§d). These are repeatable precedents. They make it reasonable to expect the resignation of a discredited Supreme Court. The Federal Judiciary can go morally and financially bankrupt and be replaced:

8. The interest in being compensated is bound to attract many of the scores of millions of people who were, are, or will be parties to the more than 50 million cases filed in all courts every year(*>jur:8fn^4,5) and whom judges abused, are abusing, or will abuse. They constitute The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System(^†>OL2:951). They are a huge untapped audience, whose recognition as a market and reformative force we can pioneer. Local chapters of demanders of compensation can unite into a single issue Tea Party-like national movement for judicial reform.

9. Scores of millions can force the transformation of the millennial impossible of holding judges ac-countable into the reality of holding them even liable to compensate their victims. Indeed, where the law rules, “Nobody is Above the Law”. Judges hold liable doctors and their hospitals; police officers and their departments; priests and their churches; etc. It follows that the law not only must afford equal protection, but also must hold everybody equally accountable and liable. So reforming the system of justice to apply to judges too will constitute historic, transformative change.

C. Proposal based on a professional study and a website with 31,933+ subscribers

10. The articles proposed for publication are based on my 2-volume study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries, the product of my professional law research and writing and strategic thinking:

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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) very easy.

11. I have posted some of my articles(summarized infra §G) to my Judicial Discipline Reform website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have interested so many visitors that as of this writing 31,933 and counting have become subscribers(^†>OL2:Appendix 3).

12. This is understandable because my study and articles deal with vital interests of the national public:

a. Senator E. Warren’s denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment by concealing their interests in cases and deciding them in their favor and to the detriment of parties(^†>OL2:997, 1003)

b. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme and its spread to Covid-caused bankruptcies, taking advantage of, and aggravating people’s financial and emotional distress(*>jur:9; ^†>OL2:614)

c. “The math of abuse” demonstrates judges’ failure to read most briefs, each of which costs a party $Ks and even $10Ks to produce and becomes a compensable waste(^†>OL2:760)

d. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics and prevent individuals from uniting to form a reformative movement(^†>OL2:781, 929)

e. The sham hearings in the Federal Judiciary and Congress on judicial accountability, involving judges/politicians connivance and fraud on witnesses and the public(^†>OL2:1056)

f. The Chief Justice’s presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial with disregard for “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” can be invoked by anybody as precedent for refusing discovery on equal protection grounds and privileged communications(^†>OL2:1040)

g. Judges dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, while politicians condone such self-ensured unaccountability, thus conniving to leave complainants uncompensated and the rest of the public at their mercy(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748)

13. My articles and website have proven their public interest. Their publication and further investigation should interest you and The Post commercially(^†>OL2:1022) and journalistically, for “scandal sells and grows your audience”. Since The Post’s logo is “Democracy Dies in Darkness”, it can show that “The People, enlightened and outraged by information, can advance their own interests”.

D. Exposing outrageous abuse committed or covered up by Supreme Court justices

14. We can expose the abuse of power committed by Trump Supreme Court nominees J. Neil Gorsuch(^†>OL2:548) and J. Brett Kavanaugh(OL2:748); as well as the abuse that they continue to commit by covering up the abuse that is committed in the circuits to which they have been allotted under Title 28 of the U.S. Code §42 as circuit justices, that is, as their supervisors.

15. Likewise, we can lay bare the abuse of Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor(*>jur:65§§1-3) and of the two senators who recommended her for the Supreme Court and connivingly shepherded her through the Senate confirmation process, none others than Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and former presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand(*>jur:77§§5-6). The abuse and cover-up by other justices can also be exposed(*>jur:71§4).

16. By publishing these articles, we can set in motion a generalized media request for Trump to order released the FBI vetting reports on those justices and other judges. This request is in line with the very low standard provided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 11(b)(3), which authorize discovery as a fishing expedition for anything that may turn out to be useful(^†>OL2:1043¶¶ 20, 21) because even the statements of a hunted witch could “likely have evidentiary support”.

17. P. Trump’s response to that request will confront him with a most embarrassing dilemma:

18. On the one hand, if Trump appears to agree that “so-called” judges abuse their power or that their FBI vetting reports should be ordered released in order to establish the facts, the statement of Then-Judge, Now-Justice Gorsuch will come into play, who said “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(^†>OL2:546).

a. That statement expresses judges’ gang mentality: Legal and ethical considerations do not determine whether the “attack” was right or wrong; when a member of the gang of judicial “brothers and sisters” is “attacked”, their primeval reaction is to utter a cry to gang warfare.

b. A single federal district judge suspended Trump’s Muslim travel ban nationwide. Three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide. Imagine what the gang can do to him if all flexed their muscles in their judicial decisions to teach him a lesson: “Never ever attack any of the brothers and sisters of the gang of the Black Robed Bullies!”(^†>OL2:879).

c. If the opponents of Trump filed claims concerning his pandemic management, reelection, and tax records, and judges found for them, he could “attack” the judges in line with his assertion lacking any sense of proportion or self-restraint: “When I’m hit, I hit back 10 times harder”. The judges could teach him that they are the bigger, stronger, and meaner gang. Judges’ ganging up on him will provoke a constitutional crisis precisely when he can ill afford to divert his attention from attacking VP Biden and fighting for his reelection while managing the coronavirus pandemic without making self-embarrassing comments.

19. On the other hand, if Trump refuses to release the FBI reports on the judges, he will appear covering up their abuse and racketeering(^†>OL2:1051). Will he risk dissatisfying even more The Dissatisfied with the Judicial System(supra ¶9) by allowing judges to keep abusing them, or try to become their anti-abuse champion while becoming the judges’ nemesis? An embarrassing dilemma!

E. Bringing out whistleblowers, demanders of compensation, and hearings

20. While judges can retaliate against one person at a time, they cannot retaliate simultaneously against the media investigating them, lest they betray their self-interested complicit coordination.

21. The investigation can create the contacts with, or elicit the spontaneous appearance of, the most threatening figure for any abuser of power: whistleblowers! Judges and court/law clerks disgusted at the abuse that they have committed or been forced to commit(*>jur:30§1) may become whistle-blowers. They may reveal their damming inside information to journalists as Deep Throat(*>jur:106§c) confidential informants(^†>OL2:1014, 468); to the authorities, such as the leaders of Congress or the chairs of its committees on the judiciary; or to the public directly in Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(*>jur:98§2) op-eds published, not on The New York Times, but for a change, on The Washington Post. Whistleblowers can have a chilling effect on judges and their retaliation.

22. The findings of our and other journalists’ investigation and the whistleblowers’ revelations can outrage the public precisely when it is strongest: when preparing to vote at a presidential election so that opportunistic and honest politicians must appear to be responsive to their complaints and demands, such as those for compensation. An informed and outraged public can demand that:

a. their representatives in Congress and all other 2020 election candidates expose judges’ abuse, e.g., at their rallies and by holding nationally televised congressional hearings; and/or

b. unprecedented citizen hearings(^†>OL2:1078§F) be held, where journalists, professors, and others hear victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse before a live audience at media and university sites and everywhere else through interactive multimedia nationally broadcast; their report to be presented at the first-ever and Post sponsored conference on judges’ abuse.

F. My offer of a presentation of this publication and investigation proposal

23. I respectfully suggest that after you read this article(and infra §G) and submit it to your editors and publisher, we hold a presentation via video conference where I can lay it out and answer your questions concerning the publication of one or a series of my articles and the launch of related joint investigations. Let us advance our interests together by ‘Enlightening the People to Keep their Democracy Alive’ and “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”.

G. Sample of summarized articles for ‘pioneering a legal news and publishing market’

24. The sample of summarized articles(^†>OL2:719§C) is for you or others(OL2:1060) to adapt to the new normal legal market. They will inform and outrage the national public concerning unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. Each provides the basis for a joint investigation(*>OL:194§E). They can become our Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(*>jur:98§2) denunciation thereof.

1. Sen. E. Warren’s denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment

25. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a “plan for the Judiciary too”^ϕ. She dare denounce federal judges for failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold shares in the company of one of the parties before them and resolving such conflict of interests in their own favor so as to protect or enhance the value of their shares. Sen. Warren explains judges’ abusive self-enrichment by their reliance on their unaccountability. Her plan envisages the adoption of legislation to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves abusively(^†>OL2:998, 1003^ϕ).
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

26. Sen. Warren’s denunciation unwittingly validates the key finding of my study* ^†: The class of judges acting collectively, as opposed to rogue judges acting individually, have institutionalized their abuse of power as their and their judiciary’s modus operandi for their gain and convenience.

27. Their abusive self-enrichment necessarily entails judges’ committing in an organized way the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, breach of trust, and fraud.

28. A key circumstance enabling these crimes is that judges file misleading annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:65fn^107c) required by the Ethics in Government Act(jur:65fn^107d).

a. Though public documents(*>jur:105fn^213a), those reports are filed pro forma with, since they are approved as a matter of course by, not independent non-judges, but rather other judges. The latter are the members on the committee to review those reports just as they are the filers’ peers, colleagues, and friends; the reviewers too are subject to the same filing obligation(jur:102§a; fn^213b).

b. Since filers and reviewers commit and cover up crimes(*>jur:88§§a-c), they are parties to an interdependent survival agreement that assures them of reciprocal exoneration from any reporting abuse and other complaints(infra §7). The ensuing unaccountability removes the moral reins on greed and allows it to run amok into corruption.

2. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme and its spread to Covid-caused bankruptcies

29. This scheme(^†>OL2:614)^ϕ involves annually hundreds of thousands of cases filed in the 90 federal bankruptcy courts -776,674 in the 1oct18-30sep19 fiscal year, bound to increase, e.g., Neiman Marcus J. Crew, J.C. Penny, Sears, Hertz- and $100s of billions in controversy between creditors and debtors(*>jur:27§2).
 ^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_how_fraud_scheme_works.pdf

30. The scheme also involves not only judges, but also bankruptcy professionals, who are insiders of the legal and bankruptcy system, including “attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons”(*>jur:81fn¹⁶⁹), such as warehousers, bankers, bankruptcy form fillers and advisers, etc. They work in coordination to prey easily on bankrupts(*>jur:65§§1-3).

31. Covid-19 has made more than 22 million people unemployed and sent millions to food banks. Many will not be able to find a job and will default on their mortgage, rent payments, or medical bills. Many will go bankrupt, as will many of the 30+ millions of small businesses.

32. The immense majority of bankrupts will not be able to afford attorneys’ fees. So, they will appear in court without legal representation as pro ses, i.e., self-represented. They will very soon be overwhelmed by the unimaginable complexity of:

a. the bankruptcy forms which they must fill out(*>jur:28fn³⁵, 43fn⁶⁵) and which make reference to:

b. the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 U.S. Code [of federal laws]) and

c. the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure(11 U.S.C. appendix) as supplemented by

d. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(28 U.S.C. appendix) all as well as

e. the rules of the court in which they are filing(*>OL:131), as interpreted by

f. judges’ procedural and substantive decisions…Stop! Stop!! Get me out of here!!!

33. Parties represented by attorneys will not fare much better: In most of the 90 bankruptcy courts nationwide(*>jur:20), which are part of the Federal Judiciary, there are three or fewer bankruptcy judges. Attorneys must appear before them time and again(jur:66¶139). Practically none will challenge the judge, never mind appeal from his decision(jur:28§3), because antagonizing the judge results in becoming the target of that judge’s and his peers’ devastating retaliatory power (*>Lsch:17§C). Hence, attorneys will take their clients’ money and give the judge a subservient and fearful “Yes, your Honor. Yes, yes, yes!, your Honor”.

34. It follows that clients need to ‘grill’ their attorneys on how vigorously they have represented their previous clients and will dare represent them…but they need to do much more.

35. Parties need to know what they are getting into and dealing with, before going to bankruptcy court and while there. They must apply the aphorism KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

36. Parties must learn as much as they can about the process(*>jur:37§§4, 5) and each player in it, as shown in the seminar on role playing(^†>OL2:712§E; OL:359§F).

37. Yet, neither self- nor attorney-represented parties are a match for judges and their cronies(*>jur:32§§2, 3), among whom attorneys are. Parties, each proceeding separately, will be picked out one by one by unaccountable judges who abuse their power risklessly for their gain and convenience (^†>OL2:1051). But parties will at least know what hit them and got them wiped out!

3. Judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs

38. Judges’ failure to read most briefs is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(^†>OL2:608§A). This is an innovative way of analyzing judges’ performance by using the objectivity of math rather than the subjectivity of a personal assessment of their decisions.

39. Judges require that each party file in support of its case or motion a brief that costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce(^†>OL2:760§A)^ϕ although they know that they will in all likelihood not read it.
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

40. Instead, they have their clerks dump most briefs out of the judges’ caseload by applying robotically guidelines to identify those cases to be disposed of by the clerks issuing unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders lacking any discussion of the facts and the law, and contained in what the clerks only need to date, fill out the blanks, and rubberstamp: a dumping form!

4. Judges’ interception and suppression of people’s emails and mail

41. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics so as to protect their pretense of honesty and thereby keep their unaccountability from congressional supervision(^†>OL2:1083§§A-B)^ϕ.
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Thomson_Reuters.pdf

42. To that end, they abuse their own vast, nationwide computer networks and expertise, which enable the daily filing and retrieval of millions of briefs, motions, records, decisions, orders, docket entries and inquiries, etc.; and the dependency of the intelligence agencies, such as the NSA, for the approval of their secret requests of secret orders for secret surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(^†>OL2:781§§A-B)^ϕ and other subpoenas and warrants.
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_intercepting_emails_mail.pdf

43. With these interception and suppression, judges breach their oath and duty to safeguard the Constitution in behalf of We the People, and instead, protect their personal and class interest in concealing and continuing their abuse of power.

44. In so doing, they trample on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the First Amendment guaranteeing “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [by email and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including their payment of compensation]”(^†>OL2:792¶1).

45. Exposing their interception and suppression will cause national outrage graver than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leak of documents showing the NSA’s unlawful surveillance of scores of millions of phone calls to collect their metadata, e.g., phone numbers of callers and callees, duration of the call, call origin and destination, but without suppressing any call at all.

5. The sham hearings in Congress and the Federal Judiciary on judicial accountability

46. Sham hearings on judicial accountability have been held by politicians and the judges that they put and protect on the bench. Aside from Sen. Warren, politicians do not dare criticize judges, for they fear their power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) to assert their unaccountability(*>jur:23fn^17a):

a. A single federal judge suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of a president who had campaigned on issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million voters; three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide, although only two on a three-judge federal appellate panel would have sufficed.

b. Then-Justice nominee and Now-Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed judges’ gang mentality when he said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(^†>OL2:546). This ‘we against the rest of the world’ attitude excludes the possibility for court/law clerks and parties to lawsuits of a fair and impartial hearing of their grievances against judges(OL2:1056^ϕ).
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

6. Invoking in one’s own trial the precedents set by the Chief Justice while presiding over the impeachment trial

47. After the courts reopen for business, parties can invoke as precedent for their own benefit the disregard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., during the Senate impeachment trial of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(^†>OL2:1040^ϕ, 1045); and his application in connivance with the Senate of a mutual self-serving live and let live complicit arrangement:
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

a. I will let you run the impeachment trial however you want, and you let us, the judges, run the Judiciary however we want, regardless of due process and equal protection requirements.

7. Judges’ abusive self-exoneration by dismissing 100% of complaints against them and its cover-up by politicians

48. Judges ensure their unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; OL2:548, 748). Through such systematic self-exoneration, their power of retaliation, and their connivance with politicians, they protect and run what they have built for themselves: a State within the state.

H. From impunity >outrage >investigations >transformative change

49. All this brings us to the one single statistic that people need to keep in mind who understand human nature and can draw implications from facts as if they were using data to make a mathematical demonstration: In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:22¹⁴)

50. It follows that once a judicial candidate is nominated and confirmed to the bench, he or she can do whatever they want in reliance on that historical record and the assurance that “their brothers and sisters of the robe” will close ranks behind them to defend their impunity.

51. As a reminder of their gang duty to mutually ensure their survival, judges have written on their foreheads a threat screaming: ‘I and my friends know enough about the abuse that you and your friends have committed or covered up. So, if you let anybody bring me down, I’ll take you with me!’

52. The articles proposed for publication do not charge any one judge with abuse of power. Rather, they show that all judges commit it or cover up that of their peers, colleagues, and friends. By coordinating their abuse and executing it as principals or accessories for their gain or convenience, they run their branch as a racketeering enterprise(supra §F; ^†>OL2:1051).

53. Exposing them as members of it can turn that threat on their foreheads into the most self-destructive state of mind for any organization: Every man for himself! When that happens, they may topple themselves as a row of dominoes or resign jointly or severally. This is a reasonable expectation: The articles can launch its realization, just as the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’ abuse sparked the MeToo! movement.

54. In the same vein, the articles can so inform and outrage the public as to prompt a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse(*>OL:194§E).

55. Its findings can lead, not to the impeachment of one top officer, but rather to making “the appearance of impropriety” censured by Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for Judges(*>jur:68fn¹²³) so flagrant as to render untenable holding on to office. Based on the precedent of the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969(*>jur:92§d), the forced consequence can be the resignation of judges, justices, and even the Supreme Court itself.

56. That is how by publishing the articles, you, Washington Post(^†>OL2:1093)^‡, and others can become the historic agents that set in motion transformative change in the system of justice.
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Washington_Post.pdf

I. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE

to
Judicial Discipline Reform 

which through its professional law research and writing and
strategic thinking has
produced the article below and its supporting study, and
maintains a website that has 31,808 subscribers and counting at

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

PayPal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or at

the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1051)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
tel. +1(718)827-9521

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

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

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

Bringing down
not just a top officer and ‘All his men’,
but rather the Supreme Court and a whole branch
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_Covid_legal_market.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
To subscribe go to <left panel ↓Register   or   + New   or   Users   >Add New.

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

A LexisNexis representative sent me an email where he ended with this empathetic statement:

…today is not normal. So, we want to do everything we can to support you – so you can support your clients. If there is anything I can do in the meantime, please reach out.

A. An already shrinking legal market totally shrunk further by Covid-19

1. I am reaching out to you, law, newspapers, and magazine publishers, journalists, and lawyers, with a proposal that may not be the normal way in which you support your audience and clients, but is what you can do to support them and even grow your pool of them nationwide during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Indeed, with the courts closed and jury trials and oral argument suspended, clients are not paying anymore, never mind bringing new business to lawyers.

3. In fact, the only sector of the legal market growing today is that of the pro ses. It will only keep growing, for people who are or have been unemployed due to the Covid pandemic will not flock to lawyers after it is over to pay them attorney’s fees of $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 or more per hour. The prospect for lawyers is bleak.

