Tag: Attorney General

Journalists and primarying politicians can ask: What did J. K. Brown Jackson, Justice Thomas, and Attorney General M. Garland know about judges’ abuse of power and when did they know it?

Journalists interested in a scoop and a Pulitzer Prize,
primarying politicians, and
those outraged by The Wall Street Journal
finding in only a sample of cases that
“131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by
Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”,
yet they have been
neither investigated by either their Federal Judiciary or
former chief judge now Attorney General Merrick Garland,
nor required to disgorge the gains that they grabbed,
can use the official statistics of his and J. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s
District of Columbia Circuit to show their participation in a cover-up
concerning their peers’ law-breaking and other forms of abuse of power, and
effected by dismissing 100% of complaints against their peers and
denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals,
thus revealing their lack of courage to expose their peers’ abuse and interest
in not being shunned as traitors but rather
in being accepted by their “brothers and sisters of the robe”
at the expense of the complainants and
the integrity of the system of justice, left to fester with
the underlying and untreated cause for complaint:
judges emboldened by reciprocally ensuring
the risklessness of their abuse
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-journalists_politicians_scooping_judges_racketeering.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
NOTE: This article was formatted consistently. However, after posting it, changes in paragraph indentation, spacing, character color, etc., creep in. They are unintended. Kindly overlook them.
To subscribe:
a. go to <left panel ↓Register;   or
b. click   + New   or   Users   >Add New; or
c. fill out the New User form here https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php .
Dear Journalists, Politicians, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
1. Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2022. However, she will not take her seat on the Supreme Court until the end of this term in the summer. This affords a unique opportunity to journalists, including the media outlets for which they work, who want to make a scoop that can lead to their winning a Pulitzer Prize; principled and opportunistic primarying politicians; and people who are interested in the integrity of the judiciary:
a. They can examine the integrity and character of both J. Brown Jackson and former chief judge now Attorney General Merrick Garland in light of the official reports and statistics of their District of Columbia Circuit. There she sat as a trial judge from 2013 to 2021, and has sat as an appellate judge of the Court of Appeals for that Circuit(CADCC) since June 2021; and he served as that Court’s chief judge from 2013 to 2020.
b. It follows that the comments made here referring to J. Brown apply even more forcefully to Now-AG and Then-Judge and even Chief Judge Garland, as they do to Justice Clarence Thomas. Hence, such application is not made explicit in every instance.

A. The official statistics on complaints against judges

2. Those reports and statistics are submitted by the 13 U.S. courts of appeals, including CADCC, and 2 national courts to Congress as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as required under Title 28 of the U.S. Code [of federal law only] section 604(a)(3-4)), i.e. (28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3-4)). The director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(id., §601). 

3. Complaints against judges of a circuit can be filed by any person, including a judge, under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(the Act; id. §§351-364). The complaint statistics have appeared for most of those years in Table S-22 of the Annual Report(id., §604(h)(2)).
4. I have compiled and tabulated them for ease of presentation and analysis. Those statistics show that for decades, federal judges have dismissed 100% of complaints against their peers and denied 100% of petitions to review those dismissals.
a. Indeed, the introduction to Table S-22 for 2021 states the following concerning complaints filed in the 15 reporting courts:

“The number of complaints filed in 2021 was 1,282, an increase of 29 complaints (up 2 percent) from the number filed in 2020.

Fifty-nine percent of the complaints were made against district judges, 25 percent were against circuit judges,…

Chief judges dismissed 1,402 complaints in whole or in part. This total includes complaints that later were terminated with finality by circuit judicial council orders on petitions for review, as well as complaints for which additional review was still possible.

Chief judges terminated 948 complaints with no further review. Circuit judicial councils terminated 480 complaints, including 2 terminated after reports by special committees were issued.”

