Judicial Discipline Reform

Analyzing your odds of winning by suing in court versus going out of court to have other victims of judges’ abuse join you in shouting the rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won’t take judges’ abuse anymore

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 at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:693

A. Analyzing your odds of winning by suing in court

Thank you for your emails to the previous article containing a template to address judges and their clerks (see below). To the question whether I can recommend lawyers, in general, and bankruptcy lawyers, particular, I do not recommend lawyers.
Parties who want to retain a local lawyer to represent them in a case in which they are charging judges with judicial misconduct are asking the lawyer to commit professional suicide by becoming the target of the many forms of retaliation by judges(*>Lsch:17§C) and their abuse-executing clerks(^†>OL2:687).

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

1. Bankruptcy judges are appointees and thus protégés of circuit judges

The retaliatory power of bankruptcy judges is particularly frightening for a lawyer because there may be only one such judge in a bankruptcy court so that if a lawyer challenges her authority, never mind accuses her of dishonesty or incompetency, the lawyer’s future before that judge becomes bleak. But even if there is a handful of bankruptcy judges in a bankruptcy court the solidarity among them and the instinct of survival of each of them are likely to prevail and cause them to ensure an equally bleak future for a lawyer with the reputation of being a ‘disrespectful troublemaker’.
Bankruptcy judges’ instinct of survival is particularly strong due to the way in which they come onto the bench and can be removed from it. They are not nominated by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Rather, in a much local and personal way, they are appointed for a 14-year term by the circuit judges of the respective U.S. court of appeals(*>jur:43fn61a). Similarly, they are removed, not by the cumbersome and practically useless impeachment process in Congress, but by their respective circuit and district judges.
Therefore, so long as a bankruptcy judge is doing what she is supposed to do to show her appreciation for her appointment and earn goodwill for her reappointment, she can do whatever she wants. In 2010, bankruptcy judges exercised their power to decide the allocation of the more than $373 billion(*>jur:27§2) in controversy between debtors and creditors in only the personal bankruptcies of consumers; they also allocated additional scores of billions of dollars in controversy in commercial bankruptcies. To learn about the mechanics for bankruptcy judges to divert unlawfully money over which they wield power of allocation, see “How a bankruptcy fraud scheme works”(^†>OL2:614).
It follows that if an appeal from a bankruptcy judge’s decision ever reaches the respective court of appeals, it will be heard by the very circuit judges who appointed her. Have you ever heard of appointers turning against their own appointees to hold them incompetent or dishonest, thereby incriminating their own vetting procedures and judgment of character, and casting doubt on the company that they keep?
In fact, the bankruptcy system has the same “cronyism”(*>jur:32§2) still today that Congress found in 1979 and which was cited as the factual justification for the ‘reform’ of the bankruptcy system.
This bias against bankruptcy appeals and bankrupts’ lack of money to appeal explain why a minute number of bankruptcy cases reach the courts of appeals (jur:28§a; OL2:647fn5):
.
a. 2 of every 3 cases enter the Federal Judiciary through its bankruptcy courts annually.
.
b. In the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2017, 790,830 bankruptcies were filed; but only 729 bankruptcy cases (whenever filed) were appealed to the courts of appeals: 0.092% or 1 out of every 1,085.c. That year there were 50,506 appeals to the court of appeals, and those 729 bankruptcy appeals represented only 1.44% of them.d. Bankruptcy judges are aware of the insignificant risk that their decisions may be appealed. What they say sticks; that is the basis of their enormous power when allocating the most insidious corruptor: money!

2. Role playing to realize the harmonious and conflicting interests in an interpersonal system

The above illustrates the application to a given situation of dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(^†>OL2:593¶¶15-16; OL2:445§B, 475§D).
This analysis is applied to understand the interpersonal relations in a system of people e.g., the bank borrowers, bank investors, bank managers, banking supervisory authorities, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, judges, bankruptcy trustees, politicians, etc., who compose the legal and judicial system. Who is an ally and who is a foe? Who owes loyalty to whom? Who has power to abuse and who is in a position in which he can be abused(^†>OL2:465§1)?
There is a highly enlightening, convincing, and entertaining exercise that a group of people can engage in to understand the dynamics of conflicting and harmonious interests: role playing(*>OL:359§F) in a theater of improvisation the several kinds of members in the system.
Since you and your associates are charging ‘public corruption’ too, when playing you need to cast one or more associates in the role of the very politicians who recommended and endorsed the appointment of their cronies as bankruptcy judges and who recommended and endorsed the nomination and confirmation of the district and circuit judges. They are all players in their power game and the game is rigged, as the analysis of the DeLano bankruptcy case shows(*>jur:xxxv–xxxviii).
Rushing to file a case in court without analyzing the dynamics of interests among the players there to determine whether they will let you, a party with a single case, have a fair chance to win by disrupting their steady relations of power and loyalty built over time is like crashing the party of the neighborhood bully to induct new members into his gang. Soon the partygoers will make you aware that you have nothing to look for there and are not welcome. What do you think their reaction will be when you let them know that you want the bully to order them to give back to you what they took from your store after slapping you around to make you feel the need to pay protection money? “Are you crazy?!”
You certainly are out or your mind and your depth. No judge is going to incriminate his or her peers, colleagues, and cronies, for all of them hear the same warning shout: “I know enough of your own wrongdoing and abuse. So, if you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!”(*>jur:88§§a-c).

3. A suit against judges is lost before being filed

Suing in court while expecting judges judging judges and their cronies to be fair and impartial despite their conflicting interest in their individual and class survival is not a reasonable expectation. Stubbornly pursuing its realization only leads to years of futile struggle, enormous waste of money, disappointment, and bitterness.
Consequently, if you are charging “bank fraud, public corruption and judicial misconduct”, especially involving bankruptcy judges, you and your associates have already lost your case…although you have not even filed it yet.
Nevertheless, your question remains: “How do we recover our money?”