4. By contrast, the prospect for you can be bright if you adapt to these new long-term realities of the legal market and the rest of the economy. Here is how:

5. Clients and 100% of the non-essential workforce are staying home. They have much more time to read emails and postings to your online publications. This is the most opportune time to offer them information about how judges run judicial process. The latter forces people to go through one of the most anxiety-causing experiences in their lives, for so much is at stake; it is so difficult to understand; and it confronts them with expenses that run into the $1Ks and even $10Ks.

6. Judges affect 100% of the workforce and everybody else, regardless of whether they are, have been, or will never be parties to lawsuits but will continue to be susceptible to the precedential value of judicial decisions. Everybody is subject to judges’ exercise of their enormous power over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

7. Judges abuse that power because they are unaccountable so that ‘their power is absolute, which corrupts them absolutely’(*>jur27fn28). Their abuse is riskless. Committing it only has an upside: grabbing gain and convenience.

8. Nothing reaches deeper into the human soul and festers longer therein than the feeling of being or having been abused; nothing makes people more passionate and committed than the quest for Justice. Very often, that quest aims to obtain or can only end up receiving monetary compensation. The insightful appreciation of these facts and the competitively savvy handling of them open a business opportunity for a pioneering publisher.

B. Adapting to the new normal legal market by informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ abuse of power

9. Providing information about how judges abuse their power and outraging the people who were and may be abused by going to court constitute the foundation of a reasonably calculated strategy for adapting to these times of a shrinking legal market, which Covid-19 has reduced to zero, while pioneering a new one.

10. Consequently, my proposal is for you(^†>OL2:744) to publish one or a series of my articles, whether already written(OL2:719§C) or written on commission, on how unaccountable judges risklessly abuse lawyers, parties, and everybody else.

11. These articles are supported by my 2-volume professional 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* ^†

C. Articles for pioneering a legal news and publishing market

12. The following is a sample of subjects(^†>OL2:719§C) of articles and joint investigations apt for you and others(OL2:1060) to adapt to the new normal legal market by informing and outraging the national public concerning unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. They can become our Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation thereof(*>jur:98§2).

1. Sen. Warren’s denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment

13. In her “plan for the Judiciary too” ^‡, Sen. Elizabeth Warren dare denounce federal judges for failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold shares in the company of one of the parties before them and resolving such conflict of interests in their own favor so as to protect or enhance the value of their shares. Sen. Warren explains judges’ abusive self-enrichment by their reliance on their unaccountability. Her plan envisages the adoption of legislation to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves abusively(^†>OL2:998, 1003^‡).
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

14. Sen. Warren’s denunciation unwittingly validates the key finding of the study* ^†: The class of judges acting collectively as opposed to rogue judges acting individually, have institutionalized their abuse of power as their and their judiciary’s modus operandi.

15. Their abusive self-enrichment necessarily entails judges’ committing in an organized way the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud.

16. A key circumstance enabling these crimes is that judges file misleading annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:65fn^107c) required by the Ethics in Government Act(jur:65fn^107d). While they are public documents(jur:105fn^213a), they are filed pro forma with, since they are approved as a matter of course by, not independent non-judges, but rather other judges, who are their peers, colleagues, and friends; subject to the same filing obligation(jur:102§a; fn^213b); and dependent for their survival on reciprocal approval since they too commit and cover up crimes(jur:88§§a-c). The resulting unaccountability removes the moral reins on greed and allows it to run amok into corruption.

17. Another area of organized criminal activity is the     bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614) involving $100s of billions(jur:27§2). Judges abuse bankrupts, most of whom for obvious reasons cannot afford lawyers; appear pro se; are incapable of understanding the mind-boggling complexity of the Bankruptcy Code and procedural rules; and although unfair game are wiped out!

18. The editor and publisher who support the publication of this story can reap commercial and reputational benefits for years to come(*>OL:3§F). They will be acting like Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham. Both of them approved the publication of the story by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972. Thereafter they unflinchingly supported their follow-up stories until President Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

19. This story of judges’ criminal self-enrichment can force the resignation of judges and even justices(*>jur:92§c), who have committed it and covered up its commission by their peers and colleagues. The story can set in motion the downfall of the Federal Judiciary itself by exposing it –and its state counterparts, whose judges are unaccountable too(^†>OL2:887§A)– as corruptly organized to function as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1051).

2. Judges do not read the vast majority of briefs

20. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(^†>OL2:608§A), which constitutes an innovative way of analyzing judges’ performance by using the objectivity of math rather than the subjectivity of a personal assessment of their decisions.

21. Judges require that each party file in support of its case or motion a brief that costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce(^†>OL2:760§A)^‡ although they know that they will in all likelihood not read it. Instead, they have their clerks dump most briefs out of the judges’ caseload by applying robotically guidelines to identify those cases to be disposed of by the clerks issuing unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders lacking any discussion of the facts and the law, and contained in what the clerks only need to date, fill out the blanks, and rubberstamp: a dumping form!
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

3. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and
suppress those of their critics

22. Judges’ interception and suppression of people’s emails and mail(^†>OL2:781, 929) amounts to their trampling on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the First Amendment guaranteeing “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(^†>OL2:792¶1).

23. Exposing this interception by judges will cause national outrage graver than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leak of documents showing the NSA’s unlawful surveillance of scores of millions of phone calls to collect their metadata, e.g., phone numbers of callers and callees, duration of the call, call origin and destination, but without suppressing any call at all.

4. The sham hearings on judicial accountability

24. Sham hearings on judicial accountability have been held by politicians and the judges that they put and protect on the bench, lest the judges defend their unaccountability by resorting to their devastating power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C). As a result, neither court/law clerks nor parties to lawsuits can expect a fair and impartial hearing of their grievances against judges(^†>OL2:1056^ϕ).
ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

5. Judges’ abusive dismissal of 100% of complaints against them

25. Judges self-ensure their unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748). Through such systematic self-interested dismissals and their power of retaliation, judges maintain the status that they have arrogated for themselves: a State within the state.

6. Invoking the Chief Justice’s conduct at the impeachment trial

26. After the courts reopen for business, parties can invoke as precedent for their own benefit the disregard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., during the Senate impeachment trial of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(^†>OL2:1040^ϕ, 1045); and his application in connivance with the Senate of a mutual self-serving live and let live complicit arrangement: ‘I will let you run the impeachment trial however you want, and you let us, the judges, run the Judiciary however we want, regardless of the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law’.
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

D. Pioneering citizens hearings and the conference on judges’ abuse of power

27. The articles mentioned above and similar ones will allow you to take the lead in joining forces to hold unprecedented citizens hearings.

28. As opposed to congressional hearings, citizens hearings are to be held at reputable media outlets, particularly national publications and TV/radio networks, and universities; nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia; conducted by reporters, professors, and other experts, who will take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse; likely to appeal to presidential and all other 2020 candidates, who have an electoral interest in gaining the attention, donations, and votes of the huge(*>OL:8fn^4,5) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

29. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented to the national public at an event that you can also take the lead in organizing: the first-ever conference on judicial abuse exposure and compensation of victims, hosted by a top university and media networks and attended by life and digital audiences.

E. Abuse institutionalized for millennia and deemed impossible to change has been defeated through transformative change

30. Forms of abuse have been institutionalized for thousands of years to protect powerful abusers and maintain the season open to keep preying on the weak. But courageous and stubborn people have never stopped fighting the abuse although theirs appeared to be a losing battle. Yet, it was not.

31. Slavery, in place since the beginning of mankind when some people realized that they were stronger than others, was abolished by the 13^th Amendment in 1865.

32. The ban on women voting, a symbol of the oppression of women by men, was lifted by the 19^th Amendment in 1920.

33. Beginning with a Louisiana case in 1985, judges have held pedophilic priests and their churches accountable and liable despite their invocation of the state and church separation clause of the First Amendment. This was the first time in the recent past that a form of institutionalized abuse that had lasted thousands of years began to undergo transformative change.

34. To date, the Catholic Church has paid its victims of sexual abuse well over $2.2 billion in compensation. After the enactment in at least 15 states of lookback laws that allow the filing of sexual abuse claims stretching back decades and otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, some 5,000 new cases could force the Catholic Church to compensate the victims by paying them more than $4 billion.

35. Sexual abuse of women and the disbelief of their claims had been an institution of society for millennia. But then The New York Times (NYT) and The New Yorker (NY) published on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation. In less than a week, on October 16, the MeToo! movement began to emerge worldwide after actress Alyssa Milano called on Twitter for victims of sexual abuse to accuse their abusers. MeToo! accusers have brought people at the top of the entertainment and news industry and the rest of society down for their sexual abuse.

36. Those are reliable precedents for other forms of abuse, also reputed to be millennial impossibles, such as holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power, to be defeated by transformative change.

F. Judges’ abuse of power exposed through a scoop and leading to investigations

37. Judges and their judiciaries are among the last bastions of institutionalized abuse of power. The time has come for them to be held accountable and liable to compensation, for in government by the rule of law Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

38. By publishing my articles, you can make a scoop. The articles may go viral. They can launch the first salvo against the judges’ and their judiciaries’ bastion.

39. Other publishers will join the fight in a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation into unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and its several manifestations mentioned above(^†>OL2:1060).

40. That investigation will be conducted by professional journalists with the support of an army of citizen journalists among the scores of millions of people who have been abused by judges. It will lead, not just to the impeachment and trial of one officer, but rather to the resignation of judges, justices(*>OL:92§c), and even a whole branch.

41. The investigation conducted jointly by you and me can jump ahead from the springboard of a wealth of leads(*>OL:194§E). Both my articles and our investigation can cause an informed and outraged public to keep coming back to us for more information and the latest findings.

G. Victims seeking compensation through local chapters of a national movement

42. The articles and the presentations can alert parties to the abuse that judges inflicted, are inflicting, and will likely inflict upon them. Almost all parties, whether pro se or represented by an attorney, go to court alone and prosecute their cases separately. As a result, they suffer in isolation and silence judges’ abuse and the anger that it provokes incessantly. They need not be alone. Rather, they can join forces to shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse
by anybody, even judges, anymore.

43. You and I can promote their joining of forces by relying on another current and repeatable precedent: the emergence of the Tea Party. Advocating the single issue of tax reduction, the Tea Party sparked ever more local chapters. They coalesced into a national movement that in less than 10 years rose to dominate national politics.

44. The Tea Party and the MeToo! movement make it realistic for publishers, lawyers, and me to strive to form local chapters and coalesce them into a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform. This is a realistic and commercially promising proposition since we would be catering to the huge(^†>OL2:719¶¶6-8) bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

45. In this context, the article on, and subsequent investigation into, judges who do not read most briefs and have their clerks dump the corresponding cases out of their caseload through dumping forms(supra ¶¶21-22) can provide a potent incentive for the formation of the local chapters. The latter will be constituted of parties before the same judge or in the same court who join forces to demand the refund of their court filing fees, compensation for briefs intentionally rendered wasteful, and punitive damages for fraud.

46. You and I can promote these local chapters by channeling to them necessary legal assistance directly and indirectly by:

a. publishing adequate how-to pamphlets(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) and standardized arguments accessible to laypeople(*>jur:123§§a-c) as well as offering webminars(^†>OL2:957);

b. calling on law school deans(^†>OL2:644), professors(^†>OL2:1045, 973, 932, 773) and student class officers(OL2:747, 641) to offer and enroll in clinics where students supervised by professors assist the chapters(^†>OL2:571¶24a); and

c. developing a niche market for recently graduated, the glut of unemployed, and established lawyers to represent victims as they jointly as chapter members or as individual parties file a host of motions for refund of court filing fees and compensation as well as for vacating decisions and remanding for new trial or appeal process.

47. That is how publishers, lawyers, and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

H. Facilitating people coming to us through a website enhancement, and going to them on a tour of presentations

48. To facilitate people coming to us, you can support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D) of Judicial Discipline Reform.

49. Articles like this one have been posted to its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They consist only of text with no graphics, pictures, video, or sound. Yet, they have been assessed so positively by countless visitors that 31,067 [as of 15apr20] have become website subscribers as of this writing. You can join them by going to the website and either surfing to <left panel ↓Register    or   clicking  + New   or   Users   >Add New.

50. Ever more visitors and subscribers can be attracted to the website so that they bring with them their information and investigative leads as well as their business. Indeed, as proposed in the business plan(OL2:1022) of Judicial Discipline Reform, its website can be enhanced to add to it:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:792, 918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, which a single complaint cannot provide, namely, patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. The research tools can include sophisticated software(*>OL:42; ^†>OL2:846) that:

1) on the one hand, allow anybody to frame queries using natural language; and

2) on the other hand, enable researchers(*>jur:128§4) to take advantage of artificial intelligence to conduct advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis(jur:131§b) of judges’ decisions as well as all other writings;

c. the website center can be developed into a multidisciplinary academic(*>OL:60, 255) and business(*>jur:153§§c-g) center that functions as a department or subsidiary of yours or is attached to a top university that sponsors it.

51. Simultaneously, publishers can go to the public by sponsoring a tour where I present(*>jur: 119§1) the articles and the investigation findings at numerous appropriate venues(*>OL:197§G), such as journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, bar associations, public defender and pro se organizations, etc.

I. Offer of a presentation to you and your guests

52. The proposed articles; the investigations that they will spark by journalists and eventually by the authorities; the citizen hearings; and the conference will contribute to inserting the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power in the 2020 campaign. The issue can become a decisive one on Election Day because judges wield power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity. Hence, it matters significantly whether due to their unaccountability, judges abuse their power to grab material gains and increase their convenience at the expense of those who own that power and entrusted it to them through a revocable grant: We the People. At the polls, the People can decide to take their power back.

53. Your publication of those articles can set in motion that chain of events, which will heighten the interest in the issue of the national public, in general, and your audience and clients, in particular. They will prove once again that ‘scandal sells’. It is in your commercial interest to publish them.

54. By so doing, you and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People, we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

55. I offer to present this proposal via video conference to you and your group of peers, colleagues, and other guests. You may use the information in the letterhead above to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling, as well as the terms of the commercial publication of my articles and participation in the proposed investigations.

56. To decide whether to organize such a presentation watch my video together with its supporting slides(^†>OL2:958) using the following links:

a. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

b. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

57. Meantime, you can support the work of Judicial Discipline Reform:

Donate

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or at the Gofundme campaign, https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_Covid_legal_market.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York 10472-6506
USA
tel. +1(718)827-9521
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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

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

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

© 2020 Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.  All rights reserved.
**********************************

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
To subscribe go to <left panel ↓Register   or   + New   or   Users   >Add New.

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

Abstract: This article describes:

a. a pattern of abuse of power in which unaccountable judges engage risklessly in coordination with each other to grab material gain and increase their convenience, so that their unaccountability allows them to run their judiciary as the safe haven of a racketeering enterprise;

b. the connivance between judges and the politicians who in their own interest put them on the bench and hold them there unaccountable, and how you and the rest of voters can expose it during the 2020 campaign; and

c. how you can contribute to exposing their abuse and connivance by sharing and publishing this information, thereby causing such outrage that you spark a generalized media investigation and a joining of forces that leads to unprecedented citizen hearings and to holding judges and their judiciaries accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

For you and others to have a chance of being compensated for judges’ abuse of power, help to inform the national public about it and outrage the public at judges by making this article go viral:

Share and post it to social media, and
distribute its link as widely as possible:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

A. Sen. E. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounce federal judges’ abusive self-enrichment(^†>OL2:1020): They fail to recuse themselves from cases where they hold shares in one of the parties before them and resolve that conflict of interests in their favor so as to protect or increase the value of their shares. She has identified their unaccountability as the reason why they abuse their power in order to self-enrich: The unaccountable run no risk.

2. Sen. Warren has “a plan for that too”: She would cause the adoption of legislation to hold judges accountable for their self-enrichment through abuse of power(^†>OL2:998).

3. Such abusive self-enrichment by judges involves necessarily their commission of crimes, e.g., concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of trust.

^† The materials corresponding to the(* ^†>blue footnote-equivalent references) are found in the professional study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue references) very easy.

B. The House hearings on sexual harassment by federal judges

4. The House of Representatives Courts Subcommittee held a hearing on “Protecting Federal Judiciary Employees from Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Other Workplace Misconduct” on February 13, 2020. The articles thereon by National Law Journal reporter Jacqueline Thomsen, jathomsen@alm.com, are quite revealing and disturbing. She wrote:

Rep. Hank Johnson, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, said in a statement after the hearing that the testimony of Olivia Warren [who clerked in 2017-2018 for, and was sexually harassed by, the late U.S. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals] reminded lawmakers “of what we have long known is a problem—that systemic harassment, discrimination, and abuses of power are entrenched in our federal court system”.

5. Federal judges’ entrenchment in power is indisputable: In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of their peers impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:22fn¹⁴) Once a judicial candidate is confirmed, he or she can do whatever they want.

a. This includes harassing court and law clerks, who work at judges’ pleasure and can be fired without recourse at anytime (jur:30§1) or depend on the recommendation of the judges for whom they clerk to obtain their first job after law school and their clerkship and are muzzled by an abusive ‘confidentiality agreement’(^†>OL2:745).

6. The self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren and ‘the entrenched abuse of power’ recognized by Rep. Johnson underlie a pattern of racketeering criminalized under 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).

C. How an article can set off the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy; and the motivator of compensation for the abused suffered

7. Judges rely on their unaccountability to engage also in other forms of abuse of power where they do not act separately as individual rogues, but rather operate in coordination(*>jur:88§§a-c) with each other for their gain and convenience(*>OL:173¶93). These forms show that judges run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise(^†>OL2:1051).

8. The initial exposure of any of these forms of coordinated abuse –e.g., in an article or news segment appearing nationally– can generate among media outlets competitive, commercial, and reputational pressures to jump on ‘the investigative bandwagon’ aimed to Follow the money!(*>OL:1, 194§E); increase their respective audience and revenue –scandal sells–; and win Pulitzer prizes.

a. This prospect is supported by reliable and repeatable precedent: The complaint of the whistleblower set off the generalized media investigation into the Ukrainian scandal that led to the impeachment and trial of President Trump(OL2:1048§B).

9. By informing parties to lawsuits and the rest of the public about judges’ abuse of power, they can be so outraged that those(*>OL:276§C) who had or have a case before the same judge or must file their case in the same court will heed the rallying cry to join forces to demand compensation for the abused suffered.

10. The prospect of being compensated for the abuse suffered or avoiding suffering it is reasonably calculated to be the most potent motivator for an informed and outraged public to join forces to hold judges accountable and liable for their abuse.