5. Table S-22 shows the outcome of those complaints:
     Complaints with Corrective Action Taken
        or Intervening Events                                              0
              Censure or Reprimand                                               0
              Suspension of Assignments                                       0
              Action Against Magistrate Judge                               0
              Removal of Bankruptcy Judge                                   0
              Requesting of Voluntary Retirement                        0
              Certifying Disability of Circuit or District Court     0

 

B. The implications for judges of the statistics on complaints against them

6. It follows indisputably that the outcome of processing complaints against federal judges is predetermined: The chief circuit judge, who by law examines them in the first instance, will dismiss them systematically. The circuit judicial council, composed of district and circuit judges, will deny all petitions for dismissal review out of hand on a 5¢ form bearing the rubberstamped signature of the clerk of court. No reason whatsoever is given. There is no discussion of facts or law. The denial is a fiat.

a. The processing occurs in complete secrecy. It guarantees that the complained-against judges will not be disturbed by any complaint, for they need not have to be notified of it…after all, it will be dumped no matter its nature, frequency, and gravity. But if a judge replies, he can make up any story in his defense and to the detriment of the complainant, who will not be able to check it in rebuttal because she will not be given a copy of the reply without the judge’s consent.

b. The implication of such peremptory dumping of complaints is inescapable: Judges take care of their own to ensure that “Judges are Untouchable”.
7. It is statistically impossible for thousands of complaints over decades involving hundreds of judges to have led to the same outcome but for the implicit or explicit complicit agreement among judges to exonerate each other by abusing the power to self–discipline granted by Congress: ‘Today I exonerate you and tomorrow, when I am or my friends are complained against, you and your friends exonerate us’.
a. It is possible for that complicit agreement to exist and operate only because of the connivance between, on the one hand, the politicians that adopted the Act and ignore the Annual Report on complaints and, on the other hand, the judicial candidates that they recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm to a judgeship or justiceship, whom must be provided with unequal protection from the law and spared any investigation by law enforcement authorities or congressional committees, lest the judges wield against the politicians their devastating power of retaliation(jur:81§1; Lsch:17§C).

8. Judges wield the most power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity.  This is especially so of federal judges, who are the only officers in our country to have a lifetime appointment; they have the longest time to hold grudges. When judges dismiss 100%of complaints against their peers and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals, they not only protect themselves by covering up their abuse underlying the complaints against them. They also leave complainants uncompensated and unprotected  from the retaliation of all judges.

a. As Then-Judge, Now-Judge Neil Gorsuch put it when visiting with senators before his confirmation hearings: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.(OL2:546; 548) That was the expression of judges’ gang mentality. They do no process complaints impartially in light only of the law and what is right and just. What matters is gang belongingness and self-interest. 
9. What is more, judges have left all parties and the rest of the public at the mercy of judges emboldened by the assurance that no matter what they do, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will cover for them. They reciprocally ensure that they are Judges Above Congress by in effect abrogating its Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Yet, they give the false impression to the public that a complaint under that Act will be processed fairly and impartially. By misleading the public to its detriment for their own gain and convenience, the judges have committed fraud on the public.
10. That is what they have done as a matter of fact. For proof, there is the series of articles published by the highly regarded The Wall Street Journal beginning on September 28, 2021, under the initial title:
a. “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”. “[Federal] judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found…Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.”
b. Another article in the series was published on November 2, 2021, titled “Hidden Interests – Federal Judge Files Recusal Notices in 138 Cases After WSJ Queries. Rodney Gilstrap initially argued he didn’t violate financial-conflicts law”; James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Michael.Siconolfi@wsj.com. (See the articles referred to here and at Appendix:6§C.22.)
c. Who is going to pay for a new trial or appeal or for disentangling contracts based on void or voidable decisions by law-breaking judges? See paragraph 19 below and a plan for collectively demanding compensation to be implemented by journalists, professors, and students.

 