B. The out-of-court strategy to inform and outrage a public intolerant of any form of abuse and preparing to vote

There are several actions that you and your associates can take to expose judges’ misconduct through their abuse of power and to have a chance of recovering your money and being compensated for the harm that the judges have inflicted and continue to inflict upon you. These actions are based on three principles of strategic thinking(^†>OL2:635, 593¶15, 475§D):
.
a. You are in a position of strength when you choose the battlefield.
.
b. There is strength in numbers.
.
c. A person works hardest when he or she works in her own interest.
.
In brief, this is how you apply these principles:

1. Going out of court to battle judges

The courts are the turf of the judges. There they disregard the rules that they do not like and make others up as they go.
By contrast, out-of-court they are most vulnerable because they are required by Canon 2 of their own Code of Conduct ‘to avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety’(*>jur:68fn123a) and his Canon is applied to them by outsiders susceptible to becoming outraged at them.
.
a. Supreme Court Associate Justice Abe Fortas was made to appear by Life magazine to have committed improprieties Public outrage was such that he first had to withdraw his name from the nomination to become chief justice, and then had to resign from the Court on May 14, 1969(*>jur:92§d).
.
b. Circuit Judge Robert Bork on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit never made it to the Supreme Court because he was seen by senators and the public during his Senate confirmation hearings to have behaved improperly when years before he even was a judge and was only the Solicitor General he participated in the Saturday Night Massacre by firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating the Watergate scandal, after the attorney general and deputy attorney general refused President Nixon’s order to fire Cox.
.
Hence, it is out of court that you want to expose the misconduct of unaccountable judges who risklessly abuse their power.

2. Strengthening your association by searching for other victims of judges’ abuse and helping to develop a clearinghouse and a research center

The MeToo! public that can be traced back to the Women’s March and began with more definite demands by asserting its refusal to tolerate sexual abuse anymore has strengthened its numbers by bringing and admitting into its fold other kinds of abusees, whether they have suffered pay inequality, exclusion from the top boardroom positions, police brutality, mishandling on an aircraft, gun violence at school, misuse of their personal information entrusted to or collected by Facebook, discrimination at a Starbuck shop, etc. Its outrage is now swift, visceral, and taken seriously; its shared rallying cry is:

Enough is enough! We won’t tolerate any form of abuse anymore.

Likewise, you and your associates want to find as many other victims of your judges and their cronies as possible and persuade them to join forces with you. They share your outrage and are passionate about vindicating their rights and being compensated for the abuse that they have suffered.
All of you together will strengthen your ‘lonely whining’ about your judges into a roaring clamor that will give the rest of the public reasonable cause to believe that those judges and their cronies have engaged in misconduct resulting in the parties being abused. So they too will join your association. Your clamor will become a rallying cry that further strengthens your association.
To find those other victims:
.
a. search for other parties to lawsuits who have been or are before the same judges as you and who may likewise have cause to believe that those judges abused them. There is a detailed method for identifying those parties(*>OL:274-283, 304-307). Together you are going to detect points of commonality that reveal the most convincing type of evidence: patterns of abuse.
.
b. Then you donate to further develop the website of Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which already has more than 24,075 subscribers, not just visitors(^†>Appendixes). The objective is to turn the website, among other things, into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center where people can search them for patterns of judges’ abuse (see the Business Plan summary at ^†>OL2:560, and its Table of Contents at 563).

3. Giving journalists and media outlets an interest of their own in investigating your case as a means of exposing a bankruptcy fraud scheme

The stronger the shown patterns of abuse are, the weaker the claim of judges that you and your associates are only “disgruntled losers” and as such dismissible.
The strongest patterns are those that show how through coordination of abuse and wrongdoing the judges and their cronies have formed and are running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(*>jur:§§1-3).
If you and your associates produce reasonable cause to believe that there is such a scheme, you can grow your numbers with an indispensable ally: journalists and media outlets.
If you go to a journalist with another claim like those of millions of parties who lost in court, you are nothing but another whiner.
Instead, do your homework in a professional way and make a persuasive presentation on a pattern of abuse so coordinated and extensive that it reveals a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by the judge(s) in your case, the judges of your court, and even the judges of a judiciary. That is how you and your associates can attract the attention and respect of journalists and media outlets. They will realize what is in it for them if they investigate your story: the personal and professional recognition of a Pulitzer prize and its concomitant commercial benefit.
That is precisely the prize that The New York Times just won for the exposé of Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, among others, of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse; and what earned women with the courage to expose their sexual abusers the coveted recognition of becoming TIME’s Persons of the Year: “The Silence Breakers”.
Those are but two of the many moral and material rewards(*>OL:3§F) in store for the ambitious and principled journalists and media outlets that realize that it is in their interest to investigate your story; and for those victims and whistleblowing judges and clerks(*>jur:106§c) who agree to be interviewed for the record.
This third principle of strategic thinking explains why if you ask a lawyer to help you pro bono, thus offering to pay him nothing, you get what you pay for: No legal help of value, for he who asks for alms only gets pocket change.