D. Forms of coordinated abuse of power constituting a pattern of racketeering and revealing a judiciary run as a racketeering enterprise

11. Judges’ mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), pro forma filed with, and approved by, other judges. These reports are public documents so that they are filed with false and misleading information to conceal judges’ assets and their unlawful origin(jur:105fn213);

12. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614). It involves annually hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases -776,674 in the 1oct18-30sep19 fiscal year- and $100s of billions in controversy between creditors and debtors(jur:27§2).

a.This scheme involves not only judges, but also bankruptcy professionals(jur:81fn169), who are insiders of the legal and bankruptcy system, including “attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons”, such as warehousers, bankers, bankruptcy form fillers, etc. They work in coordination to prey easily on bankrupts, most of whom cannot afford an attorney, appear without one, and are wiped out!(jur:43fn65)

13. Judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(^†>OL2:608§A) and the analysis of official statistics(OL2:457§D; 847). Judges dump out of their caseloads the corresponding cases and motions by having their clerks fill out dumping forms: unresearched, without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only one blank for one operative word: “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16).

a. Dumping forms are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else doing research for precedential guidance. They show judges’ contempt for the rule of law and its foundational principle: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44¶83). Justice can only be seen in the doing of the chain:

1) statement of facts

2) >legal question in controversy

3) >applicable law

4) >reasoned application of law to facts

5)  >legal conclusion

6) >decision of what party gets what in controversy.

b. Dumping forms only make the parties and everybody else hear abusive judges shout arbitrary, fiat-like orders “because we say so!”(*>jur:43§1)

c. Through the use of dumping forms, judges render wasteful the $1Ks and even $10Ks(^†>OL2:760§A) that each party must invest in producing the brief required in support of its case or each motion, as well as the effort and time, which have an economic, compensable value, that even parties not represented by lawyers, i.e., pro ses, must invest in producing their brief themselves. This warrants pro ses and represented parties joining forces to demand compensation, such as:

1) the refund of court filing fees;

2) compensation for the waste of unread briefs;

3) punitive damages for the fraud of judges pretending that their decision on the case or motion in question was based “Upon the papers submitted and the applicable law…”, and

4) guarantees that their briefs will be read and their cases and motions decided in reasoned decisions written by judges –not by clerks lacking judicial power and discretionary leeway– that allow the parties and everybody else ‘to see that justice was done’.

14. Judges’ abuse of pro ses. From the moment a pro se case is filed -hence before any judge or clerk has bothered to ascertain its nature and gravity-, judges(^†>OL2:932¶3) apply the official policy of weighting it as only one third of a case(OL2:455§B). This means that judges:

a. are authorized to spend on a pro se case only one third of the effort and time, and court resources that they spend on the average case, weighted as one, of a represented case(^†>OL2:420¶6);

b. are expected not to ‘waste’ more than a third;

c. nevertheless require pro ses to pay the same fees and produce the same briefs as they require of represented parties; thereby

d. deny pro ses the equal protection of the law; and

e. deprive them of due process by not notifying them that their cases will be contemptuously dumped and not giving them opportunity to protest.

15. Judges’ abuse of their self-disciplining authority granted them by Congress. They dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them(*>jur:21§a), and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748, 918). Thereby judges abusively self-ensure their unaccountability and breach the trust placed on them by We the People through ‘their representatives in Congress assembled’.

a. The 2019 Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(AO; *>jur:21fn10) has just been released. Its Tables 10 and S-22^‡ show that although in that fiscal year 1,412 complaints against federal judges were filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364, 51 more than in the previous fiscal year, the judges took remedial action upon only 2 complaints! This represents only 1 more such action than in the previous year. Not a single judge was reported as having been admonished or censured privately, let alone publicly. Every judge complained-against got off scot free.
^‡ https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2019/09/30

b. Only 10 special committees were appointed to investigate complaints. If for the sake of comparison, they are apportioned to the 1,412 complaints filed that year, this means that only in 7 tenths of 1 percent of complaints was such a committee appointed; or conversely, that the chief judges of the several circuits, who are the first ones to examine complaints filed in their respective circuits, dismissed 99.3% of complaints out of hand without any investigation by a special investigative committee.

c. By so doing, the chief judges systematically disregarded the injunction issued under §352(a): “The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.” It is beyond reasonable doubt impossible that in 1,402 out of 1,412 complaints there was no “matter reasonably in dispute” that would have required a fair and impartial chief judge to appoint a committee rather than make a biased determination in favor of his or her complained-against peer, colleague, or friend, to justify complaint dismissal. What a complaint-processing sham!

d. Yet, AO and the pertinent committees on such complaints(^†>OL2:796) held a public hearing on October 30, 2018, at the instigation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.(OL2:642¶1, 645) precisely for the purpose of amending the rules for processing those complaints so as to render complaining against federal judges more effective(OL2:774-791).

e. However, the facts show that the judges never intended to hold each other accountable at all(^†>OL2:791¶3, 694¶12). Instead, they hold fast to their complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement whereby they mutually ensure their survival(OL2:793g).

f. Just as judges had done before amending those rules in 1986, 2000, 2008, and 2015(OL2:1057¶¶11-12), in 2018, they only held another sham hearing(OL2:1058§C). Their conduct exhibits an undeniable pattern of abuse of power in their favor, with gross disregard of the detriment to complainants, left uncompensated and at the mercy of judges with fearsome power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C; *>OL:267§4).

16. Judges’ pervasive secrecy. Judges hold all their administrative, policy-making, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and refuse to hold press conferences, never mind take questions from a pool of journalists(*>jur:27§e). Their secrecy enables their coordination of abuse. It betrays Justice Brandeis’s dictum “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”(jur:158¶350b)…because being seen transparently out in the open combats the mold of corruption that secrecy breeds in darkness.

17. Judges’ interception of the mail and emails of the public in order to detect and suppress those of their critics(^†>OL2:781, 885, 889-913, 929). The exposure of this form of abuse can provoke the most intense(OL2:996§2) scandal as it affects the largest segment of the public and We the People’s most cherished rights, to wit, those that We guaranteed for ourselves under our Constitution’s 1st Amendment: “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet too], and to petition the Government [of which judges constitute the Third Branch] for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:22fn12b).

E. Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People

18. As admitted by Rep. Johnson(supra ¶1), ‘we, the politicians, have long known…that judges are entrenched and abuse their power’. Politicians cannot be reasonably expected to turn in an effective way against their partners in abuse of power(jur:77§§5-6). Their connivance is shown by Chief Justice Roberts’ disregard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” at the impeachment trial in the Senate(OL2:1045, 1049¶8).

19. Politicians(*>jur:77§§5-6) recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates to justiceships and judgeships and protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ by holding them unaccountable; they too have no regard for the harm to We the People that they leave unprotected.

20. In their courts, judges exonerate each other from complaints. As a result, their abuse of power has no downside, only the upside of gain and convenience. On their own initiative, they are not going to bring about effective judicial reform.

a. Allowing an abusive judge to resign and keep his pension without having to compensate his victims, let alone being tried on criminal charges, is not effective accountability. It is only an instance of their reciprocal exoneration from complaints and granting of pardons in effect; and their unequal protection from the law(jur:88§§a-c) by their political appointers: They are Judges Above the Law.

b. This is shown by former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who simply resigned after decades of harassing court/law clerks and others(^†>OL2:645¶1); and by Sen. Warren’s unrealistic proposal for charging with holding judges accountable –only, but no mention of also liable to compensate their victims– the very same politicians and judges who have always held them unaccountable!(OL2:998)

21. By contrast, the People can assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and masters of all public servants, including judicial public servant. As such, they can force reform that enables them to hold judges and their judiciaries accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how judges hold malpractising doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, police officers and their departments, pedophilic priests and their churches, etc.: accountable and liable(OL2:1048¶4). Judges should be too, for Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

22. The People are in the strongest position so to hold judges during a presidential campaign, when politicians must appear to be sensitive and responsive to their outrage and demands. To enable them to take advantage of their current position is the objective of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>OL2:1037): To inform the People about, and so outrage them at, judges’ abuse of power that they are stirred up to force politicians to take a stand on the issue and face the consequences at the polls.

23. This is a reasonably calculated strategy given that the People can be informed(^†>OL2:1016§1) about abuse committed even by the Supreme Court justices now and when they were lower court judges(*>jur:65§§1-4). As circuit justices of the circuit to which they are allotted(jur:26fn23a), they learn about the abuse of their former peers and other judges and cover for them. The People can be outraged at justices and judges running the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1014).

a. There is precedent for a justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas withdrew his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship but still resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) had provoked(jur:92§d).

F. An article that sparks investigation, unprecedented citizen hearings, a conference, and the insertion of the issue in national politics

24. The publication of one(^†>OL2:760, 781, 614) or a series(OL2:719§C) of articles can spark a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power(OL2:876). This is realistically based on the precedent of the MeToo! movement(OL2:1032): It was prompted by the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation(OL2:1032).

25. The article(s) can go viral by being shared with friends, family, and associates, and posted to social media as widely as possible by:

a. Advocates of Honest Judiciaries;

b. parties to lawsuits;

c. judges(^†>OL2:607, 613, 807) and court/law clerks acting either openly or as confidential informants or whistleblowers(OL2:1014);

d. lawyers(OL2:841);

e. professors(OL2:773, 808, 973);

f. students(OL2:971), such as those at law(OL2:982), journalism(*>Lsch:23), business(OL2:1024§C), and Information Technology(OL2:846) schools;

g. journalists(OL2:984, 995); etc.

26. All of them can participate as investigators or their sources. To strengthen their participation, they can call for unprecedented citizen hearings. These hearings can be held at universities and media outlets(OL2:1046¶8, 1056¶4, 1066); conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts; and nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia so that people can inexpensively from wherever they are testify to abuse committed by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.

27. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented at the first-ever and national conference on judicial abuse of power exposure and compensation of abusees, held at a top university.

28. The article(s), citizen hearings, and the conference can so inform and outrage the People as to insert the issue of judges’ abuse in our national politics and discourse(^†>OL2:938). This will pave the way for eventual effective judicial reform by the People:

a. In the interest of giving themselves ‘government by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6), ‘the People giveth power in trust to judges for them to apply the law; and the People taketh it back from them upon being informed that judges have outrageously breached the trust to ‘embezzle’ that power for their own gain and convenience’. The grant of power is transient.

29. Through your participation in implementing the inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1047§A), you can cause one or more justices, even the whole Supreme Court, to resign(OL2:1050§D), or expose “the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) of so many justices and judges as to reasonably conclude that they have institutionalized their abuse of power through coordination that has made them members of a racketeering enterprise. The ensuing institutional crisis can far surpass the consequences of the Watergate scandal(jur:4¶10-14), for it can bring down, not just a top officer and ‘All his men’, but rather the Judiciary as a branch.

30. Unaccountability allows power to “corrupt absolutely”(*>jur27fn28). Only after full exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the racketeering of judges and their judiciaries, can judicial reform that today is deemed inconceivable become unavoidable.

31. If you Dare!(^†>OL2:1003) participate, you can earn one or many rewards(*>OL:3§F). Among them are writing a bestseller(jur:4¶13), being played in a blockbuster movie or documentary(OL2:879), winning a Pulitzer that opens the doors to working in a position or for an entity that is more prestigious, and even the loftiest and longest-lasting of all: being recognized by We the People of the World as a historic agent of transformative change, who turned the millennial impossible(OL2:1069§E) of holding judges accountable and liable into a democratic right and a reality here and abroad(OL2:1037§1).

G. Offer of a presentation

32. I offer to present via video conference this article to you and your peers, professors and students, and other guests. I will present the following actions(OL2:978§E) in which you all can participate:

a. sharing this article and posting it to social media widely so that it may go viral and inform the most people about, and outrage them at, the above-described forms of judges’ coordinated abuse of power through which they run their judiciary as a racketeering enterprise;

b. publishing one or a series of my articles;

c. investigating with academic researchers and journalists the forms of judges’ abuse of power;

d. pioneering citizen hearings thereon held at, and by the staff of, universities and media outlets;

e. holding the first-ever and international conference on judges’ abuse of power to present the findings of the citizen hearings and the investigations;

f. sponsoring a tour of presentations nationwide to inform, outrage, and promote the formation of the single issue civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform;

g. forming the movement’s local chapters of parties joining forces to demand compensation;

h. promoting the offering by law school clinics, lawyers, and law firms of assistance to local chapters and individuals seeking compensation for the harm that judges have caused them;

i. establishing a multidisciplinary academic and business center(jur:119§§1, 5) attached to, and sponsored by, a university, media outlet, think tank, or public interest entity, and dedicated to “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”.

33. To decide whether to organize(OL2:945) such presentation you may watch my video together with its supporting slides(^†>OL2:958) by means of these links:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

34. Thereafter you can share this article^‡ and use the contact information below to discuss with me the terms and conditions of the presentation and its scheduling.

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

35. There is easy-to-follow advice for forming(*>OL:276§C) a local chapter of parties with cases before the same judge or in the same court(^†>OL2:1071§H). By putting it into practice, you can participate in not only the implementation of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1037), but also the formation of a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and reform(OL2:1032).

36. Forming that movement is a key objective of Judicial Discipline Reform(^†>OL2:1061§A). It:

a. conducts professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:924, 941, 953);

b. produced the study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3);

c. made a video with supporting slides(supra ¶33);

d. has sent hundreds of thousands of emails, including to hundreds of yahoo- and google- groups, to share its articles on judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform;

e. runs the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted so many visitors and impressed them so positively that 31,062 and counting have become subscribers as of April 15, 2020(^†>OL2:Appendix 3). You can subscribe to the website by going to it and then to <left panel ↓Register or + New   or   Users   >Add New; etc.

37. To implement its strategy(OL2:1001) Judicial Discipline Reform has a program of actions for supporters to participate in(^†>OL2:978§E) as well as a business plan to finance them(OL2:1022), which is guided by the principle: Making Money While Doing Justice.

38. The plan envisages the enhancement(*>OL:42) of the website from an informational outlet into:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(supra ¶15; ^†>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload;

b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many decisions, complaints, and other writings in search of(*>jur:131§b; OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE
through

PayPal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or at

the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

39. I look forward to hearing from you. Meanwhile, you may share this article with your peers, associates, and guests to the presentation; post it to social media; and distribute its link as widely as possible:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6505
         http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
tel. +1(718)827-9521

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

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

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

© 2020 Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.  All rights reserved.
**********************************

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

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

Dear Journalists, professors and students, politicians, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

I would like to submit to your and your colleagues’ consideration this proposal for:

A. The publication of one(e.g., ^†>OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(^†>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

1. analyzing Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “plan for that too”, namely, to hold judges accountable for self-enrichment by failing to recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interests due to their holding shares in one of the parties before them and instead resolving the conflicts in that party’s and their own favor. If elected, Sen. Warren plans to have legislation adopted to hold judges accountable for abusively enriching themselves(^†>OL2:998). Self-enrichment through abuse of power entails concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering(^†>OL2:949);

* ^† The materials corresponding to the(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) are found in my professional two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

b. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) very easy.

2. showing through “the math of abuse”(^†>OL2:608§A) and official statistics(OL2:457§§B, D) that judges do not read the vast majority of briefs that they require parties to file in support of any case or motion.

a. A brief costs each party $1Ks and even $10Ks to research, discover evidence, write, compile the record of evidentiary documents, print, file, and serve.

b. Yet, judges have their clerks(^†>OL2:1025¶15) dump the corresponding case or motion out of their caseload by applying categories of dumpable cases and motions(OL2:762¶¶14-15, 981¶18d) and rubberstamping in the clerk of court’s name a 5¢ dumping form. The latter contains an unresearched, arbitrary, fiat-like order without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only a blank to be filled in with “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16). Hence, they are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else.

c. Moreover, those orders are fraudulent, for they take no notice of the only section of the brief that matters to the party filing it and for which the court asks for and receives filing fees: the “Relief Requested”. Through the items therein the party asks the court to solve the controversy with the opposing party and for which it pays the court’s filing fees. But the clerks could not care less, for the only task that they received from the judges is to dump as many cases and motions as possible. They will dump any appeal. “Next!” (^†>OL2:546¶¶4-6)

d. By contrast, a tiny minority of briefs of interest(OL2:1006¶2b.ii) to the judges benefit from their unequal protection: They are read and discussed in opinions with precedential value and reasoned decisions issued in the judges’ names and published for parties, judges, and journalists to cite and comment(OL2:760).

e. To verify the above statements, go to the websites of courts, particularly appellate ones, download a random sample of posted decisions, and analyze and compare them.

3. exposing judges’ dismissal of 100% of complaints against them and denial of 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748), whereby judges self-exonerate from all accountability.

a. Congress granted judges self-disciplining authority under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(*>jur:24fn18a), which it passed for the protection of anybody with a complaint against them.

b. But judges have in effect abrogated the Act for the gain and convenience that they grab through their riskless abuse of power.

c. Congress is informed of judges’ handling of complaints in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(OL2:1037¶6), who is an appointee of the Chief Justice.

d. Congress ‘saw something, but said nothing’. Its culpable indifference has been self-interested: to avoid retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) by judges, who have a gang mentality(OL2:546¶¶1-3) and the power to hold executive orders(OL2:1028¶4), laws, and a legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17; *>OL:267§4).

e. Congress allows judges to hold themselves unaccountable and become Judges Above the Law, the harm to the public and the rule of law notwithstanding;

4. asserting the equal protection right of victims of judges and their judiciaries to be compensated by them, just as are the victims of malpracticing doctors and their hospitals; lawyers and their law firms; pedophilic priests and their churches; police officers and their police departments; etc.

a. The formation is underway of local chapters of parties to cases before the same judge or in the same court to demand(^†>OL2:729) the refund of filing fees; compensation for wasteful briefs; and damages for the fraud of cashing in filing fees and alleging that cases and motions were decided based on the briefs even though they were not even read(OL2:953).

B. Joint investigations of timely stories in the context of the presidential campaign

5. The objective of the investigations is, not to pass judgment on the abuse of discretion by one or more judges(OL:193§D), but rather to expose to voters how unaccountable judges in connivance with politicians have coordinated their abuse into their judiciaries’ institutionalized modus operandi. The investigations can follow the abundant leads already gathered(*>OL:194§E). Their findings will inform voters as well as the rest of the public about, and outrage them at, judge’ criminal activities, such as:

6. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail(^†>OL2:995§B, 899) to detect and suppress those critical of their abuse(OL2:974§B, 930§C) will be the subject of the Follow the wire! investigation(jur:105§b).

a. This is potentially their most outrageous abuse of power, for it deprives We the People of our most cherished rights, namely, those guaranteed under the 1^st Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(OL2:792¶1). Its exposure can provoke graver outrage than did the revelation of NSA’s warrantless collection of scores of millions of calls’ metadata(OL2:996§2).