C. The implications for justice nominee Brown Jackson and A.G. judge Merrick Garland

11. The above provides reasonable grounds, and even probable cause, to believe that during her long career in the Federal Judiciary -even longer for Then-Judge and Chief Judge Garland-, including nine years on the bench of federal district and circuit courts, Judge Brown acquired actual knowledge of the abuse of power of judges and their complicit agreement on reciprocal exoneration from complaints against them. She satisfies the standard that makes jurors suitable peers of a defendant: ‘a person with common sense reasonably becomes aware and informs herself of the circumstances affecting her and the people close to her emotionally, physically, or socially and forms an opinion of what is right or wrong”.
12. Judge Brown has breached the reporting duty under 18 U.S.C. §3057 -Title 18 contains the federal Criminal Code- on any judge “having reasonable grounds for believing [which is a standard lower than “probable cause to believe” and much lower than “evidence admissible in court ”] that any violation under chapter 9 [on bankruptcy, the classification of over 70% of all cases filed in the Federal Judiciary] of this title [18] or other laws of the United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or reorganization plans has been committed, or that an investigation should be had in connection therewith [which lowers the standard below, and precedes, “having reasonable grounds for believing”].
a. “Probable cause to believe” that a person has committed the offense with which he has been charged is a standard of proof. It need not be satisfied to warrant investigating a person. Before any investigation, it may be satisfied by the facts known up to then, e.g., those surrounding the person’s detention. That explains why it can be applied before conducting discovery. In criminal cases, district attorneys may invoke it to justify the indictment that they present to the arraignment judge. The latter may reject the not guilty plea of the defendant and rely on probable cause to commit him to jail with or without bail. If the defendant cannot post the bail set, he is committed to jail until he can or the case is finally disposed of.
b. Neither willful blindness nor willful ignorance(jur:88§§a-c) prevents knowledge of such breach from being imputed to judges or their clerks.
13. Likewise, Judge Brown has breached her ethical reporting duties under the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 3(B)(6)).
a. Judges have legal and ethical duties to report other judges’ breach of their duties and “improprieties and even the appearance of improprieties”(id., Canon 2).
14. Judges must not perform such reporting pro forma, but rather must pursue it in good faith by exercising due diligence until the reporting achieves its intended purpose of safeguarding their own integrity and that of judicial process, lest the judges end up inured to the commission or cover-up of the breach, condoning it, and becoming chargeable with misprision of felony(18 U.S.C. §4).
15. It follows that by Judge Brown not reporting judges’ abusive self-exoneration from complaints, she has covered it up. Thereby she has contributed to judges’ committing with impunity the abuse underlying the complaints. In fact, she has aggravated their abuse, for people who commit one type of abuse without suffering any adverse consequences are, far from deterred, encouraged by risklessness and the lure of more gains and convenience to grab them by committing ever more types.
a. For both her, as accessory after the last abuse that she knew about but covered up and as accessory before the next abuse that the principals committed in reliance on that cover-up precedent of hers, applying the law, never mind doing so fairly and impartially, has become only an afterthought…’so long as it does not keep me from grabbing ever more or making me run the risk of being treated as a traitor to “my brothers and sisters in the robe”.
b. That is how Judge Rodney Gilstrap broke the law by deciding 138 cases in which he had a financial interest and the judges that heard him brag about it covered him by failing to report him(supra, paragraph 10).
D. The opportunity for journalists and the politicians
1. Conducting journalistic and and calling for congressional investigations
16. Journalists in their investigation and the senators in their written questions before the hearing and their oral ones at the hearing can ask that historic question asked of every witness by Senator Howard Baker, a cochairman of the Senate committee holding hearings on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate building in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972, by Republican operatives engaged in political espionage in favor of the campaign for the reelection of President Nixon: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