C. The concrete, realistic, and feasible action that you and your associates can take now in your own interest

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Empower yourself by reading the template(^†>OL2:681) that can be used to persuade judges and clerks to admit to, whistleblow on, or be confidential informants about, unaccountable judges’ and clerks’ riskless abuse and thus become the Champions of Justice(*>OL:201§K) of a public intolerant of any form of abuse.
Continue reading my written presentation of how you can strengthen your position out of court and in the midst of the public with the help of journalists and their media outlets pursuing their personal, professional, and commercial interests(^†>OL2:688). Go on reading as many as you can of their (blue text references) that provide supporting and additional information.
SHARE this email and the article below with all your associates as well as your friends and family. Whether they are parties to cases or not, they are all affected by judges’ decisions because the latter bear on everybody’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame everybody’s life.
Then, Put your money where your outrage and heart are. DONATE to the work of Judicial Discipline Reform of exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power as the national public prepares to wield its strongest power: the power to vote politicians out of, or not into, office in the primaries and mid-term elections.
.
a. It is now when a national public must be informed about judges’ abuse so that the public becomes outraged and demands from politicians that they take a stand on that issue in their political platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting. That is how the national public can assert its status as We the People entitled to hold all their public servants, including judicial public servants, accountable for their duty to comply with the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law; and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.
.
b. It is now when you and your associates can become the originating impulse for the formation of a MeToo!-like civic movement –the People’s Sunrise *>OL:201§J– that grows to be powerful enough to force the adoption of judicial reform to end the privileged status that judges have arrogated to themselves: Judges Above the Law.

Donate here

or
at the GoFundMe campaign

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

(If a link does not open a webpage, copy and paste it into your browser’s web address box, and click ‘enter’.)

Should you and your associates deem that you and others would benefit from my holding on your premises a fee + expenses paid presentation(cf. OL:197§G) or one-day seminar(cf. OL:191, 202; OL2:622, 623) of the strategy laid out here, please let me know. Time is of the essence: the primaries and the campaigning for the mid-term elections have started in which it is in your interest to insert this issue.

To retain Dr. Cordero’s law consulting, research and writing, and representational services or request that he hold a presentation or seminar for your group, see his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383; ^†>OL2:667).

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.

Template for you to persuade your judges and clerks to expose judges’ abuse and become national leaders of a public that shouts, Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore, and turn judges’ abuse into an issue of the mid-term campaigning

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

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

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.
.
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.

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.

The media has afforded the public the means of making that cry effective: Abusers are being held accountable.
.
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

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).
.
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).
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
The ranks of those parties are increased by their affected friends and family, workmates, employees, clients, suppliers, neighbors, etc.
.
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.
.
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

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.

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
.
“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.
.
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.
.
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?
.
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).
.
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

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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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).

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

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.

Proposal to PBS Newshour to investigate unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, which harms scores of millions of men and women, more than sexual abuse

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:

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
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

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

Launching a GoFundMe campaign to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse so that judges, as judicial public servants, can be held accountable by the masters of all public servants in “government of, by, and for the people”: We the People

Not yet another mere request for a donation,
but rather a thoughtful explanation of
how you and your friends and family will benefit from it
and how you will benefit the People
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

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

A. Your donation will benefit you by helping to expose how unaccountable judges abuse you and everybody else

Abuse is a word that we hear very often these days in the context of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and other VIP sexual abusers, and all those who have covered up for them. However, there is a positive ring to what we hear: Those abused no longer suffer in silence, for they have found the strength for coming out and joining forces to expose their abusers. Far more people are abused by judges, including you even if you have not appeared before a judge.
This is a fundraising campaign in the public interest to expose how judges abuse for their own gain or convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. They do so because there are unaccountable and can get away with it. Accordingly, exposing their abuse will benefit you, your friends and family, and the rest of us: We the People.
More than 50 million cases are filed every year in the state and federal courts. There are at least two parties to each case. That number does not begin to count the scores of millions of cases that are pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully; or all the millions of people who like you may be the parties’ friends and family, employees, clients, neighbors, suppliers, consumers, patrons, etc.
Even if you are not a party to a case, judges’ decisions affect you, as shown by their decisions on abortion, same sex marriage, healthcare, gun ownership, voting rights, political campaign contributions, electoral districting, class actions, etc.
The vast extent of their power is illustrated by a fact that is indisputable regardless of what you are in favor or against: A single federal judge suspended nationwide a travel ban order of the President of the United States, who as a candidate ran on the promise of issuing it and who was elected by more than 62.5 million voters; and three federal circuit judges confirmed that suspension nationwide.

1. Judges hold themselves unaccountable: we are at their mercy
The fact is that every dispute in our country ends up in front of judges. They are the ones who wield the real, ultimate power in the U.S. Yet they do not end up in front of anybody to be held accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their malpractice. Far from it, judges hold themselves unaccountable:
.
a. Federal judges dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them. How impotent do you feel knowing from the outset that complaining against a judge is useless? They have abused their power to put themselves beyond your reach:
.
b. In the last 229 years since the creation in 1789 of the Federal Judiciary, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! This is significant given that on September 30, 2015, there were 2,293 judicial officers on the federal bench.
.
c. Judges abused their power to make for their own benefit the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Not only does it lack any basis in the Constitution, but is also contrary to its Article 2, Section 4, which sets forth the principle that all public servants are accountable.
.
If you appeal from a decision of a trial judge, and the appellate judges, who are his or her former peers, colleagues, and friends, accept your appeal at all, and if they find that the trial judge made a mistake, you are not compensated in any way. If the case is remanded for a new trial, tough luck! You pay again for it from your own pocket.
By contrast, judges hold accountable and liable doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, priest and their churches, police officers and their departments, corporate officers and their companies, sexual abusers and their employers, etc. Judges do not hold themselves equal to the rest of us: They have turned themselves into Judges Above the Law.
Still worse, judges do not hold you equal to parties who are represented by lawyers. If you cannot afford a lawyer and must appear in court for yourself, that is, pro se, the moment you check the box “pro se” in the Case Information Sheet of a federal court, your case is officially counted as a third of a case, no matter the nature or gravity of your case.
As a result, the judges are entitled and expected to give your case a third of the normal attention and time, but you still have to pay the full case filing fee and comply with all the burdensome briefing requirements. That is how circuit judges treat more than 50% of all appeals to the federal circuit courts, which are filed by pro ses.
What is more, federal circuit judges dispose of 93% of all appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., the pretext of “lack of jurisdiction”], unsigned, unpublished, by consolidation, or without comment”.
.
a. In addition, those judges stamp the majority of their decisions “not precedential”. Thereby they dispose of your appeal however they want without regard for the law or past or future cases.
.
b. These judges know that their decisions are in practice unappealable to the Supreme Court, which only chooses 1 in every 89 petitions for review and hardly ever a petition by a pro se. So you are stuck with the circuit judges’ reasonless, meaningless decision, borne of arbitrariness and intended to cheat you out of your day in court.
.
c. You may not be treated equal to the 7% of parties whose appeals are disposed of in decisions with an opinion, but again you had to pay the same filing fees and meet the same burdensome briefing requirements.
.
d. Do you consider this “Equal Justice Under Law”?
2. Politicians hold judges unaccountable to avoid their retaliation: they look after themselves, not you
Do not even think of asking your representative in Congress or state legislature to help you expose an abusive or wrongdoing judge: Politicians are the very ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed or appointed them to the bench. They cannot turn around to indict ‘their men and women on the bench’ without indicting their own vetting of them and judgment of character, and being suspected of complicity with the company that they keep.
Also, judges have the power to retaliate against politicians by suspending their executive orders, holding their laws and even their legislative agenda unconstitutional, and making “enemy” politicians pay a heavy price when they appear in court. Politicians hear judges’ warning loud and clear: “Don’t you ever mess with us!”
Given such connivance and retaliatory threat, politicians condone the abuse and wrongdoing of “their judges”.
This explains how judges have institutionalized abuse and wrongdoing as their means of doing business from the safe haven of their judiciaries.
Since judges close ranks to protect their own from any complaint, and politicians look after themselves to survive, what chances do you stand of forcing a judge to afford you the due process and equal protection of the law that you are entitled to and paid for? You either fend for yourself or join forces with the exposers of judges’ abuse.