7. The Follow the Money! investigation(*>jur:102§a)can be patterned on the one conducted during the Watergate scandal(*>jur:4¶11; ^†>OL2: 522¶d); and those revealed in the Offshore Leaks(*>OL:1) and the Panama Papers, and lead to the discovery of:

a. the money involved in judges’ self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1a); and

b. the hundreds of billions of dollars(*>jur:27§2) involved in the bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614).

1) Judges, their cronies(*>jur:32§§2, 3), and other insiders(*>jur:81fn169) take advantage of millions of people facing the most disruptive and stressful financial situation: bankruptcy.

2) Bankrupts have hardly any money to pay a lawyer, the immense majority appear pro se to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as they supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the rules of the local bankruptcy court, and as a result are wiped out!(*>jur:28fn35, 43fn65a);

8. How the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his approval or condonation of the conduct of senators during the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate can be:

a. invoked by defendants in federal and state cases on grounds of equal protection and due process of law to refuse the production of any witness and document, and assert an absolute privilege of CEOs and other principals to prevent their aides from being interrogated on their advice to them(^†>OL2:1040).

1) Defendants can argue that the President’s attorneys compared the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

2) They argued that the House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

3) They contended that the House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were entitled only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, could vote on whether to convict and remove the President.

4) Equally, a criminal defendant would claim that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict(^†>OL2:1044¶25);

b. traced back to a quid pro quo: the Chief Justice disregarded “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(^†>OL2:1041¶8), which commanded the production of witnesses and documents, and allowed the senators to do whatever they wanted in exchange for the senators continuing to hold judges unaccountable and allowing them 100% self-exoneration from complaints(supra ¶1c).

9. How the justices of the Supreme Court have engaged in abuse of power as principals and cover it as accessories(^†>OL2:950¶6b) and as circuit justices allotted to the several circuits(*>jur:26fn23a).

a. Justices and judges are well aware of the dire warning that all of them have written on their foreheads: “I know about your own abuse of power. So if you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!” That is how judges extort from each other complicit survival assistance.

b. You can contribute to launching these investigations by sharing this article with all your friends and family, posting it to social media, and emailing it repeatedly to the following blocs of journalists, presidential candidates, and professors, under the stated subject line. Copy one bloc at a time, paste it in the To: line of your email, and send it:

1) To: [journalists]

editors@time.com, NTotenberg@npr.org, MCoyle@alm.com, Sandra.Peddie@newsday.com, aturturro@alm.com, sarah.mimms@buzzfeed.com, newsthirteen@thirteen.org, matt.zapotosky@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, expertanalysis@law360.com, frontline@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, editor@newsday.com, dailybrief@huffpost.com, washingtonweek@pbs.org, tips@nypost.com, tips@theappeal.org, vaughan.smith@frontlineclub.com, jeanette.wells@thomsonreuters.com, jon.swaine@theguardian.com, joshua_benton@harvard.edu, amanda.arnold@nymag.com, amiller@newshour.org, benjamin.weller@newsday.com,

2) To: [presidential candidates]

“Donald J. Trump” <contact@action.gop.com> , Keepamericagreat@groups.io, Keepamericagreat+owner@groups.io, contact@action.gop.com,info@elizabethwarren.com,  info@joebiden.com, reply@workingfamilies.org, info@ourrevolution.com, us@ocasio2018.com, info@peteforamerica.com, mymanmert@gmail.com, Kucinich4President@yahoogroups.com,  Fernwoods@aol.com, hello@corybooker.com, info@kamalaharris.org,

3) To: [professors]

katyaln@law.georgetown.edu, mjh335@law.georgetown.edu, jg1861@law.georgetown.edu, gucomm@georgetown.edu, jturley@law.gwu.edu, lessig@law.harvard.edu, vdeportu@law.harvard.edu, dersh@law.harvard.edu, susan.rose-ackerman@yale.edu, judith.resnik@yale.edu, kelly.hernandez@yale.edu, jsnyder@gov.harvard.edu, bonnie.posick@yale.edu, ejanger@jd20.law.harvard.edu, RWHEELER@brookings.edu, cgeyh@indiana.edu, hello@lawyersdefendingdemocracy.org, jaimeestades@yahoo.com, rposner@uchicago.edu, eposner@uchicago.edu, bjwalker@uchicago.edu, alisonsiegler@uchicago.edu, knorcross@uchicago.edu, tmiles@law.uchicago.edu, javratin@uchicago.edu, dzarfes@uchicago.edu, wlandes@uclaw.uchicago.edu, kathryn.mammel@yale.edu, lise.cavallaro@yale.edu, abbe.gluck@yale.edu, Rebecca.stone@law.ucla.edu, james.geiser@troutman.com, srh90@georgetown.edu, cogolla@savannahlawschool.org,

4) Subject line:

Re: The rewards of exposing judges’ self-enrichment, denounced by Sen. Warren in her “plan”, and other forms of their abuse of power, by publishing, investigating, and holding unprecedented citizen hearings

C. Investing in Judicial Discipline Reform to enable its continued pursuit of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

10. The website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org has attracted numberless visitors and has exerted such strong appeal that it has turned 30,918 and counting(OL2:Appendix 3) into subscribers. This proof of public appeal makes it a sound business proposition:

a. to develop this free informational outlet into a for-profit interactive business that sells ads, services, and goods, as set forth in its business plan(OL2:1022); and

b. to finance the programmatic activities(^†>OL2:916§C, 978§E) to implement the out-of-court(OL2:1008§B) inform and outrage strategy for forming a national civic single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform(^†>OL2:1037).

D. Unprecedented citizens hearings and the electoral, commercial, and reputational rewards from exposing judges’ abuse

11. More than 50 million cases are filed in the state and federal courts annually(*>jur:8fn^4,5), to which must be added the scores of millions of cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully. Parties sue and are sued separately and suffer abuse alone. They constitute the huge national untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

12. The Dissatisfied can significantly increase the audience of a journalist and/or media outlet that recognize their existence and give them a voice. This is particularly so if the journalist and the outlet together with professors(^†>OL2:1045, 982, 971) and universities contribute to organizing the proposed unprecedented citizen hearings on judges’ abuse of power. Their findings can be discussed at a conference on judicial reform.

13. These citizen hearings are to be held by universities and media stations; moderated by professors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and other fraud and forensic experts; and broadcast on an interactive multimedia basis. The hearings will give the organizers access to a national audience that will hear or give testimony about judges’ abuse of power that witnesses have experienced or witnessed. Thus informed and outraged, the audience, in general, and voters, in particular, will demand that politicians call and hold official hearings and reform judicial accountability and liability meaningfully(*>jur:158§§6-8; cf. OL2:933¶6).

14. A principled or opportunistic but savvy presidential candidate(OL2:1011, 937) can attract The Dissatisfied by denouncing judges’ abuse, as did Sen. Warren(supra ¶1) at rallies, townhall meetings and interviews; seeking compensation for them through local chapters of abusees; and calling for congressional hearings. So can the candidate become their Champion of Justice(OL2:991, 1027).

15. Scandal sells copy. A scandal will be provoked by exposing how the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and thereafter hold them unaccountable as ‘our men and women on the bench’ and allowed judges and their judiciaries to become a racketeering branch(OL2:999¶13).

16. The journalist and media outlet that scoop this scandal will be rewarded commercially and can reasonably expect to enhance their personal and professional names and even win a Pulitzer Prize(*>OL:3§F8).

17. A journalist and a media outlet can seek to turn one or more judges and their clerks into Whistleblower in the Judiciary, the equivalent of the whistleblowing officer in the Executive who launched the process of impeachment of President Trump(^†>OL2:1008). They and waiters, drivers, receptionists, etc., can become confidential informants(jur:106§c).

18. There is precedent for a Supreme Court justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that he caused as a result of his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:92§d). Could you end up writing a bestseller or portrayed in a blockbuster movie if you caused one or several justices, or even the whole Supreme Court to resign? You can become a transformative historic figure here and abroad.(^†>OL2:1008)

E. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

19. If you are interested in accountable and liable judges and their judiciaries, you may want to support Judicial Discipline Reform in its:

a. professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D); and

b. enhancement of this website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org into:

1) a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

2) a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, *>OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power, including judges’ filing of misleading mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a and fn. 213b) and the self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1).

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE
through

PayPal

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

F. Offer of a presentation

20. I offer to present via video conference or in person this article to you and your colleagues. You may use the contact information below to reach me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

21. To decide whether to organize such presentation watch my video together with the slides(^†>OL2:958) using the following links:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)^‡…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Tel. (718)827-9521

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

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

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.

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

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

A. What is here not advocated; advocated; and the advocacy’s basis.

1. This article^‡ does not advocate the position of either party to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the Senate, i.e., the House of Representatives’ managers prosecuting the impeachment articles or the President’s legal team that seeks to exonerate him from all charges therein.

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

2. This article advocates “Equal Justice Under Law”. That is the principle inscribed on the frieze of the Supreme Court building. Its inscription there signifies that it is the principle that guides the justices’ administration of justice by applying the law equally to all persons. It is the corollary of another principle that expresses the essence of ‘a government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn⁶), which has been heard so frequently of late: Nobody is Above the Law.

3. The article advocates such equality in practical terms:

a. It shows how parties, whether represented by lawyers or appearing pro se, can argue that what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has done, approved, or condoned while presiding over the impeachment trial illustrates the conduct that his associate justices and the other federal and state judges whom they supervise can engage in when presiding over all other cases.

b. This is similar to relying on the federal rules of procedure and evidence, which have been incorporated almost word by word into all state laws. Their application by federal judges, in general, and the Supreme Court, in particular, establishes how due process ensures trial by the rule of law; and equal protection guarantees that Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

* This article is supported by the two-volume study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows. That study contains the materials corresponding to the(* ^†>footnote-like blue text references) herein:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

b. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) very easy.

B. The Chief’s conduct establishes what is fair and just for all other trials

4. If parties cannot invoke as precedent the conduct of the Chief Justice at the impeachment trial, then he has failed to “do impartial justice” to the President, which is what he swore the senators to do in the oath that he administered to them at the start of the trial.

5. If the Chief has treated him as being either above or ‘beneath’ the law, he has violated his own oath of office at 28 U.S. Code §453 [the Code of federal laws only](*>jur:53fn⁹⁰), whereby he swore, as judicial officers must do, “to administer equal right to the poor [in knowledge, intelligence, and money] and to the rich [in prominence, judicial colleagues, and connections to VIPs outside the court]”.

6. The Chief has the duty to apply that oath, for the Constitution, Section 3, 5^th Clause, provides thus:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7. This Clause identifies the proceeding over which the Chief is presiding as a trial. The fact that the entity empowered to conduct it is the Senate does not defeat the principle that was intended to be safeguarded by the adoption of the Constitution, namely, the rule of law and its equal application to all, by contrast to the will of the King of England expressed arbitrarily by fiat on a case by case basis even after the fact, except as curbed by the Magna Carta and British legal tradition.

8. The provision that “when the President…is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” introduces the head of another ‘Power’, i.e., the Judiciary. The Constitution does not subject the Chief to the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate. The latter can adopt binding rules when it tries impeached officers other than the president, in which case the Constitution does not provide for any judge to be brought in to preside over the trial; yet, even those rules must comport with the rule of law.

9. When the Chief Justice is brought in to preside over the trial of an impeached President, he does not come in empty-handed to sit and watch the trial as merely a symbolic figure. Far from it, he comes in with something pertaining to the ‘Power’ that he represents, the Judiciary, and that he must apply to ensure the institutional protection of all courts as well as the equal treatment of all parties: “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”; cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

10. Those notions extend far beyond the single issue of the exercise by a court of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation. Rather, they reach all aspects of a trial that affect the trial’s very purpose: to apply due process to ensure equal justice under law.

C. Raising motions for the Chief Justice to decide unbound by Senate rules

11. In any court, a party can raise a motion of any nature requesting any relief; no rule requires that it first obtain the opposing party’s permission to do so. The opposing party’s remedy is to object to the motion and move for its dismissal; or object to the relief requested and move for its denial.

12. Likewise, during the impeachment trial, either party can submit to the Chief Justice any motion. In determining it, he is not bound by the rules adopted by the Senate for this trial. This accords with the principle that agreements between the parties to a trial are not binding on the court.

13. The justification for this is that an agreement may have been extracted from the weaker party by the party with stronger bargaining power or superior knowledge. The court must not allow itself to be turned into the stronger party’s enforcer.

14. A plea agreement reached by the prosecutor and the defendant or a settlement between civil parties does not bind the judge, who can reject or modify it in order to ensure that it comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.

15. In the Senate, there is always a party with superior power either because of its greater number of senators or because it can count with the tie-breaking vote of the vice-president of the U.S. in his capacity as president of the Senate.

16. As a result, it falls to the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment trial to ensure that the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate are fair and just, rather than the result of unequal bargaining power and partisanship; and that the rules do not offend against those “traditional notions” developed by the Judiciary and applied to all its proceedings to ensure due process and guarantee equal protection of the law. The Chief must ensure this not only on motions raised by a party, but also on his own motion.

17. Since he is presiding at a trial, as a justice of the Supreme Court, and before a national audience, what he does and how he does it establishes a precedent for any party to invoke and for any court to take into consideration in its rulings.

18. Even if any Senate rule or voting provided that no subpoenas calling for witnesses or documents would issue, the Chief could apply those “traditional notions” to order their appearance or production so as to enable “equal justice to be done” not only by the senators, but also to the parties so as to enable each to present its case fairly and unhampered by overpowering partisanship.

19. The Senate majority could not afford to overturn every motion decision by the Chief, lest it appear ensuring a predetermined trial result. If a party made an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court, it would be for the Chief to decide whether the appeal lay, and if so, whether it would be interlocutory, with or without suspensive effect on the trial, or at the end of it. While these are uncharted waters, those “notions” provide the compass to arrive at answers to questions of first impression.

D. Claims of executive privilege made by the President

20. A claim of executive privilege issued by the head of the Executive branch will be incapable of preventing the production of witnesses or documents ordered by the Chief Justice, the head of a co-equal branch, the Judiciary, which has inherent powers for the conduct of its business.

21. The power of judges is so much stronger that one single district judge can hold unconstitutional a law that was researched, debated, and adopted by 535 members of Congress and enacted by the President. One district judge, J. James Robart, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of the President, though he had campaigned on issuing it and received the votes of over 62.5 million people. Three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide.

22. If one judge can do so, the Chief can order witnesses and documents to be produced; and order federal marshals to take custody of that person or documents and bring them to the Senate, for “he who can do the most can do the lesser”.

23. If the President instructed the Executive not to comply with any Senate subpoena or any order of the Chief, he would lend credence to the impeachment article of obstruction of Congress and even render himself liable to the charge of contempt of court, cf. ‘obstruction of the Judiciary’. Such wholesale non-compliance would be fraught with dire consequences.

24. Not even President Nixon dare do that after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered him on July 24, 1974, to turn over the tapes that he had secretly recorded in the White House, which turned out to hold information incriminating him in the Watergate scandal. Nixon complied. The House began drafting articles of impeachment. The Senate was likely to convict and remove him. So Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

1. Judges’ closing ranks and retaliating out of their gang mentality

25. Defiance of all Chief Justice’s orders would be even more offensive than simply berating a federal judge: President Trump berated not only Judge Robart, but also U.S.D.J. Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University case.

26. That prompted a most revealing comment by Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch as he made courtesy visits with the senators who had to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court, even though thereupon the President could have withdrawn his nomination. Judge Gorsuch reportedly said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(^†>OL2:546¶1).

27. That comment reveals the gang mentality that drives judges to defend each other rather than a concern for determining impartially and objectively whether the judge’s conduct in question was legally or ethically right or respectful of the injunction in Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn^123a). No judge is going to defy the gang, which can ostracize him or her as a treacherous pariah.

28. If the President defied or berated the Chief Justice, judges would certainly close ranks behind their Chief and retaliate against the President in the pending cases that are very important to his administration or him personally.

29. Their retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) may provoke(^†>OL2:1029¶1, §§C,D) the President to escalate his berating and even launch directly or indirectly an investigation of their self-enrichment through abuse of their power and unaccountability that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounced(OL2:998) and other forms of abuse(OL2:1039¶19).

30. An institutional crisis between the Judiciary and the Executive would ensue and aggravate the ongoing one between the Executive and Congress.

2. The Rules allow a witch hunt subject to admissibility of the witch

31. Since the President is the defendant at the trial for his removal from office, he faces a conflict of interests if he claims to issue the order of non-compliance as president. To allow him as party to decide what can be produced at his trial would set a precedent that any other party could invoke:

32. To begin with, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b) on “Discovery Scope and Limits” provides under “(1) Scope in General…Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable”. This provision authorizes an evidentiary hunt which is known to have no courtroom accessible to its evidentiary catch.

33. In the same vein, a representation to the court is proper under FRCP 11 if “(b)(3) the factual contentions…will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

34. In principle, everything is huntable, including the witch. The rules of procedure allow a disclosure and discovery fishing expedition; whether the catch of information becomes admissible evidence is determined subsequently, e.g., on a motion in limine before or during trial.

35. Compliance with the rules will become optional if the Chief Justice and the Senate uphold the President’s refusal to produce any witness or document.

E. How to invoke the impeachment trial in your own case

36. Up to now, the President has only issued a blanket order instructing all members of the Executive not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry by appearing to testify or producing requested documents. However, he has not formally invoked executive privilege.

37. But after the start of the impeachment trial, he tweeted that if the Senate issued subpoenas for witnesses and documents, he would claim executive privilege to prevent their appearance or production.

38. The Constitution does not expressly provide any executive privilege. Rather, it provides for three branches that exercise checks and balances on each other to prevent anyone from overpowering another, for instance, by frustrating Congress’s duty of oversight of the Executive. Its provision for impeaching and trying officers implies ‘all means’ “necessary and proper for its Execution” (Art 1, Sec. 8), e.g., finding facts through the issuance of subpoenas and orders of production.

39. If in spite of these features, the Chief Justice allows a Senate subpoena or his order of production to be defied by the President just as if the Chief denies a motion for such order, the Chief will establish a damaging precedent that any party will be entitled on equal protection grounds to invoke in its own case.

40. Any party will attempt to defeat any subpoena by asserting a boundless spousal, attorney/client, and priest/penitent privilege; and even craft its own privilege: A corporate chief executive could claim that her communications with her aides were privileged to ensure that they gave her candid advice without the chilling effect of the possibility of being compelled to disclose it.

41. Even more broadly, it would suffice to defeat a subpoena that its target self-servingly characterized the investigation underlying it as “a hoax”, “a witch hunt”, or “abuse of process”.

42. In the same vein, a criminal defendant could invoke the arguments made and conduct engaged in at the impeachment trial in the Senate with the approval or condonation of its presiding officer, the Chief Justice. Underpinning those arguments and conduct was the comparison by the President’s attorneys of the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

a. The House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

b. The House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were allowed only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, voted on whether to convict and remove the President.

c. Likewise, a criminal defendant would claim on equal protection grounds that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict.