a. The answers to that question led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the incarceration of all his aides.
17. Journalists and politicians can reformulate that question to determine whether J. Brown and A.G. Garland have shown willful ignorance and blindness, bias toward her peers, and culpable l indif­ ference(jur:88§§a­c) toward parties and the rest of the public in disregard of their oath of office(28 U.S.C. §453) that disqualify them from remaining on the bench or at the Justice Department:
a. What did J. Brown and Then-Judge Garland know and when did they know about judges’:
1) implicit or explicit agreement for reciprocal exoneration from complaints against judges, including Then-Judge, Now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh;
2) breaking the law by failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they had a financial interest;
3) bragging in court and out of court, e.g., at the suite of the organizer of a judicial seminar, a country club, restaurants, about the gains and convenience that they had grabbed by breaking the law that way and any other way;
4) concealing assets, evading taxes, money laundering, and filing misleading and false mandatory annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978(Appendix to 5 U.S.C.) with the all-judge Financial Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference(28 U.S.C. §331) in reliance on the Committee examining them only pro forma with the approval of their appointer, none other than the Chief Justice.
18. Many other questions are suggested throughout my three-volume study*†♣ of judges and their judiciaries, the product of my 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*†♣
i. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.
a) Some of my law articles included in that study are also posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
b) My articles analyze current events and propose concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that webvisitors can take in their own interest.
c) Those articles have attracted so many visitors and elicited in them such a positive reaction that the number of those who had become subscribers as of April 23, 2022, was 43,835+(Appendix 3).
d) How many law firms, let alone lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
e) You too can subscribe: go to the website <left panel ↓Register;    or    + New  or  Users  >Add New;  or fill out the New User form at https://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php .
19. Those questions can be supplemented by one that can have far reaching implications by exposing the politicians-judges’ appointer-appointee connivance as well as for the first time breaking open a window into the complicity of the clerks of the U.S.’s most secretive entity: the Federal Judiciary.
a. What did President Biden know through the secret FBI report vetting Judge Brown and Then-Judge Garland for embarrassing or disqualifying actions and when did he know it?
b. Cf. Justice Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, was exposed by  CBS Newson March 25, 2022, as working with Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, with whom she exchanged 29 emails, and members of Congress to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and make Trump the president. Justice Thomas was the only justice who voted to allow Trump to keep secret documents sought from him in the official investigation of the House Committee on the January 6 insurrection. One can think of the situation where Justice Thomas screams at his peers what all judges have etched on their forefronts: ‘If you let them take me [or my wife] down, I’ll bring you with me!‘  If so, the domino effect of his retaliatory revelations can cause one or more judges and justices to topple others until the Judiciary crumbles from the inside.
c.i. Cf. The Judiciary’s highest policy-making body, i.e., the Judicial Conference of the U.S., whose presiding officer is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,  adopted rules at its March 2022 meeting for:
1) the automatic release of judges’ annual mandatory financial disclosure reports and the screening of conflicts;
2) the certification by judges twice a year of a statement that they do not have conflict of interests, whether financial or otherwise; and
3) the expansion of the lifestreaming audio of proceedings.
c.ii. The wealth of information that may be available for comparison with what judges have reported for the past seven years can prove devastating to the Judiciary, the most secretive branch, the one that holds all its adjudicative, policy–making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors.