B. The campaign’s foundation: already available for your benefit
The more you learn about unaccountable judges and their riskless abuse of We the People, the more you will be outraged.
But you will also be empowered, for KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. With that knowledge, you will know what to expect from, and how to deal with, judges; and why you should join forces with Judicial Discipline Reform and donate to its effort to expose judges’ abuse.
You can start gaining that knowledge now by reading the study dealing with judges and their judiciaries that provides this GoFundMe campaign with an already existing, verifiable, and reliable foundation. The product of professional law research and writing, the study consists of more than 1,150 pages and is titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393
.
^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

To learn more about the statistics presented above and check their official sources, go to ^†>OL2:645, 608, 546. .

C. How the funds will be used for your and the People’s benefit
The purpose of the funds is to implement the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to expose judges’ abuse. It aims inform the public about judges’ abuse and so to outrage the public at judges as to stir it up to:a. make the issue of judges’ abuse a decisive one of the fast approaching mid-term campaigning,b. force politicians to take a stand on judges’ abuse in their platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting; andc. cause the holding of nationally and statewide televised public hearings on judges’ abuse, which will render unavoidable judicial reform that today appears inconceivable.
To implement that strategy, there is a full program(^†>OL2:648, 665) of concrete, realistic, and feasible means, including:
.
a. the continued research and writing of articles exposing judges’ abuse and promoting the joining of forces of all exposers of abusers of any kind(OL2:648);
.
b. their distribution through mass emailing, mailing, and social media campaigns;
.
c. the development of alliances with other exposers of abusers, such as the MeToo!(OL2:622, 639), Time’s Up, and Women’s March(OL2:529, 530) movements;
.
d. presentations(OL2:623) to journalists(OL2:612, 620,621, 630); at law(OL2:641) journalism(OL2:644), business, and Information Technology schools; and professional associations(OL:197§G), such as bar associations, think tanks, and public defender entities;
.
e. the enhancement of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has already attracted 23,817 subscribers, to turn it into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges loaded by, and a research center for, the public;
.
f. the formation of a coalition of talkshow hosts to expose judges’ abuse(*>jur:2fn1; ^†>OL2: 571¶23d);
.
g. the making of the documentary Black Robed Predators(jur:85; OL2:464) on judges’ abuse;
.
h. the hiring of Information Technology and other experts to investigate the existing reasonable cause to believe that judges are intercepting the email, mail, and telephone communications among the exposers of their abuse and interfering with their criticism reaching the rest of the public(OL2:582§C, 583¶3, 581).

1) A showing of the judges’ contents-targeted interception in their personal, wrongful interest of covering up their abuse will expose judges as the abusers of the most cherished rights of the People: those guaranteed by the First Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, [and] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:22fn12b).

2) The outrage will be so intense as to provoke a constitutional and transformative crisis: abusive judges and condoning politicians against the People. It will support the emergence of a civic movement that demands a new People-government relation: the People’s Sunrise(*>jur:164§9; *>OL:201§J); etc.

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

D. Funds needed for timely action to influence the primaries

For thousands of years, women were manhandled: abusive men handled them as objects for their sexual gratification and exhibition of their power. That situation has changed at a speed that no reasonable person would have imagined last October 5, when the article on Harvey Weinstein by Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey was published in The New York Times.
That is the current, well-known, and reliable precedent for a repeatable event: an exposure(cf. ¶22 above) that so outrages scores of millions of abused parties to cases, in particular, and voters, in general, that they shout self-assertively throughout the primaries and the mid-term election campaigning and thereafter:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

Time is of the essence. So is the generous donation of yourself and your friends and family to expose those who abuse you, them, and the rest of We the People, and do so most harmfully: Judges Above the Law. To that end, you may go to the GoFundMe campaign through the following link, which you may share with others to enable them to donate too:

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

or you may donate here through this button:

Subscribe to this website
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
thus
> + New or Users >Add New

I offer to make a paid presentation in person or at a video conference on exposing abusive judges and impacting their conniving enablers, the politicians in office or running for it in the 2018 elections.
So I thank you in advance for your donation for your own and the People’s benefit; and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

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

A bid for exposers of judges’ abuse to join forces with other exposers of abusers of any kind, such as the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements, and its support by the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy and means of implementation in preparation for the 2018 mid-term campaigning

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. The time has come for the exposers of sexual abusers and the exposers of unaccountable abusive judges to join forces

This is the most propitious time to expose abusers in government and everywhere else because:
.
a. the public is ever more dissatisfied with a government that can get hardly anything done and has broken down to the point of provoking the shutdown; and
.
b. the exposure of VIP Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators of his ilk has led to the transformation of silent abusees into a self-assertive public, whose MeToo! attitude (†>OL2:611§B) is and must be extended(OL2:622) to become this:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take anybody’s abuse, including judges’, anymore.