43. A party that moves to have a privilege so extended; such a characterization of an investigation upheld; and such an indictment process and trial applied to her case, can claim to be proceeding in good faith and to be shielded from sanctions under FRCP 11 –or state law, e.g., 22 NYCRR 130-1.1–: Its “(2) claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law”.

44. The party’s motion will be “reasonable under the circumstances” since it will be based on what the Chief Justice did, approved, or condoned over the objections of the majority of members of Congress.

45. The fact that the trial was nationally televised warrants the reasonable expectation that his conduct would set a precedent for every party to invoke and every judge to follow on equal protection grounds.

46. A judge confronted with such a motion would either have to grant it; allow an interlocutory appeal; or certify a question to an appellate court, including the Supreme Court.

F. Presentation on judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

47. I offer to present this article^‡ via video conference or in person to you and your group of guests. You may use the contact information below to reach me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

48. To decide whether to organize such presentation, you can review the following files, which you may share and post together with this article as widely and repeatedly as possible:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

G. Judicial Discipline Reform’s pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

49. The judges of the Federal Judiciary, the only ones with a life appointment and national jurisdiction, as well as state judges, in general, have enormous power over We the People’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

50. They are held unaccountable by themselves(^†>OL2:918, 792) and the politicians that put them on the bench. So they risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience(OL2:1039§E).

a. This contention has been unwittingly validated by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She has dare denounce their self-enrichment through abuse of power. According to her, it is the result of their unaccountability. She “has a plan for that too: If elected, she will cause legislation to be passed to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves by abusing their power.”(OL2:998).

51. Judicial Discipline Reform pursues “Equal Justice Under Law” through the exposure of abuse of power by unaccountable judges who hold themselves to be Judges Above the Law. Its main means are:

a. its study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3.a);

b. its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted numberless visitors and motivated 30,912 and counting(^†>OL2:Appendix 3) to subscribe to it –on its homepage, go <left panel ↓Register
or  + New   or   Users   >Add New–;

c. its presentations(supra §F); and

d. the promotion of the publication of one (e.g., ^†>OL2:998, 760, 781, 1040) and the syndication of a series(OL2:719§C) of articles in print or digital outlets.

52. To advance its pursuit it has developed its out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>OL2:1037) to inform the public about, and so outrage it at, judges’ abuse as to stir it up to demand that politicians hold judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

53. The strategy is implemented through concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions(^†>OL2:978§E).

54. Relying on the precedents of the Tea Party, the MeToo!(OL2:1033§B) movement, and the global ecological movement led by Greta Thunberg, it promotes the formation of a national civic single-issue movement for judicial abuse exposure(*>OL:194§E; ^†>OL2:1015¶12), compensation of abusees(OL2:952¶5), and reform(*>jur:158§§6-8).

55. The movement’s core is formed by the huge(OL2:937¶1) untapped national voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System(OL2:952¶5).

H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

DONATE
through

PayPal

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)^‡…and you may enter it.

^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York 10472
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Tel. (718)827-9521

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

A. From Sen. Warren’s denunciation to the Judiciary as a racketeering branch

1. Senator Elizabeth Warren has just released her “plan” for holding federal judges accountable for failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they own shares in one of the parties and even resolving such conflict of interests in favor of that party and to the benefit of themselves, even if at the expense of the opposing party and the rule of law.

2. Her “plan” provides for judges’ accountability to be ensured by the Judicial Conference of the U.S., an entity formed by judges who themselves may have engaged and still engage in the self-serving resolution of such conflict; and by Congress, the entity that confirms judicial nominees and thereafter protects them as ‘our men and women on the bench’.

3. Those entities are interested in preserving judges’ unaccountability. Expecting them to work against their interest is unrealistic and dooms her “plan” to failure(^†>OL2:998).

4. Yet, Sen. Warren is the only member of Congress and the first presidential candidate who has dare criticize federal judges.

5. Given her example of courage, will journalists, editors, and publishers, i.e., the media, dare investigate her denunciation of judges’ self-serving resolution of conflicts of interests to determine whether it exposes their claim to integrity as a pretense?

6. Their investigation (*>OL:194§E) can be guided by the axiom ‘power is ever expanding’, and its corollary ‘the more blatantly one breaks the rules, the more likely it is that one broke them in the past and is ready to do so in future’? How far have judges individually and collectively gone in abusing their power?

7. If the media dare follow Sen. Warren’s lead, they can make a scoop that provokes the scandal with the farthest-reaching impact ever:

a. Federal judges are the only judges whose decisions affect the whole country.

b. They are the only officers appointed for life; so they need not restrain their conduct to avoid alienating voters or reappointers.

c. Only they have self-disciplining authority, which they have abused by dismissing 100% of complaints and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; OL2:548, 748), both required by law to be filed with them(^†>OL2:918).

d. Judges wield power to decide the controversies between the other two branches, e.g.,

1) whether Congress can issue subpoenas that override the President’s claims to executive privilege;

2) a single district judge suspended nationwide the President’s Muslim travel ban order;

3) judges have determined that the President cannot invalidate Congress’s constitutional ‘power of the purse’ by reallocating to the construction of the U.S.-Mexican wall funds appropriated for other purposes.

e. Judges have abusively turned their arbitral power into power to retaliate. The risk of its application has frightened the other branches into abstaining from subjecting them to constitutional checks and balances.

8. Unencumbered by fear of job loss and punishment, and unchecked by the other branches, judges advance their interests by”

a. abusing their power over the property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame the lives and shape the identity of parties and the rest of We the People; while

b. protecting themselves by intercepting people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress critical ones(^†>OL2:929).

9. Judges have the motive, means, and opportunity to turn riskless abuse into their coordinated, and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized, modus operandi(OL2:760). They are the officers(*>jur:88§§a-c) of a racketeering branch.

10. This is shown in my two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
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# up to prefix OL:page393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue references) very easy.

B. Dare rely on the precedent for exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse of power

11. The Washington Post dare pursue the story about “a garden variety burglary” by burglars, disparagingly dubbed “the Five Plumbers”, who broke into the Watergate complex in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972. The Post continued daring until the story, shunned by its peers, became the Watergate scandal. On its bandwagon, every media outlet had to climb. They rode it to the point of driving President Nixon to resign on August 8, 1974, and causing “All the President’s Men”, his aides, to be convicted of abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. During those 2+ years, The Post became a household name and established its reputation as a preeminent newspaper.

12. Dare go beyond The Post by setting off a generalized media investigation that exposes how Supreme Court justices engaged in self-enrichment and abuse of power as lower court judges, continue to do so(*>jur:65§§1-4), and as “circuit justices” for the circuits to which they have been allotted under 28 U.S.C. §42, cover for those judges(^†>OL2:918); and topple, not only “Men”, but a branch.

13. After The New York Times dare publish its exposé of sexual predator Harvey Weinstein on October 5, 2017, The New Yorker scrambled to publish its own exposé only five days later. The MeToo! movement erupted worldwide overnight and brought about transformative change. These publishers won Pulitzer prizes. TIME made its Persons of the Year those who dare be “Silence Breakers”.

14. The New York Times dare denounce the mistreatment of civil right protesters to suppress their criticism, which led to NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its actual malice standard in defense of freedom of speech and the press. It dare publish the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the lies underlying the Vietnam War.

15. Dare become today’s L’Aurore (First Light of Day), which published French writer Emile Zola’s I accuse! letter on January 13, 1898, and made journalistic history in the publishing of public misconduct exposés(*>jur:98§2). Dare write openly or be a discreet in print Deep Throat –the confidential informant during the Watergate investigation(jur:106§c)- like…

16. Anonymous Whistleblower dare file his/her few pages of public misconduct complaint and thereby launched the Ukrainian scandal generalized media investigation. In two weeks, the media accomplished what Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to do in his almost two-year probe and nearly 400-page report: cause the opening of first an informal, now a formal, impeachment inquiry.

17. We the People, emboldened by the MeToo! attitude, dare shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

18. You, emboldened by Sen. Warren, can request each of the other presidential candidates to take a stand on her denunciation of self-enriching, abusive judges. This can substantially impact the campaign by inserting the issue in it.

19. Thereby you can pioneer an event that has never occurred in the thousands of years during which kings and governments have appointed ‘their men and women to the bench’:

a. You can thus enable the People to assert -during a presidential campaign, when politicians are most responsive to public outrage- their status as the source of all political power and masters of all public servants, entitled to hold also their judicial public servants accountable AND liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

20. That will be transformative change in the judiciary and the rest of government.

21. To foster that change, dare invest in the research and writing, and strategic thinking of Judicial Discipline Reform, as set forth in its business plan(^†>OL2:914), e.g., to develop http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, whose appeal is proven by its 28,479+ subscribers(OL2:Appendix 3).

22. Dare publish one(OL2:998) or a series(OL2:719§C) of my articles to inform the People about how judges prove that “power corrupts and absolute [unaccountable] power corrupts absolutely”(*>jur27fn28).

23. If you dare seize this opportunity to bring about such transformative change, you can become nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champion of Justice.

24. Time is of the essence.

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

C. Put your money where your outrage at abuse and passion for justice are

because

Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be advanced without money

25. So I have written a prospectus(^†>OL2:914)^‡ to apply to venture capitalists for venture capital –not a loan– to run Judicial Discipline Reform as a for-profit business guided by the motto:

Making money while doing justice.
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Venture_Capitalists.pdf

26. The capital will help Judicial Discipline Reform to continue its professional and original law research and writing, and strategic thinking.

27. It will also enhance its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Its public appeal is so extensive that out of its many visitors it has turned into subscribers 28,554 and counting(OL2:Appendix 3). That proven appeal can be fostered and monetized by enhancing the site from an informational one into:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of (*>jur:131§b, *>OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(OL2:792§A), trends, and schemes(OL2:614) of abuse of power.

28. Capital is also needed to undertake the concrete, realistic, and feasible Programmatic Activities (OL2:916§C, 978§E) aimed to form a national movement and attain its objectives of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform. The Program shows that there is a thought-out business plan reasonably calculated to turn a profit.

29. I offer to present this article and the application for venture capital to you and your colleagues at a video conference or in person; cf.:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

30. You may use the information below to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

31. Meantime,

Support
Judicial Discipline Reform
and its professional law research and writing
and strategic thinking.

Donate
through

PayPal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Tel. (718)827-9521

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

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

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 increase the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

This article can be posted on social media and shared through this link: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_introduction_video_slides_judges_abuse.pdf

These are the links to the presentation components:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

Dear Visitors and Subscribers^‡ to this site,

I take pleasure in submitting to your review my presentation video and slides on how you, your friends and family, and the rest of We the People can contribute to exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, which harms you and all of us.
‡ To subscribe to this site go <left panel ↓Register   or   + New or Users >Add New.

You can thus have a transformative impact on the administration of justice and the presidential campaign while pioneering law practice, reporting/publishing, and academic fields.*
* This article is based on the two-volume study*^† of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

A. Judges’ statistics show their unaccountability and riskless abuse of power

1. The presentation has its reliable foundation in the federal judges’ official statistics, which they must under 28 U.S.C. §604 [Title 28 of the U.S. Code of federal laws, section 604] submit to Congress annually. Their statistics show that federal judges:

a. have had only 8 of their peers impeached and removed in the last 230 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789! Their decisional independence has become personal untouchability, which eliminates the deterrence to abuse entailed by the fear of losing one’s job;

b. dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them(§351), a dismissal rate that allows and even encourages them to grab benefits through abuse of power in reliance on the farce of self-ensured accountability and the reality of self-granted impunity;

c. do not read the vast majority of briefs, required by the courts, depriving parties of the honest service which they reasonably expected and contracted for when they paid filing fees, of which the parties were defrauded under the false pretense of judges’ brief-based decisions;

d. officially weight the case of a pro se party as ⅓ of a case from its filing and before judges consider its merits, denying it the equal protection of the law afforded a party who pays the same filing fee but whose case is weighted as one or more cases and treated accordingly;

e. dispose of 93% of appeals to the federal circuit courts in meaningless summary orders contained in ‘dumping forms’, i.e., unresearched, reasonless, fiat-like orders in forms rubberstamped by their clerks to dump appeals of no interest to the judges out of the latter’s caseloads;

f. deny systematically any en banc motion for all the judges of a court to review an order of any panel of its judges, so that by either tacit or explicit agreement the judges mutually assure the survival of their orders however abusive, wrong, or perfunctory they are, thus fostering their unprincipled and self-interested attitude of “Our power stands unreviewable!”…as such “it is absolute and corrupts absolutely”.

2. Statistical analysis shows that federal judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress critical ones, maintaining through coordinated abuse their pretense of honesty to ward off external supervision and protect their unaccountability and benefits already and yet to be grabbed. This article in the format of a professional letter proposing joint action was mailed in hardcopy to over 120 addressees. Will the letters and any reply be delivered or intercepted?

3. The judges have abused their power to prevent the exercise on them and their branch of constitutional checks and balances by the other two branches for fear of retaliation, such as by suspending nationwide their executive orders or holding their laws unconstitutional.

4. Likewise, they escape the power of control of the masters of even judicial public servants in “government of, by, and for the people”: We the People.

5. As a result, they have turned their Judiciary into Judges’ State Above the state.

6. They have extended their State to their state counterparts, for whom federal judges provide the federal rules of procedure and evidence as the model for the state ones, and illustrate their application with riskless disregard for due process, equal protection, justifying reasons, reasonable expectations, and foreseeable harm.

B. Precedent for expecting exposure of abuse to have a transformative impact

7. I propose analyzing judicial independence based on the circumstances enabling abuse of power: unaccountability, risklessness, coordination, and secrecy –clerks bound by confidentiality agreements and all meetings held behind closed doors, where the most insidious corruptor festers hidden from ‘disinfecting sunshine’, Money!, lots of money in controversy.

8. Yet, you can bring about a transformative change in judges’ accountability for the first time in history and everywhere in the world:

a. Indeed, the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse gave rise overnight to the MeToo! movement, which here and abroad has had the first-ever transformative impact on the social and judicial handling of sexual abusers. It has given rise in the public to a self-assertive attitude, expressed in the rallying cry:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

9. A similar eruption of an international civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform can result from your exposing judges’ abuse as their institutionalized modus operandi and their Judiciary as their private arm for coordinating the planning and execution of their abuse.

C. The presidential campaign as the most opportune time to expose the abuse

10. There is an overcrowded field of 20+ presidential candidates desperately in need of voters’ support to qualify for the nationally televised presidential debate scheduled for October, lest missing such publicity event dries up the stream of donations and volunteers needed to run their campaigns until the Iowa caucus in late February.

11. Desperate people do desperate things, like denouncing judges’ abuse, if the expected reward outweighs the risk of retaliation. The candidates can vie for a reward that can make their campaign’ survival possible: recognition as the leader of the huge untapped leaderless voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System, unjust for many and too expensive for all.

12. As the MeToo! public, The Dissatisfied, and the media are informed of judges’ abuse, they will reciprocally reinforce their outrage and competitive and commercial need to investigate the issue. They will demand that:

a. the candidates at a press conference, an op-ed article, their rallies, townhall meetings, and interviews denounce judges’ abuse; and

b. call for traditional congressional hearings as well as unprecedented hearings held by universities and the media to take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse. At those hearings, unlike in your brief or complaint against a judge, you and others will have the opportunity to be heard on your experience at the hands of unaccountable, abusive judges.

13. Their demand can attain, in the U.S. to begin with, a key exposure objective: to insert the issue into the presidential campaign.

14. But time is of the essence: The more candidates are still in the race, the stronger the pressure to be the first to denounce the abuse rather than drop out of the race.

D. Why exposing judges’ abuse should matter to you

15. We all can work together on something of historic transcendence: the transfer of the administration of justice from the State of Judges to the government of We the People.

16. That is ‘government, not of powerful, abusive men and women, but by the rule of law’.

17. You can contribute to exposing judges’ abuse of power whether you have or had a case in court; and have been represented by a lawyer or had to appear in court pro se to be treated as only ⅓ of a party.

18. Even if you have not had a case in court and are not a victim of, or a witness to, judges’ abuse, their abuse deprives you and those that you care about of your effective membership in the People, the sovereign of all public power, entitled to hire, fire, and hold judges accountable for their conduct and liable to compensate their victims as they do everybody else.

E. Realistic actions to expose judges’ abuse and carve a business niche

19. You can carve a law practice, reporting/publishing, and academic niche suing for compensation, investigating, and writing on, judges’ abuse.

20. You can begin with the abuse committed at the very top, by the justices, who committed it as judges, still do from the Supreme Court, and cover it up to protect their former lower court colleagues and all the judges who belong to the circuit to which each justice is respectively assigned as its circuit justice, lest the judges trade up in plea bargaining their incriminating testimony against ‘a bigger fish’ for a lesser charge for themselves.