a. The Judiciary’s closed doors can be pried open by another source of invaluable information: the justices’ and judges’ current and former law clerks as well as court clerks. Some are disgusted, as are even some judges, by the abuse that is committed in the secrecy of chambers and other venues(OL3:1405§2). They signed up to become Workers of Justice but have been degraded to executors of abuse. Approached discreetly, they can be cultivated as confidential informants. They can become historic figures, as is Deep Throat of Watergate fame(jur106§C).

2. Investigative requests concerning the President, Attorney General M. Garland, and the House of Representatives
20. Journalists, politicians, and the rest of the national public should:
a. demand that President Biden release the FBI report on Judge Brown as well as the reports on all the other judges and justices. That is necessary to establish what presidents and the senators who shepherded judicial nominees through the confirmation process(OL:194§E) knew about them and when they knew it. We the People, the Masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, are entitled to those reports to be able to hold our servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power.
21. They should invoke Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, which provides that:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
a. to argue that the 131 judges who broke the law and others similarly situated have given probable cause to believe that they have not maintained the “good Behaviour” required to “hold their Offices” so that their “Continuance in Office” must be suspended, and they must without “Compensation” be removed from their current cases and not assigned new ones until an investigation, e.g., into their financial reports for false and misleading disclosures, and their relations to other people for any bragging about, or admission of, their grabbing gains and convenience, either clears them or determines that they should permanently not be allowed to “hold their Offices”.
22. They should demand that Attorney General judge Garland recuse himself publicly from any participation in the official investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice of his former fellow judges and their clerks.
23. They should also petition the House of Representatives to form a committee, to the fullest extent endowed with discovery powers, such as of subpoena, contempt, and search and seizure, to investigate judges’ failure to maintain “good Behaviour” by engaging in a many forms of abuse, such as their:
a. dismissal of 100% of complaints and denial of 100% of petitions to review those dismissals. That is how they cover-up of the abuse of power underlying the complaints;
b. disposition of the majority of cases without ever reading their briefs. Each brief costs $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce through discovery, field investigation, witness-locating, transcription of depositions, printing, copying, binding, serving, filing, arguing orally, etc., and entails compensable waste, breach of contract for judicial service, false advertisement, fraud on the party and the public, etc.
1) such failure can be demonstrated mathematically by dividing the annual number of cases, motions, and applications, by the number of judges in the court, of judges on each panel, of panels in the court, and of working days. The number of daily dispositions will make it apparent that it was materially impossible for the judges to have had time to read the respective briefs, decisions, record, laws, rules, regulations, treatises, journals, field specific and background information, etc., never mind research, draft, deliberate, rewrite,  etc. Note that their time for dispositions was diminished by their non–adjudicative activities, e.g., administrative, policy–making, disciplinary, bar–admitting, guest–receiving activities;
2) yet, more than 93% of appeals to the federal courts of appeals are disposed of in “procedural [e.g., the catchall, expedient ground of “lack of jurisdiction”], unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation [throwing together a bunch of cases for disposition in one fell swoop]” decisions issued by caseload-lightening clerks rubberstamping the signature of the clerk of court on a reasonless, non-precedential, ad-hoc, arbitrary fiats contained in a 5¢ in-the-wastebasket-dumping form!(OL2:457§D); and
c. interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics. That constitutes a deprivation of the rights most cherished by We the People, namely, those guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to  the 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 grievance [by paying compensation].
24. Informing the national public about how the above questions, investigations, and similar ones are warranted by judges’ abuse of power and their official court statistics can so outrage the public as to force Judge Brown to withdraw her name from the justice nomination and resign. That expectation is reasonable on the strength of its precedent: Public outrage at Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas’s ‘improprieties’, which were not criminal, not even civil offenses, forced him to withdraw his name from the nomination to chief justice and thereafter resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
25. In fact, an informed public’s outrage can be so intense as to stir up the public to demand that politicians running in the primaries and their supporters:
a. address the issue of judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of their unequaled power at every interview, rally, townhall meeting, and in their electoral programs;
b. call for official investigations by the House and the FBI and DoJ;
c. support the abusees’ collective demand for compensation; and