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

The public, considered as We the People, is the only source of political power in “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172). Thanks to that status and the huge number of their members, the People constitute the only entity powerful enough to expose and hold accountable the most firmly established component of the Establishment: the mighty, life-tenured judges of the Federal Judiciary, a single member of which can suspend nationwide the Muslim travel ban of the President, who campaigned on issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million voters.
Since federal judges are the models for their state counterparts, if the former are exposed and held accountable, the trend will develop to do the same with regard to the latter.
Judges do not hold each other accountable when they receive complaints about one of their own and sit as judges judging judges(†>OL2:609§1). Instead, they dismiss all complaints against them to self-exempt from discipline(OL2:646¶8; 609§1).
Appellate judges are not forced by a mere brief on appeal to correct the abuse of power of the judge below appealed from. As shown in “The math of perfunctoriness and wrongdoing”(OL2:608§A), appellate judges do not even read the vast majority of those briefs.
Politicians maintain a conniving relation with the individuals that they recommended, endorsed, nominated and confirmed or appointed to judgeships and thereafter consider as ‘their men and women on the bench’(OL2:610§3) so that they will not hold them accountable.
So, judges abuse their power(OL2:453, 608§A; *>jur:5§3) to do whatever they want because they are held by themselves and politicians unaccountable and can get away with it, their duty to abide by the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law notwithstanding(OL2:641¶2).

B. The out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to expose judges’ abuse and its joint implementation with other exposers of abusers

As a result of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse, pursuing in court a local, personal case(†>OL2:578) in an effort to obtain ‘justice in accordance with the rule of law’ is an exercise in futility.
This fact warrants the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:639) for exposing judges’ abuse. It calls for informing the public about judges’ abuse of their power and thereby provoking such outrage at judges that the public unites to do what it is entitled to do as We the People: assert their status as the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse, and adopt reformative measures to prevent judges’ abuse and detect and punish abusive judges.
We, exposers of judges’ abuse, can implement this strategy by joining forces with the exposers of those who engage in sexual and any other kind of abuse, e.g., pay discrimination and exclusion from corporate leadership positions, such as the MeToo!(OL2:635), Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements(OL2:513, 515).
Together we can advance what constitutes our common cause: to expose all kinds of abusers, hold them accountable, make them compensate their victims, and adopt meaningful anti-abuse reforms under the control of We the People.
It is in other exposers’ interest that we all join forces because judges’ abuse harms more(†>OL2:607¶2) people, i.e., the parties before them as well as the rest of the public due to their decisions’ scope of application, even national, and precedential effect; and because their harm is more severe since they wield power to dispose of people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.
With the support of more abusees, we can develop more cost-effectively the civil courage, and journalistic, legal, and legislative means for them to expose their abusers and hold them accountable.
We can become the collective generators of a transformative and permanent product: a culture of intolerance of abusers. It is in that culture that we can make progress toward realizing the ideal of “Equal Justice Under Law” and attaining the goals of equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal access to “the Pursuit of Happiness”. We can enhance our respective public standing as advocates of the common good of the largest and most powerful constituency: We the People.

C. Concrete, realistic, and feasible means of implementing the strategy

1. Campaign to inform the public about judges’ abuse and make it an issue of national discussion

The distribution of information about judges’ abuse(cf. OL2:608§A) can be carried on through:

a. mass emailing, mailing, and social media campaigns;

b. presentations(†>OL2:623) to journalists(OL2:612, 620,621, 630); at law(OL2:641) journalism(OL2:644), business, and Information Technology schools; and professional associations(OL:197§G), such as bar associations, think tanks, and public defender entities; and

c. alliances with other exposers of abusers, such as the MeToo! (OL2:622, 639), Time’s Up, and Women’s March(OL2:529, 530) movements.

QUESTION: How can you, whether directly or indirectly, put us in touch with the top officers of these movements, schools, and associations with a view to my making a presentation to them on why it is in their interest that we join forces to expose abuse of any kind committed by anybody against any member of We the People?

2. Insert the issue of judges’ abuse in the campaigns for the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections

An informed and outraged public can force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to make an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation(†>OL2:611§B) of judges’ abuse. They must make it a centerpiece of their platforms and repeat it at their rallies and townhall meetings.

3. A Let’s hear it call for public hearings on judges’ abuse

Likewise, an informed and outraged public can demand public hearings where people can testify about their experience of abuse by judges. Deponents’ collective testimony will make it possible to draw a detailed and complete picture of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse(>OL:154 ¶3). This picture will make it possible to identify the most confirmable, reliable, and persuasive kind of evidence: patterns, that is, patterns of abuse, not dismissable as the abuse of a rogue judge and capable of revealing the coordinated and institutionalized nature of judges’ abuse(>jur:49§4).
The hearings are the indispensable first step to holding judges accountable through substantive means based on ‘dots’ of abuse connected into patterns by the public rather than pro forma means(†>OL2:6473 >28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *>jur:21§1) intended to protect politicians-judges’ conniving relation(OL2:610§3). The general picture with its specific patterns of abuse will outrage the People so deeply that reformative means whose adoption seems inconceivable today will become inevitable(jur:158§§6-8). Hence the superiority of public hearings over private comments(OL2:607¶1).
Before the background of that picture and the foundation of those patterns have been established, there must be no discussion of how to reform judges’ status, powers, and abuse-enabling secrecy(*>jur:27§e). A premature discussion can be intended only to stress the obstacles to judicial reform and evade the outrage that the public hearings will provoke and that will push through the reform.