21. Multidisciplinary teams, e.g., of lawyers, journalists, documentarists, talkshow hosts; experts in business practices, Information Technology, and public relations; advertisers, professors and students, can form to execute any element of this program of actions. They can:

a. handle the flood of motions to void dumping orders and remand for new process;

b. investigate the interception of emails and mail;

c. hold a tour of presentations on judges’ abuse at universities, public interest and defenders organizations, bar associations, press clubs, chambers of commerce, digital technology and artificial intelligence meetings, home owners associations, children and family conferences, probate groups, shareholders associations, etc.;

d. gather the parties before the same judge or the same court into a group that jointly claims from that judge and court the refund of filing fees and compensation for unread briefs;

e. organize those groups into the local chapters of the national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform;

f. conduct public interest law clinics for victims of, and witnesses to, the abuse, and offer other courses analyzing the causes and effects of judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power;

g. pursue the abuse as the subject of the teamwork class of journalism students;

h. propose judges’ abuse as the subject of students’ term project, master’s thesis, and doctoral dissertation;

i. interview, if need be on promise of anonymity, current law clerks to the justices and other top judges as well as former clerks, who today may be law professors and deans, to detect from their valuable accounts as insiders patterns of conduct among judges; and turn into confidential informants sitting and former judges disgusted by judges’ abuse of power that they witnessed, condoned, and even participated in;

j. investigate judges’ relation to organizers of and participants in, and conduct at, conferences, whether held by judiciaries or corporate entities that have or are bound to have cases in court; in effect pay for all the judges’ expenses; and can afford to do all that while the individuals who are most frequently their opposing parties cannot;

k. call for nationally televises hearings on judges’ abuse held by Congress as well as unprecedented ones held by universities and the media so that their findings of the nature, extent, and gravity of the abuse provoke such national media and public outrage that judicial reforms that today appear inconceivable become unavoidable under public pressure;

l. produce the documentary Black Robed Predators Perched on Benches for commercial distribution, so that it can be like 9/11 Fahrenheit, which at the time was the largest grossing documentary ever;

m. develop search engines and algorithms to audit judges’ writings and detect patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse;

n. apply Forensic and Fraud Accounting techniques to judges’ annual mandatory public financial disclosure reports;

o. use Follow the money! techniques and the Al Capone strategy to search for judges’ concealed assets, tax evasion, and money laundering;

p. publish editorial comments, articles, syndicated columns, and journals on judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power;

q. apply Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations techniques jurisprudence, and scholarship to design the sociogram and operational diagram of unaccountable judges and their cronies protected by their riskless abuse, such as complicit lawyers, bankruptcy trustees, appraisers, warehousers, auctioneers, accountants, house renovation contractors, bankers, managers of private clubs that serve as conspiracy dens;

r. develop this website http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has 27,125 subscribers and counting, into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges and a center for research on judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse;

s. develop and make widely available templates for people to detect and describe in a uniform and comparable way judges’ abuse of power;

t. collect, verify, and edit accounts of judges’ abuse and comment on its nature, extent, and gravity in the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse in America;

u. hold a series of regular talkshows on judges’ abuse that gives rise to a Coalition of Hosts to Justice that develop their shows collectively into a powerhouse of American politics and a rival to the national TV networks;

v. hold the first-ever, and national, multimedia, and interactive conference on judges’ abuse of power, sponsored by a nationally respected university or think tank and media outlets;

w. create the Institute for Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy attached to a top university;

x. facilitate the formation a single-issue Tea Party-like movement for a new crop of politicians willing to act as the representatives of the People by taking on an unaccountable judiciary and its judges;

y. promote internationally the exposure of judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse just as America has exported other trend-setting ideas in society, politics, and the arts that have changed the world;

w. advocate the grant of the petition to Congress by 34 states –thus satisfying the requirement of Article V of the Constitution– since April 2, 2014, for a constitutional convention, which can transform the American governance system by the People abolishing Judges’ State Above the state and for the first time in history inscribing in their constitution, a new one, their right to hold their judicial public servants accountable and liable; etc.

F. Money can be made doing justice

22. The arguments that judges have developed to hold the executive branch, the President, and the Catholic Church accountable for their abuse of power can be used against them:

a. Former CBS Reporter Sharryl Attkisson and CBS noted strange behaviors of her office and home computers. They hired three independent IT experts to examine them. They determined that her computers had been roamed by the target of her journalistic investigation: the Department of Justice, which wanted to find out the state of her research into both:

1) the killing of the American ambassador and his aides in Benghazi, Libya; and

2) its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ disastrous Fast and Furious gunrunning operation that led to the killing of an American border patrol with a gun that it had sold to Mexican druglords. Reporter Attkisson is now suing the Department of Justice for $35 million.

b.i. Judges have allowed the suit against President Donald Trump under the emoluments clause of the Constitution to go forward to determine whether he has abused his power to enrich himself through his Trump hotel in Washington, DC.

b.ii. While that case is still being litigated, a Florida judge found that Donald Trump had unjustifiably refused to pay The Paint Spot, a provider of paint for Trump National Doral Miami resort, and imposed damages and attorney’s fees of more than $300,000, or over 10 times the amount in controversy.

b.iii. Another judge found Trump liable to pay $25 million in compensation for fraud to the students of Trump University.

c. Despite the state/church separation clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the judges have held the Catholic Church liable to pay more than $2 billion to the victims of its pedophilic priests and its policy of protecting them from exposure.

d. How many clients would like to sue their lawyers for charging them $10Ks for appealing to a court of appeals although the lawyers knew or should have known had they done their due diligence of checking the judges’ own statistics made available to the public annually and the orders posted on their courts’ websites that the judges would not read their appellate briefs and instead would have their clerks dispose of their appeals by rubberstamping 5¢ dumping forms that did not discuss either the facts or the law of their cases, and did the only thing that clerks who have no judicial power, were not vetted to exercise it, and cannot receive it by delegation can do: maintain the status quo with a single operative word, “Affirmed” or “Denied”?

G. Concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that you can take now

23. Therefore, I respectfully propose that you:

a. review my video and slides;

b. share and post them and this letter as widely as possible so that they go viral and reach the national public and the presidential candidates; and

c. invite me to make via video conference and in person a presentation followed by Q&A to you and your guests.

24. Let’s join forces at this most opportune time to make an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation that earns us the recognition by a grateful People as their transformative Champions of Justice.

25. So, I look forward to hearing from you.

H. Put your money where your outrage at abuse and passion for justice are

26. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be advanced without money.

Support
Judicial Discipline Reform
and its professional law research and writing
and strategic thinking.

Donate
through PayPal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/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, 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; if you do not receive even an acknowledgment of receipt, call him at 1(718)827-9521.

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

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

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

This article can be shared and posted to social media
provide it is done non-commercially
without deletions or additions,
proper attribution is made to its author,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the links to this website, namely,
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
and to his study of judges and their judiciaries(see infra)
are provided.

Subscribe for free to these articles
by going to the left panel and down to the Register bottom.

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at your respective event on the issues of:

a. the riskless abuse of power(*>jur:5§3; OL:265) including the denial of due process and equal protection of the law, by unaccountable judges at courts of general and limited jurisdiction, such as family, probate, and bankruptcy courts(^†>OL2:614);

b. my out-of-court inform and outrage strategy for the public to join forces and take concrete, realistic, and feasible steps in order to form a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform; and

c. the insertion in the presidential campaign of the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse so that candidates are forced to address it in their political platforms, press conferences, rallies, townhall meetings, and the presidential debates.

A. Balancing the benefit of my speech with the charge of my speaking fee

1. I receive many invitations to speak. I cannot accept all, much less agree to speak pro bono at events that I am in addition expected to attend by paying for my transportation, room and board, and all other expenses.

2. Here applies the axiom, “What one receives at no charge and can drop at no cost is not appreciated”…and I am left out on the cold sidewalk holding the bag of unpaid bills after investing scores of hours doing my homework to learn about the event, tailor my message to its audience, and prepare handouts, as well as closing my office for one or two days.

3. Hence, to speak at events I charge a fee based on expected attendees and additional ones who show up, paid on a retainer basis, just as clients pay lawyers in advance, and the flight ticket and hotel room and board paid also in advance, with other expenses paid upon presentation of the bill. A flat fee can be arranged for events held by national organizations.

4. The investment in having audiences hear my well-researched and reasoned message with a concrete, reasonable, and feasible plan of action, and experience my lively and uplifting delivery warrants the fee.

5. Indeed, the quality, tenor, and originality of content and format of the articles posted on this website – http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org – illustrate what I actually do in terms of professional law research and writing and strategic thinking, and point to what I am capable of doing when I am in front of a life audience. The currently more than 25,495 subscribers and many more visitors to my website prove that my message and presentation are highly appealing.

6. My capacity to imagine an audience being addressed with sidesplitting and good taste humor is shown in my skits(^†>OL2:491, 530, and 724¶4) in my otherwise very serious study of judges and their judiciaries. The study is titled and downloadable for free 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# up to prefix OL:page393

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

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>prefix:page# references) very easy.

7. The study describes at *>OL:359§F a half or one day seminar that includes a role-playing exercise for learning the workings of a complex judicial and legal system by the seminary participants playing the several types of system members as they advance or protect their respective harmonious and conflicting interests. Invaluable benefits can be reaped by putting oneself in the position of a different system member while interacting and, what is more, competing with them in the midst of an audience.

B. Holding the same type of meeting while wishfully thinking that it will accomplish something different in court

8. In our country, even the executive orders of a president elected by 62.5 million voters can be suspended nationwide by one single district judge and the suspension can be confirmed by two or three circuit judges. It follows that a host of orders, decisions, and controversies emanating from lower parties end up in court too and at the mercy of one judge and his or her peers and colleagues, for “he who can do the most, can do the lesser”.

9. Whatever you and your group advocate and decide at an event, such as a meeting or convention, it can be suspended or prohibited by one or several judges for any reason and even for no reason at all!(^†>OL2:457§D). They need not fear any adverse consequence for themselves therefrom, for they are held unaccountable by each other(^†>OL2:903§E) and the politicians who recommended, sponsored, nominated, and confirmed or appointed judicial candidates, and thereafter protect them as “our men and women on the bench”(OL2:610§3).

10. If we ‘keep holding separate events as up to now while expecting to have a different effect’ when we end up in court again, then as Einstein put it, ‘we engage in the conduct of irrational people’. We take the wishful thinking in our heads for what we will accomplish out there in the real world.

11. By holding a separate annual event, we will merely commiserate ineffectively in the same place at the same time with other victims of abusive judges.

12. The judges will keep picking each of us apart one after the other, denying us not only the services that we are entitled to, but also that they require us to pay for:

a. Judges do not even read the vast majority of briefs that they require parties to file, although producing and filing them costs each party $1Ks and even $10Ks(^†>OL2:760).

b. Judges intercept our email and mail communications to prevent us from ‘assembling’, including on the Internet, and exercising our constitutional ‘right to freedom of speech and the press’ to expose them(^†>OL2:885).

c. Judges hold priests, pilots, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and pharmacists, lawyers, police officers, and everybody else accountable and liable for the injury that they cause. Yet, they hold themselves unaccountable by dismissing 100% of complaints against them and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(^†>OL2:881). If you want to know how Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was informed officially about it but failed to take action reasonably calculated to end such self-interested abuse of power, read the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit.pdf.

C. Thinking strategically to link our separate events so as to make them the series over time and place of a national campaign

13. By contrast, we can join forces so that each of our events and those of other people whom we and our fellow members may persuade to come on board become peak occasions in a continuous joint effort: a virtual national campaign of events linked over time and place.

14. Thereby we can turn each event of our virtual national campaign into another occasion to advance our common cause:

a. We the People are the sovereign source of power in a democracy, that is, “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172). We are the masters of all public servants. We hire them to deliver to us the services that we need.

b. For the judicial services that we need, we hire judicial public servants to serve us as judges. We are entitled, and retain the right, to hold them accountable for their failure to perform their duties, their ‘mal-performance’, and their abuse of power, and liable to compensate those whom they have injured.

c. Our common cause aims to exercise the right to hold judges accountable, expose their unaccountability, obtain redress, and force judicial reform.

15. We can link our events to advance our common cause by us and the members of our groups:

a. informing the national public before, at, and after our events about judges’ failure to deliver the services(^†>OL2:760) for which they were hired and their abuse of power(^†>OL2:885); and

b. outraging the public with that information so as to stir it up to demand that all 2020 presidential and other candidates take a stand on that issue on their political platform and at every press conference, rally, townhall meeting, and presidential debate (set to start this coming June).

1. Benefits of linking our events into a national campaign

16. That is how we can insert the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent abuse of power in this campaign and for the first time in our national discourse.

17. Thereby we advance the formation of a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform. To that movement we lead the only entity strong enough to hold judges accountable and liable: We the People.

18. Imagine the boost that our respective efforts to assert constitutional rights; reform family, probate, and bankruptcy courts; establish an effective means of judicial accountability; etc., would receive if we could discuss them at each of our events conceived of as episodes of a single series held over time all over the country so that attendance is made possible and affordable for the largest number of people. Of course, at every event there can also be discussion of the issues of especial interest to the main segments of the audience and their particular organization.

19. That is how each presidential candidate conducts his or her national presidential campaign: not by holding one annual convention in one place, but rather by holding a rally, a townhall meeting, or a press conference in a different place every other day or every week. Although they run national campaigns, candidates also discuss the issues that are most important to the largest segments of the audience at hand.

20. By joining forces to link our events, we can have the practical effect of a national campaign where we repeat and mutually reinforce our message so that together we advance our common cause.

D. The actions that we can take and encourage our fellow members to take

21. Leaders lead to where followers would not naturally go; otherwise, they are merely following at the front those behind them, who by the force of habit push them to go to the same place as ever.

22. If we think strategically and show leadership by adopting this strategy and having our groups understand and help implement it, we can attain synergism: The public impact of our linked events will be greater than the sum of our individual events held separately.

23. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to:

a. book me as a speaker;

b. share this email and its strategy with the members of your groups and ask them to read it because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER;

c. ask that they share and post this and my similar emails widely so that we can attract the attention of the national public and the presidential candidates and convince the latter that we represent something of immense value to them: the huge(^†>OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System; and

d. comment on implementing this strategy with a view to holding a video conference to discuss it.

E. No meaningful cause can be advanced without money

Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > left panel ↓Register

or   + New or Users >Add New.

24. My website can be enhanced as laid out in my business plan(^†>OL2:563) into a for-profit venture intended to lead up to the creation of an institute for judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5).

25. To that end, you and your peers and colleagues can organize a meeting where I can present to potential investors how my website can be turned into:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints about judges that anybody can upload(^†>OL2:881); and

b.a research center(*>jur:131§b) for searching(*>OL:277§§D-E) many complaints for the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns, trends, and schemes schemes(OL2:657§4, 682¶d) of abuse of power; e.g. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit.pdf >OL2:792.

Put your money where
your outrage at abuse
and passion for justice are.

DONATE TO
Judicial Discipline Reform
and its professional law research and writing, and
strategic thinking

here

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

26. Time is of the essence and this is the most opportune time: during a presidential campaign, when politicians must out of principle or opportunism pay attention to popular dissatisfaction. We the People are at our strongest now. Let’s join forces to use our strength effectively.

27. Consequently, I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

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

28. To retain my legal services, see my model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
Bronx, NY 10472-6505
       http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
      Tel. (718)827-9521

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

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.

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

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

You may share and post this article
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.

This article is also found at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:821

A. Judges’ abuse in their courts and the strategy for their exposure outside them

1. The Programmatic Presentation discusses forming a national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform.

2. It welcomes victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse, and all advocates of honest judiciaries. They recognize that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5⁶)[1] it is vital for We the People, the masters of all public servants, to hold our judicial public servants accountable for performing the work for which we hire them, to wit, administer justice according to law, and liable to compensate those whom they harm.

3. The materials corresponding to the(* ^†>references) are found in my professionally researched and written, 2-volume 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:# up to OL:393

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

Use the above links to download the files in MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; open the downloaded files in Adobe Reader, https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html, so that you can open the Bookmarks panel and use the bookmarks that make navigating to the numerous(* ^†>parenthetical references) very easy.

A smaller file with this article and the Programmatic Presentation outline infra can be downloaded through this link: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero-national_movement_v_judicial_abuse.pdf.

4. Judges wield enormous power(OL:267§4) over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives. They abuse it for their benefit(OL:173¶93) when they, among other things:

a. deny parties their due process and equal protection rights(^*>jur:5§3);

b. do not read their briefs and have their clerks dispose of cases and motions by rubberstamping dumping forms(^†>OL2:760), i.e., unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders;

c. intercept their critics’ communications(OL2:781) thus abridging their right of free speech;

d. complicitly exonerate each other from all(OL2:792) complaints to escape any adverse consequence of their abuse, a catchall term for any form of their harmful conduct. Yet, judges hold malpracticing doctors and lawyers, brutal police officers, pedophilic priests, and pilots liable for the harm that they cause whether intentionally, negligently, or accidentally and even if they too are among the casualties.

5. The People, as the source of all governmental power, are entitled to bring Judges Self-elevated Above the Law down to where Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

6. This objective can only be achieved by informing the national public of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse and so outraging it as to cause it to demand further exposure, redress, and reform. This is our out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:713).

7. To implement it, we need to reach out to the national public and attract the largest number of people to a national civic movement. The Programmatic Presentation shows why attaining that objective is realistic, feasible, and opportune given:

a. the public’s MeToo! attitude of intolerance of any form of abuse; and

b. its current strongest position to force consideration of its demands: during a presidential campaign when poli-ticians depend the most on voters and must be seen listening and willing to satisfy their demands.

B. Share, post, and organize the holding of the Programmatic Presentation

8. You can be part of forming a national civic movement that enables the People to exercise on the judiciary the ‘checks and balances’ that the other two branches have failed to. In brief, you can:

9. SHARE this introduction to the Presentation(OL2:821) and its outline(OL2:823) with your friends, family, and other people who have or had cases in the same court as you do or did. Just go to the court’s website, download its decisions, and find there their or their lawyers’ contact information.

10. POST them to websites, social media, and yahoogroups(see a list of them at OL2:433) as widely as possible so that it may go viral(*>jur:164§9). Your posting will reach many who have experienced or witnessed judges’ abuse and many others who can become an invaluable source of information:

11. Whether out of principle or opportunism, journalists and politicians may join forces with us to advance their own personal, professional, commercial and/or our common interest. They can become effective allies of result, for they have superb means of nationally disseminating news and issues. We want journalists to report on us; and politicians to insert our cause in their platforms and every stump speech as a way to stand out from the pack of candidates competing against them.

12. ORGANIZE a group to whom I can make the Presentation in person, if they pay my expenses; otherwise, via video conference. To identify other parties with cases before the same judge as in your case, search for the decisions of that judge and/or apply the method for searching with other parties for patterns and trends of abuse(*>OL:274-280, 304-307).

  1. You are no longer alone

13. Let it be a source of comfort for all of you that none must any longer suffer abuse in silence or protest it alone in separate, futile efforts(^†>OL2:815). You are among people who have experienced the same abuse by judges as you have. Now all of you have the opportunity to take joint action to expose them(*>jur:92§d), obtain redress, and compel reform.

2. From a Presentation group to a local chapter

14. A group at a Presentation can give rise to a local chapter of the national movement. All groups will join forces to lend weight to the nationwide demand for courts to refund the fees collected in cases where judges abused parties and compensate them for the harm that they caused.

3. A Presentation for parties and non-parties

15. None of you must have or have had a case before a judge to benefit from the Presentation. Judges abuse their power just as VIPs sexually abuse theirs: because they can. But while a sexual abuser harms only one person sometimes, judges abuse many parties daily, harming their families, neighbors, employees, patrons, etc., and the rest of the People through the precedential value of their decisions.

16. Therefore, to whom do you run for protection from abuse by others, including the other branches of government, when judges are the most powerful abusers…and unaccountable(*>jur:21§§1-3)?

4. Big and little can become Workers of Justice

17. You may invite judges, law clerks, and lawyers disgusted by being executioners of abuse(*>OL:180). Outside the Presentation, they may share with us information as confidential informants(^†>OL2:788 ¶37).

18. ‘Little people’ may also want to make confidences: court clerical staff, marshals, janitors, food delivery boys, and similarly situated people are ‘invisible’ to the judges, as are the drivers, waiters, waitresses, key counter and room service personnel, and their peers at hotels, seminars, restaurants, country clubs, banks, etc., patronized by judges(*>jur:106§c). Their presence, much less their ears and common sense, is not even noticed by judges as they coordinate their abuse and engage in competitive boasting about who has outsmarted the system the most.