d. reform the system of justice so that judges and their judiciary are held as accountable and liable as they have held pedophilic clergy and their churches because nobody is entitled to arrogate to themselves unequal protection from the law.
3. Asking for copies of complaints and stories of abuse by judges
26. In the same vein, journalists and politicians can ask people to send them a copy of the complaints that they have filed in court or with judicial performance review commissions as well as their stories of judges’ many forms of abuse of power that they have suffered or witnessed.
a. They can invite people to apply the two-phase method for writing in up to 500 words stories that are accurate, significant, and verifiable. Their analysis of those complaints and stories will enable them to detect the most probative type of evidence: patterns of abuse and schemes that can only be the product of coordination among wrongdoers, thus acting knowingly and intentionally;
b. Such analysis will also enrich the existing list of abundant leads(OL:194§E) for launching a generalized media investigation into judges’ and justices’ abuse of power and their cover-up.

27. People can send their story to the following two blocs of email addresses of top journalists -many of whom in their articles and reportage(OL3:1452§1) have already exposed judges’ abuse of power- and professors:

To: [journalists]
adenney@alm.com, pam.spector@law360.com, dbiscobing@abc15.com, adam@abcactionnews.com, iteam@abcactionnews.com, assignmentdesk@abc15.com, iteam@abc.com, James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, Jess.Bravin@wsj.com, michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, kate.davidson@wsj.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, erik.ortiz@nbcuni.com, Anna.Brand@nbcuni.com, Tim.Perone@nbcuni.com, Jessica.Simeone@nbcuni.com, cmartel@thehill.com, Jaquetta.White@nbcuni.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, contact@go.reuters.com, newstip@globe.com, patricia.wen@globe.com, brian.mcgrory@globe.com, spotlight@globe.com, insiders@icij.org, tips@publicintegrity.org, gryle@icij.org, ginger.thompson@propublica.org, andrea@americanthinker.com, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@thomsonreuters.com, drew@americanthinker.com, contact@icij.org, fshiel@icij.org, investigations@icij.org, charles.ornstein@propublica.org, newsletters@abovethelaw.com, email@washingtonpost.com, Lisabennett418@gmail.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.com, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, tips@propublica.org, info@AP.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, info@mail.huffpost.com, aturturro@alm.com, support@washposthelp.zendesk.com, Opencourt@cnn.com, aj.cameron1@gmail.com, wpmagazine@washpost.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, colorofmoney@washpost.com,
cc: [professors]
dana.fowler@pcscotus.gov, cristina.rodriguez@yale.edu, robert.bauer@nyu.edu, caroline.fredrickson@georgetown.edu, kandrias@law.columbia.edu, jack.balkin@yale.edu, baude@uchicago.edu, madams@yu.edu, charles@law.duke.edu, acrespo@law.harvard.edu, jgoldsmith@law.harvard.edu, bross@law.virginia.edu, wdellinger@omm.com, levi@law.duke.edu, ecb95@law.rutgers.edu, justin.driver@yale.edu, development@naacpldf.org, rfallon@law.harvard.edu, heather.k.gerken@yale.edu, tgrove@law.ua.edu, ngertner@harvard.edu, tgriffith@law.harvard.edu, bhuang@law.columbia.edu, mkang@northwestern.edu, ojohns@law.columbia.edu, awhite36@gmu.edu, lacroix@uchicago.edu, lemos@law.duke.edu, trevor.morrison@nyu.edu, cnelson@law.virginia.edu, rick.pildes@nyu.edu, d-strauss@uchicago.edu, mramsey@SanDiego.edu, tribe@law.harvard.edu, krooseve@law.upenn.edu, kewhitt@princeton.edu, michael.waldman@nyu.edu, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
4. Holding unprecedented citizens hearings and a conference and forming local chapters of a national movement for transformative judicial reform
28. By writing their story, people can take their first step toward attaining one of their most compelling objectives in their quest for justice: telling it orally to the national public. That is the second step, which they can take at the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings. They are to be organized by journalists and politicians joining forces with professors and students at schools of journalism, law, business, Information Technology, and social sciences; and held at media stations, university auditoriums, and via video conference so that the largest number of people everywhere can attend and testify inexpensively and with minimal disruption to their daily routine.
a. The report on the citizens hearings can be presented at the first-ever conference on judicial unaccountability and abuse of power, broadcast nationally and internationally multimedia and interactively.
b. Only after a thorough investigation and presentation of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ unaccountable and abusive exercise of power can there be a discussion of measures to prohibit, prevent, detect, and punish their abuse.
29. Journalists and politicians can also work together to facilitate the formation by people who have cases before the same abusive judge or in the same court of local chapters. Their purpose will be to collectively demand compensation for abusees from judges and their judiciaries.
a. The local chapters are intended to coalesce eventually into a national movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform.
30. That is how the unprecedented citizens hearings and the conference will open the way for reforming the system of justice through transformative change: the system that enters the process of change will come out transformed into a different entity because reformative measures that today are deemed unthinkable will manifest themselves as unavoidable(OL3:1372¶f) .
E. My offer of a presentation to you and your guests and a pitch of one or a series of my articles
31. The Senate confirmation hearings, the primaries, and the national MeToo!-BLM intolerance of all forms of abuse have coincided to turn the present time into the most propitious to make progress in judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform. By taking the above-mentioned and similar concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that I have proposed, you can advance your own commercial and reputational interests: “Scandal sells” and you can become nationally recognized by a grateful We the People as their Champion of Justice.
32. I offer to present these actions to you and your guests via video conference or in person. To schedule the presentation use my contact information below.
33. To invite people to attend the presentation and send you their complaints and stories you can as widely as possible share this article with all your friends, relatives, workmates, etc., and post it to social media, such as:
Facebook,   YouTube,   LinkedIn,   Instagram,   Google Plus,   Pinterest,   Reddit,   Snapchat,   WhatsApp
Tweet: Tell journalists and politicians your story of judges’ abuse of power to participate in unprecedented citizens hearings and demand compensation and reform; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_your_story_for_media&citizens_hearings.pdf
34.  Therefore, this pitch can advance your commercial and reputational interests just as it can mine if you publish this or a series of my articles. I have written scores of them and made them available for download and review(OL3:App6§A). In addition, there is a long list of subjects(id., §B) that I have already treated in my study of judges and their judiciaries(paragraph 17.a.5 supra). Of course, I can write on commission, whether articles, briefs, or case evaluations. See also my urban development Offshoot Oases Project.
F. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
    none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money
35. Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.
Put your money where your
outrage at abuse and
quest for justice are.
36. Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking at

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

37. DONATE by making a deposit or an online transfer through either the Bill Pay feature of your online account or Zelle from your account

to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;
or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.
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: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
   *******************************