1) Public hearings conducted first by the media and then by lawmakers

The public can demand that the hearings be conducted for the first time ever by the media, investigative journalists, and news anchors in their commercial, career, and public interest (†>OL2:612, 613). This can be the means of forging an equally unprecedented alliance between the media and the People, and avoiding the manipulation of the hearings by politicians.
Indeed, politicians defend foremost their conniving relation(OL2:610§3) with ‘their judges’ and their privileges in the Establishment. However, the public can require that politicians confirm their I accuse! denunciation of judges’ abuse with an equally repeated Let’s hear it call for nationally and statewide televised public hearings, similar to those held by the Senate Watergate Committee, as the fact-finding act that sets in motion the unstoppable bandwagon to reformative legislation.

4. Form a coalition of talkshow hosts

Exposers of abusers can join forces to promote the formation a coalition of talkshow hosts(†>OL2: 571¶23d) who invite their audience to share their experience of abuse by judges and other abusers. Hosts can become Champions of Justice and their coalition a powerhouse of American politics.

5. Investigate the interception of the communications of critics of judges

Independent and reputable Information Technology experts can be hired to examine the evidence of interception of the communications of critics of judges(†>OL2:633§D, 583§3, 526¶56). This is what CBS and Then-CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson did, who is now suing the Department of Justice for $35 million on a charge of having hacked her work and home computers(OL2:633§D).
Hardly any other finding of the public hearings and the proposed investigations (next) of judges’ abuse can provoke more widespread and intense public outrage than that those with the most to lose from being exposed, judges, have abused their vast computer network and expertise, and power to deprive their critics of their 1st Amendment rights to “freedom of speech, of the press, [and] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:2212b).

6. Proposed journalistic investigations

Exposers of abusers can entice journalists and journalism students to investigate judges’ conduct at judicial meetings and seminars, and reconstruct their conversations near ‘little people’ that are invisible to them, such as drivers, frontdesk staff, waiters and waitresses, and maids(†>OL2:646§D). They can follow the leads(>OL:194§E) of two unique national stories(OL2:598) apt to reveal judges’ money grabbing(OL2:614), concealment(>jur:65fn107a,c), and laundering(jur:105fn213).

7. Make a documentary on judges’ abuse

The documentary Black Robed Predators(*>jur:85; †>OL2:464) on judges’ abuse can be of such high quality and informative value, and can so deeply outrage the public as to stir it up into the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections; and force politicians to issue their I accuse! denunciation of judges’ abuse and make their Let’s hear it call for public hearings thereon.(OL2:536, 537).
On my capacity to write an informative, entertaining, and commercially viable script, see:

a. How Sec. Clinton stole the show at the charity gala, causing Mr. Trump to concede that “She’s such a naspy, naspy woman”, and the strategy that she devised to turn “naspy” into the theme that would win her the election(OL2:491)

b. Trump and the Four Chicks (starring the four co-chairs of the Women’s March(OL2:530)

c. Behind the Black Robe Wall(*>cw:58)

d. Punting on the Digital River(*>cw:32)

e. the synopses of eight completed movie scripts and novels(*>cw:3)

8. Analysis of the official statistics of the courts

The credibility of my study† of judges and their judiciaries is based on my original and meticulous analysis of official statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(>jur:10-14; 21§§1-3; †>OL2:453, 546, 548); and state courts(†>OL2:608§A).
Exposers of abusers can encourage and guide similar studies containing statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis(>jur:131§§b, c) to be undertaken, in general, by the public, and, in particular, by professors(>dcc:5) and students(>OL:115) at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools(OL:60); lawyers and journalists(OL:194§E); developers of software for lawyers(>OL:42; †>OL2:588); pro ses(OL:274, 280, 304), and others.

9. Development of a clearinghouse for complaints about judges, and a center for research and coordination and funding of litigation thereon

This website –http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org(†>OL2:575)- can be developed into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges to be uploaded and retrieved by complainants and others.
Search engines and other digital applications can be developed for anybody, but especially people conducting analytical studies and those with cases before the same judge, to detect points of commonalities that reveal patterns of abuse and bias(supra §8).

32. Patterns of judges’ abuse can give rise to a flood of motions for recusal, disqualification, reversal, etc., that can throw judiciaries into turmoil and highlight their abuse as an electoral issue.

The development of the website and the center are the precursors of the creation of the for-profit(*>jur:119§1) Institute for Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy(jur:131§5).

10. Fundraising to implement the strategy to expose judges’ abuse

Nothing that is worth doing can be done without resources, whether they be manpower, a computer network, a physical office, utilities, supplies, postage, or the most versatile of all of them, namely, money. That requires raising funds through donations, bankrolling initiatives(†>OL2:528), and capital investment(OL2:560, 577).

QUESTION: Can you make a donation? It should not fall to one person the tasks of conducting professional-grade law research and writing –which is an intellectually exhausting and time-consuming effort engaged in at the expense of a gainful activity-, and distributing by email and mail the articles so produced while combatting judges’ interception of such communications, and in addition be the one to bear alone the financial burden of it all.

Critics of judges need to put their money where their mouth is. While whining about judges is free, exposing their abuse through strategic thinking(†>OL2:635, 593¶15; *>jur:xliv§C) and implementation is not. Far from it, exposing powerful judges’ abuse, just as exposing VIP sexual predators, is quite expensive.
So is doing what has never been done in history: enabling the People to assert their right to hold their judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate their victims.