19. The more representative local chapters are of all members of the public, the stronger they and the national movement will be in their demand for exposure, redress, and reform. All can become Workers of Justice.

C. Take knowledge for free for its power and give money for our common cause

20. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: Empower yourself by gaining knowledge from the study* ^† and the articles posted here.

Subscribe to this website
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org  
for free thus:

+New or Users >Add New.

21. No meaningful endeavor can be advanced without money. Donate to support Judicial Discipline Reform’s:

a. professional law research and writing; and

b. the implementation of its business plan(OL2:563) for turning its website into both a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center for the public to search for patterns, trends, and schemes(OL2:614)revealing judges’ coordinated abuse.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and your quest for justice are.

Donate here

or
at the GoFundMe campaign

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

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

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

OUTLINE
of
the Programmatic Presentation
on forming a national civic movement
to expose judges’ abuse of their enormous power
over people’s property, liberty and
the rights and duties that frame their lives;
obtain redress; and
lead to reform

D. Purpose of the movement; basis of the Program; and audience of the Presentation

1. Purpose of the movement

22. A national civic movement(^†>OL2:821; *>jur:164§9) is being formed to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse(jur:5§3, *>OL:154¶3) for their own benefit(OL:173¶93) and to the detriment of We the People of their enormous power(OL:267§4) over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

23. The movement seeks redress for its members through, e.g., the refund of their court filing fees and compensation for the damages(^†>OL2:760) that judges’ abuse has caused parties and others.

24. A series of Presentations will launch the process of both informing the public of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse and so outraging it(^†OL2:741) as to stir it up to compel the adoption of measures that today appear inconceivable into reforms(^*>jur:158§§6-8) that are accepted as unavoidable to ensure that judges apply the law and are as equally subject to it as everybody else.

2. Basis of the Program

25. The basis of the Program is the professionally researched and written, 2-volume study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries:

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

3. Audience of the Presentation

26. The audience of the Presentation includes victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse; current, past, and potential parties to lawsuits; advocates of judiciaries that honestly apply the rule of law; academics; students; newscast anchors, investigative journalists, and reporters; politicians; lawyers; law clerks; voters; etc.

E. Presentation topics: movement’s precedents; opportuneness; interests; and actions

1. Precedents for the national civic movement

27. The precedents for the national movement are current and the conditions for their repeat obtain:

a. Groups of people with a common view on a single issue, taxes, gathered in local chapters that merged into the Tea Party and in less than 10 years dominated local and national politics;

b. After the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, the MeToo! movement erupted into being to expose the millenarian impunity of sexual abusers(^†>OL2:812§D).

2. Opportuneness of forming the movement now

28. The public’s MeToo! attitude of personal involvement in exposing abuse, and intolerance of any form of it makes this the right time for the national public to rally to a national movement to shout(OL2:635):

Enough is enough!
We won’t take judges’ abuse anymore.

29. The social and political circumstances are propitious for forming the movement:

a. A sympathetic attitude can be expected from most of the new members of the House, who be-long to minorities that have experienced abuse, are anti-establishment, and want change now.

b. The 2020 election campaign is underway and during it politicians will be most receptive and vulnerable to the demands of voters, particularly those organized in movements(^†>OL2:648) that have many voting members. Politicians are likely to deem supporting the movement a means of reaching out to, and becoming the sought-after leader of, the huge(OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System.

3. Interests driving the movements’ formation

30. The audience will be interested to learn that judges count pro se cases as a third of a case(^†>OL2:455§B); do not read the vast majority of briefs(OL2:760); dispose of 93% of appeals in “procedural, unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation decisions”( OL2:457§D); dismiss 100% of complaints against them and of petitions for review of such dismissals(OL2:792); etc.

31. The personal, professional, and commercial interests of principled and opportunistic people, and the interest in justice of the most passionate people, the abused by judges, will drive the movement.

32. The movement will be energized by a powerful motivator: the recovery of money lost to abusers: the joint demand by parties all over the country for courts and judges to refund court filing fees and pay compensation for the $1,000s and even $10,000s that judges made parties waste when they required parties to produce briefs that the judges willfully failed to read, even knew in advance that they would not read(OL2:760), but fraudulently pretended that they had read(OL2:729).

33. Enlightened self-interest, “Everyone can advance his or her own interest by pursuing the common interest first”(OL2:815), should lead people to join the movement and think strategically(OL2:445§B).

4. Actions that you can take

34. To help form the national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform, you, the reader, can share and post the introduction(^†>OL2:821) to, and this outline(OL2:823) of, the Programmatic Presentation, which I offer to make to a group of your colleagues, friends, and family, in person with all expenses paid, or via video conference. See also a series of articles(OL2:719§C) that can inform the public about, and outrage it at, judges’ abuse.

35. Help spark a generalized investigation by professional and citizen journalists into two unique national stories of the potentially most outrageous forms of judges’ abuse of power:

a. Follow the Money!(*>OL:194§E), the investigation into how judges rely on their unaccountability to risklessly profit from case-related information, engage in money laundering, and evade taxes, particularly through a bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614) driven by the most insidious corruptor: Money!(*>jur:27§2);

b. Judges’ unlawful interception of their critics’ communications(OL2:781), a violation of the 1^st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(OL2:792¶1), committed in the self-interest of preventing their critics from joining forces to expose judges’ abuse.

36. Help “assemble” We the People at unprecedented citizen hearings(^†>OL2:812§E) where victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse, and advocates of honest judiciaries will offer testimony to panels of newscast anchors, investigative journalists, journalism professors, and IT experts. The hearings can be locally organized by, and held at, a talkshow hosts coalition(*>OL:146, 144§D), universities, media outlets, and civic entities; and attended by a live and a broadcast audience.

37. Help organize with university professors and students the first-ever conference(*>dcc:11) on judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform, one multi-disciplinary, nationally multimedia broadcast, and interactive(jur:97§1), to hear investigative reporters, public interest leaders, politicians, etc.

38. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: Empower yourself by gaining knowledge from the study*^† and the articles posted here.

Subscribe to this website
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org  
for free thus:

+New or Users >Add New.

39. No meaningful endeavor can be advanced without money. Donate to support Judicial Discipline Reform’s:

a. professional law research and writing; and

b. the implementation of its business plan(OL2:563) for turning its website into both a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center for the public to search for patterns, trends, and schemes(OL2:614)revealing judges’ coordinated abuse.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and your quest for justice are.

Donate here

or
at the GoFundMe campaign

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York 10472-6505
    tel. 1(718)827-9521

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

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

To retain Dr. Cordero’s legal services, see his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

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. If you do not receive at least an acknowledgment of receipt credibly from him within a week, resend your email until you do, or contact him otherwise

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

[

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

You may share and post this test complaint
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.

This test complaint is also found at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:792

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the U.S.
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

1. I and the people assembled with me, exercising our 1^st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:111§3), which no statute or self-interested required ‘confidentiality’ can abrogate, file publicly this complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(jur:24^18a) about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Merrick Gar-land, and their peers and colleagues in the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (the complained-about judges or the judges; DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct 06-30sep17 11-year period.

The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical references in blue) are contained in my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable for free 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 # up to OL:393

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

2. That is a fact established by the statistics(infra §C) that they were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:26^23a) to submit and did submit to Congress and the public.
3. The Act is to be construed broadly: It does not require complainants to show standing to file a complaint about a judge, whether by having suffered injury in fact as a result of the judge’s misconduct or disability complained about; meeting any residence requirement relative to the judge’s workplace or residence; or otherwise. Rather, it provides under §351(a) thus:

Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.

4. The 15 complaints filed with DCC about J. Kavanaugh following his confirmation hearings in Sep. 2018 were transferred under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings(Rules; jur:125²⁶⁴; ^†>OL2:778) by C.J. Garland, who disqualified himself, to DCC Judge Karen Henderson, who in turn transferred them to you. You assigned them on October 10 to Ten Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich. In the third paragraph of the letter to him, you wrote thus:

I have selected the Judicial Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaints and any pending or new^[1] complaints relating to same subject matter.

^[1] Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit
Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street, Room 102G
Denver, CO 80257-1823

5. Therefore, we respectfully petition you and all other officers to likewise transfer and process this complaint with the other 15 so that their processing may be informed by each other; all be used to detect judges’ patterns and trends of misconduct and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi; and their processing may lead to the independent investigation of the Judiciary’s unlawful interception of its critics’ communications.

A. The facts of the complained-about judges’ prejudicial conduct

6. Through their 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them and 100% denial of the petitions for review, the judges have “engaged in §351(a) prejudicial conduct”. Indeed, they have:a. arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect that Act of Congress, which it is “the business of the courts” and its judges(infra ¶c) to enforce together with its other acts;

b. abused the self-disciplining power entrusted to them under the Act by exonerating them-selves from all complaints so as to evade any disciplinary action, thereby resolving in their favor the conflict of interests arising from being the target and the judges of the complaints;

c. breached their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453 whereby “[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers, colleagues, and friends as opposed to other parties to complaints], and do equal right to the poor [in connections to us] and to the rich [in IOUs on us that we gave the peers, colleagues, and friends who dismissed complaints about us], and that [we] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [us] as judges under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. [e.g., the Act]”. Instead, they administered ‘unequal protection from the law’ with respect to relationship to them by being 100% partial toward their peers, col-leagues, and friends when they became the target of complaints, all of which they dismissed;

d. disregarded their duty under the Code of Conduct, Canon 1, which requires them to “uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary”. They have shown that how they “discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] as judges under the…laws [such as the Act]” depends upon whether the person whose conduct they are judging is their peer, col-league, or friend, on whom they dependent for cover-up of their misconduct and disability;

e. prejudiced through interdependent partiality “the integrity of the judiciary”, of whose essential character for the “effective…administration of the business of the courts” they have imputed knowledge because the Commentary to Canon 1 provides thus: “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law”;

f. failed to maintain the “good Behaviour” required of them under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution “to hold their Offices”; defined by what their oath singles out, i.e., their pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [under the] laws”, such as the Act; and reiterated by Canon 1 in its Commentary “they must comply with the law”;

g. committed “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” prohibited by Canon 2, for under Canon 2A “reasonable minds with knowledge of the relevant circumstances after reasonable inquiry would conclude” that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ impossible for all the judges to independently deem that 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed over 11 years were properly dismissible but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement;

h. denied complainants the benefit intended for them under the Act of redress for the prejudice that they had suffered or witnessed relating to the judges’ misconduct or disability;

i. deprived complainants and the rest of the public of the working mechanism for complaining that the Act had provided for their protection from misconducting and disable judges;

j. showed reckless disregard for 100% of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability complained about in the 478 complaints filed about, and dismissed by, them, whose recklessness was aggravated by their systematic failure to investigate the complaints through the appointment of special committees, provided for under §353;

k. showed reckless indifference to the rights and well-being of complainants and the rest of the public by leaving them exposed to 100% of the prejudice caused by the misconduct and disability complained about, and any additional prejudice at the hands of the exonerated judges, who were left free of any deterrent to further committing misconduct and indulging in disability; and at the hands of other judges who, realizing that misconduct and disability had no adverse consequences for judges, committed misconduct and indulged in disability;

l. disregarded Canon 3 providing that “The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities”, for the number of extra-judicial activities highlighted on their individual page on the DCC website allows ‘the math of perfunctoriness’(OL2:760) to demonstrate how lack of time accounts for 93%(OL2:457§D) of appeals being disposed of through the clerk-filled out, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like dumping forms of summary orders(jur:43§b);

m. intentionally “prejudic[ed] the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and the persons to whom they swore to administer justice, We the People, for it is a torts tenet that “people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their acts”. By dismissing 100% of the complaints and denying 100% of review petitions, the judges rendered their misconduct and disability riskless, which enabled their further prejudicial misconduct and disability. Worse yet, they emboldened themselves and others to commit misconduct and indulge in disability of ever more diverse nature, to a greater extent, more frequently, and of higher gravity. While dismissing and denying for over a decade, they saw their foreseeable prejudice become a fact, whose continued occurrence they intended;

n. deceived potential and actual complainants by pretending that their complaints would be fairly and impartially processed although the judges intended to dismiss 100% of them, thus running the Act’s complaint mechanism as a sham that works fraud on We the People.

B. Action requested

7. Therefore, we respectfully petition the judicial officers processing this complaint to:
8. deem and treat this complaint as the public document that it already is; and make it available to the public easily and widely as it progresses through the stages of its processing;
9. communicate to us and the public the judges’ answers; and afford the opportunity to reply, for it would constitute partiality toward them to take their answers at face value;
10. in the interest of justice for the complainants and public confidence in judges, make the 478 complaints and their dismissal orders, review petitions, and denials public, and transfer them under Rules 25 and 26 to be processed impartially by DCC-unrelated §353 special commit-tees, whose members need not be judges or lawyers (next) and which can replace the failed mechanism of judges –priests, police officers- judging their peers, colleagues, and friends;
11. hold fact-finding public hearings on this and all other complaints to ascertain the causes for complaint, which hearings Judge Anthony Scirica, Chair of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, stated at the October 30 hearing on Code and Rules proposed changes are conceivable as part of the Committee’s work; and let independent fact-finders, i.e., news anchors and editors, investigative reporters, and journalism professors(OL2:777¶21c), conduct them to find whether dismissing complaints not matter the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability turned into all judges’ pattern of action that became the Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi(OL2:756¶¶9-11);
12. have independent IT, mail, and phone forensic experts investigate the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications(OL2:781), such as mine by email, mail, phone, my website, PayPal, GoFundMe, LinkedIn, and FB accounts(*>ggl:1); and make their findings public:

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq.JDR@gmail.com;   tel. (718)827-9521

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

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power;

at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

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

C. Links to official court statistics on complaints about judges and their analysis

8. Article on official statistics on complaints about J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers and their analysis using “the math of abuse”: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf
9. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_ JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf
10. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_ complaints_v_judges.pdf
11. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 15 reporting courts: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf
12. Article on statistics and math: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through ‘dumping forms’: unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like orders; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:760, 457§D

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

Sincerely,

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

---

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

You may share and post this article non-commercially
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.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:773

 

Dear Deans, Professors, Students and Members of the Media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

I read with interest the articles in The Crimson and those written by others at Yale concerning then-Judge Kavanaugh and the power of law students to cause their deans to take a position on his confirmation, as well as the letters relating to him that more than 2,400 law professors and more than 2,000 Mothers in the Law Profession published in The New York Times(NYT).

This is a proposal for you, your professors and students, the media, and me to join forces, not to revisit the sexual abuse allegations leveled against him, but rather to use his case to insert into the national debate on the evaluation of judicial candidates’ fitness to serve what is more important: their service.

Indeed, the very politicians who put judges in office cannot thereafter turn around and investigate their appointees for lack of integrity and competence, lest they incriminate their own vetting procedures and skills for evaluating character and competence.

To evade their responsibility for exercising constitutional checks and balances on ‘our men and women on the bench’, politicians have delegated to judges authority to self-discipline. In the federal government, they have adopted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *> jur:24^18a).

Thereunder, the only way for anybody to complain about a federal judge is by lodging a complaint in the circuit where the judge serves. There it is processed by precisely his or her peers, colleagues, and friends. They are required to submit the statistics of their processing of those complaints to Congress and the public in the Annual Report of the Director [who is appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice] of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); jur:26^23a).

Those statistics(^†>OL2:772§G) show that Judge Kavanaugh and his peers dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints about them lodged with their District of Columbia Circuit and reported in the annual official statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(OL2:748). They have abused their self-disciplining authority to grant themselves 100% exoneration from complaints regardless of the complained-about conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity.

Acting only in self-interest, he and his peers have left complainants and the rest of the public at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

Held by politicians and themselves unaccountable, life-appointed judges, in practice unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§a), risklessly abuse(*>OL:154¶3) for their gain and convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

Their service is incriminated, not by an individual’s allegations and partisan opinions, but by their own non-partisan, verifiable, and official statistics. The latter’s analysis through “the math of abuse” exposes them as Judges Above the Law.

This novel statistics-based approach to judicial service evaluation is the product and distinguishing feature of 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 # up to OL:393

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

Justice Kavanaugh now has the strongest personal motive to prevent any investigation into his and his peers’ abuse of power to secure his and his peers’ 100% exoneration from complaints about them. Such investigation can force the disclosure of the complaints, conveniently kept secret; the detection of patterns and trends of abuse; and the exposure of the organization and execution of, and benefits from, their cover-up.

Nor can Justice Gorsuch, who comes from the 10^th Circuit, allow such investigation. There he, who so values camaraderie(^†>OL2: 546¶¶4-6), and his peers dismissed 99.83% of complaints about themselves(OL2:548).

This explains why the 15 complaints about Judge Kavanaugh lodged in the last month that his peer, Judge Karen Henderson, referred to Chief Justice John Roberts, were in turn referred by him for processing to precisely the 10^th Circuit.

The presumption of a whitewash would not be less justified if C.J. Roberts had referred them to the Second Circuit, the former circuit of Justice Sotomayor. While there, she and her peers denied 100%(jur:11) of petitions for review of dismissal of complaints about themselves (jur:65§§1-3). The percentage of complaints dismissed in all the circuits is 99.82%(jur:10, 12-14).

The exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its cover-up by VIPs published by NYT and The New Yorker pressured C.J. Roberts into referring for sexual misconduct investigation Former 9^th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who then resigned.

The almost 700 letters of complaint about abuse in the Federal Judiciary submitted to the C.J. caused him to admit to abuse therein and to set up a study committee(^†>OL2:645). Its report has led to proposed changes to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules for processing complaints.

Only as recently as October 2 did the Administrative Office announce only on its website that the changes will be the subject of only one single hearing at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., rather than at each of the more than 200 federal courts.

How many people can afford to travel to D.C. at all, never mind do so the day before to be ready to testify at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, for only a few minutes?

Any request to be heard must be emailed by October 18 to CodeandConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov; for the first week, a ‘glitch’ prevented AO’s receipt of those emails; http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/10/02/judiciary-hold-public-hearing-proposed-changes-judges-code-and-judicial-conduct.

This has been an announcement pro forma about compliance in bad faith with the hearing requirement. It is a sham!

No change to the Code or the Rules will stop judges from dismissing complaints about themselves, just as the changes adopted in 2008 and 2015 did not.

Such dismissal is their institutionalized mechanism for enforcing the complicit agreement through which judges reciprocally ensure their unaccountability for their past abuse and the risklessness of their future abuse. Abuse of power is the modus operandi(OL2:457§D, 760) of Powerful Judges Who Can Do No Wrong.

Students have shown to have the power to draw public attention to abuse. You, law professors and students, and we lawyers have the duty to expose abuse by judges, the ones who run(OL2: 717) our profession and corrupt it by ensuring their impunity.

