By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris 

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

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

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

This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

a.  Federal judges engage in wrongdoing because they:

1)  are life-tenured;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What do you prefer?

a.  A flawed presidential candidate, perhaps even a president for four, at the most eight years, though subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the Judiciary, the media, public opinion, and the constraints of other world leaders and international treaties;

or

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

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

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

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

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

14.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to:

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

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

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

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

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

1)  Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort

2)  General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.

3)  VP Nominee Gov. Mike Pence

4)  Ms. Ivanka Trump

5)  Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.

6)  Mr. Eric Trump

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

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

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

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

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

17.  Time is of the essence.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the article:

How Donald Trump
can turn his criticism of a federal judge
into an opportunity to
denounce federal judges’ unaccountability,
which gives rise to the mindset of impunity
that induces judges to engage risklessly in
wrongdoing, including illegal, criminal activity,
thus providing probable cause to believe that
judges, fearing no adverse consequences,
also abuse their discretionary power

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

By

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

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

This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

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

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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. That strategy rests firmly on two foundations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort,

2) General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.,

3) Mrs. Ivanka Trump,

4) Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.,

5) Mr. Eric Trump, and

6) Running Mate Gov. Mike Pence,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

By

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

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

This letter may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

___________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

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

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

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

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

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

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

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

NOTE 2: This letter to Mr. Trump together with previous ones to him and supporting materials is found at:

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

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

The Two Unique National Cases
of Judicial Wrongdoing

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

1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer  and Sen.  Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal judges(jur:105fn213b) know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets, which entails the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– but covered up and lied(ol:64§C) about to the public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it as  well as any  other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)
2. This case  can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for vetting judges and other candidates for office; and open the door for ‘packing’ the Federal Judiciary after judges resign for ‘appearance of impropriety’.

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

3. To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the National Security Agency (NSA)  –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act– to:

a. conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1); and

b. cover up their interception of the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges?, which constitutes a contents-based interception, thus a deprivation of 1st Amendment rights, that would provoke a graver scandal than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications.

4. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425) in  those  communications pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.
5. This case can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).
   ***************************************************