The thoughtful nature of this email as well as of the rest of the study*† with its more than 1,150 pages is evidence of Dr. Cordero’s capacity and determination to apply your donation conscientiously to advance our common cause.

Donate through this button

subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
> + New or Users >Add New

D. You too need to take action now, before the beginning of the mid-term campaigning, to advance our common cause

Each of us has to take action now: Time is of the essence to implement the above strategy through the described means in order to take advantage of the opportunity that the mid-term elections will give us to advance our common cause of exposing abusers of any kind and holding them accountable and liable to compensate their victims.
The bustling environment of election campaigning will impart impulse to the means that we, exposers of judges’ abuse, want as vehicles for advancing our cause of judicial accountability and reform:

a. the formation of a Tea Party-like single issue movement(*>jur:164§9) that asserts the People’s right to hold all public servants, not only judges, accountable for rendering the services that they were hired to provide to and on behalf of their masters; and liable for their dereliction of duty and abuse of power: the People’s Sunrise(OL:201§J); and to do so

b. the convocation by Congress of the constitutional convention that since April 2014, 34 states, i.e., the 2/3 of all of them required under Article V of the Constitution, have petitioned it to convoke. The convention is necessary to replace the dysfunctional and entrenched two-party system with a new form of People-government relation. A new constitution is necessary to address the many topics that did not exist in 1789(OL2:516¶8); and enable the People to hold Judges Above the Law from the safe haven of their judiciaries down to the People’s level where The Law is Equal for All.

E. An offer to make a paid presentation on the joint exposure of all abusers

The convention is the vehicle that will bring all exposers of abusers forward if we climb on, and steer, it jointly. But we need not wait until then to work together. In fact, a lot of preparation and practice are needed in order to harmonize interests and resolve conflicts(†>OL2:593¶¶15-16), earn each other’s trust, and develop the means and habit of cooperation.
Thus, I offer to make a presentation on advancing jointly our common cause to you and t your group. It must be a paid presentation, for if you do not have some skin in the game, this aphorism applies:

What is received for free
[such as the two volumes of my study of judges and their judiciaries* †, my articles, and access to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org] and can be dropped at no expense, is not appreciated…

and I am left alone on the sidewalk holding the bag of uncompensated painstaking effort, the presentation materials, and all the expense bills. It is not fair to make me run that risk or to require that I keep giving without receiving anything in exchange. To produce and advertise the presentation you may share this article widely.

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

I encourage you to donate to the effort to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. One of the intended uses of donated funds is the development of the website at http://www. Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and searched by anybody for commonalities revealing patterns of all types of abuse(*>OL:274; †>OL2:592, 563).

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

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement “I am sure that the overwhelming number of judges have no tolerance for harassment” is knowingly misleading and contradicted by official statistics showing that he and his fellow judges cover-up all forms of their abuse

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

You, the Reader,
are encouraged to share this article as widely as possible,
especially with all those people and entities,
such as the officers and members
of the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movements,
who strive to expose abusers of any kind and
hold them accountable and
liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

Share and post it in its entirety,
without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to this website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

You are also encouraged
to donate through the button below
to the effort to enhance this website
as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges
to be uploaded and researched by anybody
in search for points of commonalities that reveal
one of the most persuasive types of evidence of abuse:
patterns of abuse.

A. The circumstances forcing the Chief Justice to cease tolerating harassment

Last December 18, former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski unexpectedly announced that he was resigning with immediate effect rather than defend against the numerous sexual harassment accusations that had been brought against him.

His resignation was shocking because he had been on the bench for 35 years. Despite the vast number of IOUs that he must have collected during his above-average long career, he could not cause the accusations to be dismissed by his peers or prevent their referral to the 2^nd Circuit for investigation by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
On the contrary, Chief Justice Roberts announced on December 31, in his 2017 Report on the Federal Judiciary^[¹^] the formation of a working group to review the handling of sexual harassment complaints. Therein he wrote “I have great confidence in the men and women who comprise our judiciary. I am sure that the overwhelming number have no tolerance for harassment”.

[1] http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/2017yearend_report_Chief_Justice.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts made that statement only after some 700 letters of complaint^[2] that he had received from former and current clerks made his silence risky in the wake of the exposure by the media of the accusations by fewer than 70 women of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein; their overcoming of their fear of his retaliatory career enders and intimidatory practices; and the exposure of other VIPs as sexual predators. The clerks’ fear of retaliation and lack of recourse in the Judiciary against judges’ abuse could no longer ensure their silence given a receptive media and MeToo! public.

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-says-courts-will-examine-protections-against-sexual-harassment/2017/12/31/94a55d00-ee40-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.9e953ba213a9

B. Means of abuse: confidentiality agreements and retaliatory end-of-clerkship letters

Judges, whether federal or state, have means of suppressing any complaint about their abuse of any kind and of anybody: The first means is the confidential agreement that judges require clerks to sign before clerking for them.
Clerks are people who just graduated from law school, most are young, and clerk for a judge for one year before getting their first regular law job. They are saddled with a huge law school debt. They are vulnerable financially.
It is prestigious to clerk for a judge because they can choose the best candidate –a Supreme Court justice hires three– among those who apply.
So judges pay clerks only a modest salary. The complement comes in the form of a glowing letter of recommendation at the end of the clerkship. It can earn a clerk a signing up bonus from her or his new employer worth $100,000s -a clerk to a justice commands a $250,000 bonus- because the clerk has gained precious knowledge of the workings of, and contacts in, a court, the decision maker.
A ‘poor’ letter is devastating, branding the clerk as a persona non grata in that court, or incompetent as a lawyer. That is what a clerk gets if he or she dare complain about any abuse by the judge.
If the clerk finds a job, its salary establishes the floor for future salaries.
If a clerk complains in a way that her or his hiring judge alleges to be in breach of the confidentiality agreement, the judge can bring suit, most likely under seal, before the judge’s peers. They decide any motion by the clerk for their own recusal. They have similar agreements with their clerks and the same interest in having them enforced to their benefit. If a judge goes against another judge, he or she becomes a treasonous, unreliable pariah among all of them.
It follows that clerks stand no chance of winning against a judge.
The above illustrates how to understand and influence the workings of a group of people by applying dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests as the foundation for strategic thinking(^†>OL2:593¶¶15-16).