Your publication of this letter and one or more of my articles(OL2:755, 719§C) and your protest against the sham hearing can launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power akin to the one into sexual abuse sparked by NYT’s and The New Yorker’s publication of their exposés. Just days later, the MeToo! movement emerged. It has led to a historic societal transformation from silent sexual abusees to a national public that shouts:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

That is precedent for the reasonable expectation that if we join forces to expose judges’ abuse of power using J. Kavanaugh’s dismissal of complaints as a test case, we may bring about a historic transformation:

We can insert this issue into the mid-term elections, the national debate, and the presidential campaign; and enable We the People for the first time ever to hold our judicial public servants accountable.

We may expose what will be a national scandal: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications to each other and to others –did you receive my previous ones to you?-, shown by a statistical study and verifiable by IT experts examining computers and servers (See the following article; also at ^†>OL2:775).

Thus, I respectfully request that you publish this letter and call me(*>jur:1) to invite me to make a presentation to you, school members, and media colleagues. Time is of the essence.

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 this series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate

to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

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

---

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

You may share and post this article non-commercially
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.

This article is also at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:775

A. Statistics as the source of probable cause to believe that there is interception

There is reason to believe that the communications among critics of judges, including Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, and between them and third parties are intercepted, which is prohibited as provided for in the Criminal Code under 18 U.S. §2511(*>OL:5a¹³).

This is demonstrated through the statistical analysis(>OL:19² >‡>ws:58 §7) of communications(>ggl:1; ^†>OL2:476, 425, 405§§A-C) 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 # up to OL:393

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

Statistically, people line up in a standard normal distribution, which is a continuum that goes from one extreme of low values to the opposite extreme of high values of the variable in question. This continuum, when graphically plotted on an X,Y system of coordinates produces a bell curve. Most people bunch up on either side of the top –the crown– of the bell. Hence, it is abnormal and a sign of manipulation to see the values for everybody on only one of the two extremes.

Although I email to tens of thousands of email accounts directly and through hundreds of yahoogroups, hardly ever do I receive an email that is positive and encouraging.

Nevertheless, my website (this one at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org) has 24,700 subscribers and counting; it is built on the most widely used platform in the world, WordPress. When was the last time that you liked what you read on a site so much that you subscribed to it, although you and the rest of us suffer under information overload?

It is counterintuitive for people to subscribe but leave no comment. It is decidedly suspect for the number of subscribers, which had reached an average of 90 a day, with peaks of over 110, to drop to 0 in the space of a week and then pick up to only around 3 a day(OL2:604¶2).

To some emails I receive no reply at all. Practically every reply that I do receive is negative and critical of them. That is counterintuitive in a country as divided as ours, where at one end of the spectrum of everything there are people strongly in favor of it and at the other end people strongly against it. Cf. A rubric of one of the national TV networks, either CBS or NBC, is precisely “A Nation Divided”. Although I have communicated with some Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for years, I do not receive emails from them anymore. People email me, I reply to them with an encouraging message, but then I do not receive any more emails from them.

More than 2,000 Mothers in the Legal Profession and more than 2,400 law professors took out each an ad in The New York Times regarding J. Kavanaugh. I addressed them in the Subject: line of emails that I sent to tens of thousands. Despite that and although I too am a lawyer, and a doctor of law at that, I have not received a single reply from any of them. This is most suspect because we have harmonious interests(>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3). Those protected under the 1^st Amendment(>jur:23^12b), are “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

Moreover, requests that I make for membership in yahoogroups are approved only for my next posting to them to be rejected because I am told I am not a member.

1. Recent cases showing government interception of communications

The National Security Agency (NSA) engaged in a warrantless, indiscriminate, mass ‘dragnet’ collection of the metadata of communications of scores of millions of unsuspected people(OL2:395§B), as revealed by the secret documents that Edward Snowden leaked.

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her personal and work computers to spy on the status of her investigative reporting on the attacks by extremists on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three of his aides; and the fiasco Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which sold even assault rifles to track their way to Mexican druglords(OL:346¶131) and resulted in one such rifle being used to kill an American border patrol. Her articles were so incriminating that A.G. Eric Holder would respond to congressional demands for documents with entire pages blacked out. He was the first sitting member of the presidential cabinet to be held by Congress in contempt of it. Accordingly, he was forced to resign.

These cases show that the government, of which the judiciary is part, engages in illegal digital activity against those whom it perceives as a threat, such as a persistent investigative reporter, and even those who are suspected of nothing at all, such as those caught in NSA’s surveillance dragnet.

It is the judges of the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that approve up to 100% of the NSA’s secret request for secret orders of secret surveillance. Do they do so for the quid pro quo of the interception by the NSA of the communications of critics of judges? That is what the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation must determine(OL2:600§B).

B. Money and a scandal that focuses the media on judges’ abuse of power

Potentially, there is money to be made by suing the government for breach of constitutional rights and the right to privacy. More realistically, exposing to the national public that judges have abused their power to intercept their critics’ communications and prevent their ‘assembling to petition for redress of judges’ abuse’ would constitute a scandal far greater than that provoked by Snowden’s leak. It would shock America’s conscience and put you and your organization on the frontpage of every publication and at the top of every newscast, and on the list of Pulitzer Prize candidates.

C. What you can do to expose government interception of communications

I respectfully propose that you participate in exposing the interception of the communications of critics of judges by those who have the greatest interest therein: judges themselves. You can:

1. widely share and post my articles with your address as the reply address to see what kind and number of replies you receive, which you can forward to me under an unrelated Subject: line;
2. help finance IT experts’ examination of critics’ email accounts and computers, and servers;
3. help organize presentations(OL:194§G) by me at law, journalism, IT, and business schools, pro se groups, and venture capitalists who may be interested in my business plan(OL2:563).

Consider this proposal in light of these principles of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL2:570§E, 475§D, 465§1):

1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (we share the interest of defeating our common enemy).
2. The friend of the friend of my friend may want to become my friend (which speaks to the indirectness of connections and a means of building alliances of result even if not of interests).
3. People never work as hard as when they work for themselves. (Ask yourself: What interest of her own can the person that I want to persuade to do something advance by joining forces with me? Cf. Some such interests are to make herself and her group or organization known.)

Time is of the essence to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse in the mid-term elections.

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

Subscribe for free to these series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and quest for justice are.

Donate
to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

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

---

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

You may share and post this article 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.

The letter form of this article,
which can be printed and mailed to judges and handed out to clerks and others,
is at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:681

A. The most propitious public mood to expose judges’ abuse

1. On October 5, 2017, a reliable precedent was established: Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey published in The New York Times their exposé of Harvey Weinstein’s predatory sexual abuse and its condonation by Hollywood insiders.
   .
2. No reasonable person could have anticipated the extent of their exposé’s impact here in the U.S., never mind abroad. Their exposé has provoked a change in people’s attitude that is historic and occurring unimaginably fast.
   .
   a. Victims of sexual abuse have found the courage to break their silence.

b. The rest of the public has become assertive enough to expose or condemn not only sexual abuse that it has witnessed or learned about, but also unequal pay by gender and unequal access to top corporate positions by others than non-minority white males.

c. Regardless of your position on guns, the fact is that high school students have been motivated to take action against gun violence and even large companies have found the courage to break their special commercial deals with the NRA and its members.

d. People are also holding Facebook accountable for failing to prevent the misuse of the private information that they entrusted to it.

3. In one after the other area of public life, people are shouting self-assertively the same rallying cry:

Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore.

4. The media has afforded the public the means of making that cry effective: Abusers are being held accountable.
   .
5. This is a proposal for judges and their clerks to become the Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey regarding judges’ abuse(*>OL:154¶3).

The materials with supporting and additional information corresponding to the (parenthetical references) in this email are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled 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

Download those volumes for free and read as much as you can of the study because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

However, conducting professional law research and writing, sharing and posting the study and articles, and running and protecting a website are not free.

Donate to the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

B. What makes judges abusive: unaccountable power

6. Judges are not naturally more abusive than the rest of the society of which they are members. But they are entrusted with a force that turns them abusive: They wield the most power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”(*>jur: 27fn²⁸).
   .
7. Judges’ power is absolute because they are held unaccountable for exercising it by the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed or appointed them(^†>OL2:610§3).
   .
8. Also, judges exempt themselves from discipline in line with their implicit or explicit quid pro quo, ‘Today I protect you from this complaint and tomorrow you do likewise for me and my friends’(OL2:548). This is the foundation of their mutually assured impunity.
   .
9. The system is rigged in favor of judges. So they commit risklessly abuse of power for their convenience and gain and that of their peers, colleagues, and friends.
   .
10. Worse yet, judges abuse many more people than sexual abusers do: People file more than 50 million new cases in the state and federal courts every year(*>jur:8fn^{4, 5}). Many of the parties to them are abused.
    .
11. The ranks of those parties are increased by their affected friends and family, workmates, employees, clients, suppliers, neighbors, etc.
    .
12. All of them form a huge group: The dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system. Many are outraged due to the abuse suffered or witnessed; most are passionate about vindicating their rights and being compensated; all are potential members of a civic movement to expose their abusive judges.
    .
13. The Dissatisfied are exposers’ constituency, waiting for courageous judges and journalists to take the lead in such exposure and thereby utter the rallying cry that makes them national Champions of Justice.

C. Judicial ‘authority’ that supports the exposure of judges

14. Judges willing to expose judges can ‘quote as authority’ for their exposure important current events relating to abuse:
    ,
    a. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred 9^th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, a 35-year veteran of the Federal Judiciary, for investigation for sexual abuse to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit, thus causing him to resign in December 2017. In his 2017 Annual Report on the Federal Judiciary, he recognized the existence of abuse in that Judiciary and announced the formation of a study group(OL2:645).

b. Similarly, New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore admitted to deficiencies in “the level of justice services the people of New York have a right to expect and deserve” when she launched her Excellence Initiative and asked people to submit to her their complaints(OL2:607).

c. In addition, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed in his January 2018 budget speech to the legislature ‘to have the state comptroller audit the judiciary to make sure that judges perform a full day’s work’ rather than close their courts after lunch. But the judiciary pushed back and forced him to cave in and withdraw his proposal.

15. What other public servants or private employees dare not ‘be at work at least eight hours a day’? Politicians, the ones who put judges on the bench and do not want to establish a requirement against self-interest. Would you trust a judge to be conscientious enough to read your brief, research the law, and apply it to your case although he or she was not responsible enough to put in the normal hours for which he or she got paid? If not, to whom do you complain, to politicians or to the judge’s peers and colleagues? You complain to the media as proposed. Read on.
    .
    D. “Justice services” that are deficient and cause injury in fact
    .
16. “The math of perfunctoriness and abuse”(OL2:608§A) analyzes official statistics and shows that even the preeminent NY justices whose jurisdiction includes Wall Street, the World Trade Center, the headquarters of national companies, and the law firms that cater to them, do not have the time, need, or incentive to even read the vast majority of appeal and motion papers filed in their court. The justices have those papers dumped out of their workload by clerks filling out dumping forms(id.) to pro forma affirm lower court judges’ decisions and deny motions. Thereby the status quo is preserved by clerks not entitled to alter it and judges unwilling to bother with cases other than the few that appeal to them.
    .
17. The judges intentionally breach the illusory contract for “justice services” formed by parties paying filing fees for services that judges offer though knowing they will not be rendered.
    .
18. Judiciaries are pervaded by secrecy: Judges hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never hold press conferences(jur:27§e). This allows them to coordinate their abuse. Would we have government by the rule of law if the members of Congress and the Executive appeared at hearings without having read any papers –as judges do at oral argument– and then retired to smoking rooms to cut deals among themselves?
    .
19. For their own gain and their cronies’(jur:32§2), judges abuse the information that they receive, plotting the most harmful coordinated abuse, schemes, e.g., the bankruptcy fraud scheme(OL2:614, jur:65§§1-3), driven by the most corruptive force, money! In 2010, federal judges alone allocated over $373 billion in creditors v. debtors controversies(jur:27§2). Judges conceal assets(jur:65fn^107a,c) and thereafter commit money laundering(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii; jur:105fn²¹³).
    .
20. Judges abuse also by proxy, that is, through the court clerks in the clerk of court’s office –where parties file papers in their cases- and the law clerks in the chambers of the judges for whom they research, write, and perform administrative work. All clerks are subject to judges’ supervision and control(OL2:687). Although clerks may have signed up to be Workers of Justice, judges reduce them to executioners of their abuse, either through the threat of arbitrary removal without recourse(jur:30§1) or by corruptively dangling before them a letter of recommendation, which can make or break their job prospects at the end of their clerkships(OL2:645§B).

E. The courage needed to expose and a plan for courageous exposing

21. Judges need a lot of courage to expose these and other forms of individual and collective judicial abuse and hold their peers and friends accountable. They too may have participated in, or condoned, such abuse. Their conduct may inhibit them from speaking up or be used to extort them into silence.
    .
22. Self-interest in the avoidance of retribution and the gain of benefits caused insiders to allow Harvey Weinstein and other sexual abusers to abuse people for decades. As a result, many have been traumatized by what they suffered or by the guilt about what they should have done to keep others from suffering but failed to do.
    .
23. Doing the right thing is most frequently fraught with personal sacrifice. That is why it can make history(OL2:607¶3) and earn the highest rewards of public recognition.
    .
24. Judges as well as their law clerks and court clerks can do the right thing by exposing judicial unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse either openly or confidentially by providing inside information as Deep Throats(jur:106§c) to an exposer and recommending his articles and joint investigation(OL2:671, 672) to media outlets(PBS 612, 676; The New Yorker 620; The Washington Post 621; The Atlantic 630); Vanity Fair 683; Life 688) and professional schools(641, 644). To that end, they can:

a. send their I accuse!(jur:98§2) denunciation to Chief Judge DiFiore or the Conference of Chief Justices(OL2:613) and simultaneously present it at a press conference to call for the unprecedented: the conduct by the media of public hearings as an independent 3^rd party working in its commercial and the public interest. The media can think strategically to recruit a humiliated Gov. Cuomo as its open ally or Deep Throat informant because ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’(OL2:635, 593¶¶15-16);

b. invite the media to sponsor a tour of presentations(OL:197§G) at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology (IT) schools, bar and media associations, law firms, etc., to organize the first and national multimedia and multidisciplinary conference(jur:97§D) on this issue; and hire business administration and digital forensic firms to audit judges’ decisions for quality and patterns of abuse(OL:274), and examine the evidence of interception of communications among their critics(OL2:633§D) so as to

c. implement the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy for exposing judges’ abuse and cause the national public to insert the issue into the mid-term campaigning(OL2:583§D).

25. To discuss how you and I can implement this proposal as openly or discreetly as you wish, I respectfully request that you call(OL2:612¶1b) me to arrange a meeting in person or over the Internet.

Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
can resonate throughout the country:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
to support its work of
exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers
here

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Subscribe for free to the articles on this website 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

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, Corderoric@yahoo.com

To retain Dr. Cordero’s
law consulting, research and writing, and representational services,
read his model letter of engagement at *>OL:383.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

NOTE: Given the interception of 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.

---

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

In support of this proposal to PBS Newshour to investigate unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, you can forward this email to newsthirteen@thirteen.org, pressroom@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, amiller@newshour.org, frontline@pbs.org, viewer@rmpbs.org, member@rmpbs.org.

Mr. William Brangham
Correspondent
PBS Newshour
2700 South Quincy St. #250
Arlington, VA 22206

Dear Mr. Brangham,

I watched with interest your reporting on widespread sexual misconduct against women in the Forest Service that goes all the way to the top of that agency. It was only because of the pressure generated by the first installment of your report that just before you went on the air with your second one the Forest Service issued a statement admitting to the problem. [On March 8, the Forest Service Director resigned.]

This is a proposal for you to use the pressure of your reporting to bring to national attention a problem that harms scores of millions(^†>OL2:607¶2) of people far more deeply: judges’ abuse of their power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives(^†>OL2:672¶2). Yet, judges are taboo to the media.

You can be the first to break the taboo by investigating institutionalized abuse of power in the Federal Judiciary involving, not subjective claims of excess of judicial discretion, but rather objective concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money.

Judges systematically conceal assets by filing with reviewing judges false and misleading annual mandatory financial disclosure reports(*>jur:105fn213). Neither filers nor reviewers are subject to independent oversight(jur:21§1).

Neither are the key agents of assets to be concealed: bankruptcy judges(jur:35§3). They dispose every year of hundreds of billions of dollars in creditor-debtor controversies -$373 billion in 2010(jur:27§2)-. Their unaccountability has led to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614). It is run by bankruptcy judges with the circuit judges who appoint them for renewable 14-year terms and who together with district judges can remove them(*>jur:43fn61a).

Running the bankruptcy fraud scheme is facilitated by bankrupts’ unaffordability of lawyers and consequent appearance pro se. Most pro ses are abused due to their ignorance of the law. Their cases are weighted as 1/3 of a case, so judges are authorized and expected to dedicate to them only 1/3 of the care and time that they do the average case(OL2:455§§B, D).

The investigation of this scheme(cf. ^†>OL2:609¶2) is focused by the leads incriminating Justice Sotomayor in it(jur:65fn107a,c; OL2:672¶4), her cover-up by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who shepherded her through the Senate confirmation process, and the connivance of her nominator, President Obama(jur:77§§5-6).

The investigation findings will outrage the public more than sexual abuse because while there has been moral ambivalence about, and secular toleration of, sexual abuse, concealing assets is a crime(*>OL:5fn10) and unequivocally condemned. Judges who disrespect the law enough to commit it also abuse their clerks and parties.

So, you said that Forest Service employees have endured the abuse because of their sense of mission, but are speaking out against their abusers as a result of the MeToo! movement having launched a cultural moment that does not suffer abuse in silence. They are calling your tipline.

Law and court clerks entered the judiciary to pursue a high mission: Workers of Justice; many can be assumed to be disgusted(^†>OL2:645) by having been reduced(jur:30§1) to executioners of judges’ abuse(OL2:608§A).

After you conduct the proposed investigation and report on it, they will call a tipline on judges’ abuse as will the public: My website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, where I post my articles exposing judges’ abuse, has over 23,929 subscribers and even more visitors.

By joining forces(^†>OL2:611§B), we can attain a realistic objective:

1. to insert judges’ abuse in the mid-term campaigning as the issue most representative of our cultural moment: ‘Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore’; and
2. organize the unprecedented: public hearings on judges’ abuse held by the media(OL2:675¶15).

I respectfully ask that you call(^†>OL2:612¶1b) me to discuss a joint investigation of judges’ abuse.

Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
can resonate throughout the country:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
to support its work of
exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles 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

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,  Corderoric@yahoo.com

You may share and post this article 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.

 

NOTE: Given the interception of 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.

---