^{† *}The materials corresponding to the parenthetical (blue text references) are found in my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

C. Official knowledge of the Federal Judiciary’s statistics on systematic dismissal by judges of complaints against them

Chief Justice Roberts, as a former law student, law clerk to Judge Friendly and Justice Rehnquist, and appellate judge, and as the current chief justice who hires clerks, cannot pretend not to have known for decades how judges use their recommendation letters to ‘purchase’ the right to abuse clerks; extort their silence; and compensate them for their abuse.
He has imputed and official knowledge of how judges abuse sexually and otherwise, clerks, parties, and the rest of the public. Official knowledge denies the availability as a defense of willful ignorance and blindness and supports intentional dereliction of duty(*>jur:90§§b-d):

a. Under 28 U.S.C. §601^[³^], the Chief Justice is charged with appointing the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts^[^4], the one whom he “asked…to assemble a working group to examine our practices and address these issues” concerning sexual harassment and complaints thereabout.

[3] http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf

[4] http://www.uscourts.gov/

b. Under §604a(3), the director is charged with submitting an annual report^[⁵] to the Judicial Conference of the United States set up under §311, whose president is the Chief Justice and whose other members are the chief circuit judges and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges.

[5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts

c. Under §604h(2), in that report, the director is required to “include…the number of complaints filed with each judicial council under chapter 16 [the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, §§351-364], indicating the general nature of such complaints and the disposition of those complaints in which action has been taken”.

That Act provides for any person, including a judge and even if not the victim of the abuse, to file with the chief circuit judge a complaint about the misconduct or disability of any judge in the circuit.
Chief Justice Roberts has known officially^[^6] that when Then-Judge, Now-Justice Gorsuch served on the 10^th Circuit(^†>OL2:548) and Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor on the 2^nd(*>jur:11; 24²⁰), 99.83% of complaints against judges were dismissed and that without investigation; appeals from those dismissals to the respective circuit council, set up under §332(a) (1), were denied up to 100%(jur:24§b). Those percentages hold true for the other circuits(jur:10).

[6] E.g., http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016. The official statistics on complaints against judges for the year in question appear on Table S-22, e.g., http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30 .

The Chief Justice and the associate justices have official knowledge that judges abuse the self-disciplining authority granted them under that §351 Act of Congress so as to exempt themselves from any discipline:

a. Under §42^[7], he and each of the associate justices are allotted to one or more of the 13 circuits as circuit justices; and under §45(b), preside over any meeting of their respective circuit’s judicial council^[8].

[7] 28 U.S.C. §42. Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits. The Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Court.

[8] 28 U.S.C. §45(b)….The circuit justice, however, shall have precedence over all the circuit judges and shall preside at any session which he attends.

b. Under §332(g), each council “shall submit a report to the Administrative Office on the number and nature of orders entered under this section during the preceding calendar year that relate to judicial misconduct or disability”^[9] under §351.

[9] On the two-way flow of official information that reach the circuit justices and the Chief Justice through the Administrative Office, see also

28 U.S.C. §332(a)(6)(c). The chief judge shall submit to the council the semiannual reports of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The council shall take such action thereon as may be necessary.

Hence, Chief Justice Roberts knows that he misled the public when he wrote in his 2017 Report1 that he and the other justices and judges “have no tolerance for harassment and share the view that victims must have clear and immediate recourse to effective remedies”.
Judges not only tolerate each other’s abuse. They have institutionalized the self-interested abrogation in effect of the §351 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act by unlawfully dismissing systematically all complaints against judges, thus ensuring their impunity by depriving complainants of ‘recourse to any remedies’.(*>jur:21§§1-3)
If a complainant files with the Department of Justice a complaint against a judge, he or she is referred to the Act and the judges that apply it(>jur:78fn^{159, 160}), for the very last thing that the Department wants is to become the target of judges’ retaliation(>Lsch:17§C) if the Department were to investigate the complained-against judge.
After President Trump criticized two federal judges, they suspended nationwide his Muslim travel ban(^†>OL2:641¶3). President Roosevelt had a similar experience(jur:23¹⁷).
When presidents and their Justice Department are powerless against judges, what ‘recourse to any remedies’ does a newbie, unconnected, puny clerk have against abusive judges and their peers closing ranks behind them as they shout in unison, “Don’t you ever mess with us!”(*>jur:22¶31)?

D. Complaint processing rules can be suspended by any of their implementing judges to exonerate their peers and tolerate their abuse

Chief Justice Roberts stated in his 2017 Report^[1], “I expect the working group to consider whether changes are needed in our…rules for investigating and processing misconduct complaints”.
He and his colleagues drafted and adopted those rules^[10]. They provided under Rule 2(b) “A Rule will not apply if…a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference expressly finds that exceptional circumstances render [its] application unjust or contrary to the purposes of the Act or these Rules”.

[10] http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-disabili ty-complaint. Cf. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_rules.pdf

The Rules are not mandatory, but rather discretionary with every officer or entity authorized to apply them; any of them can get any abusive judge ‘off the hook’ of the complaint. The Rules are illusory, a sham intended to deprive any complainant of any “recourse to effective remedies”.

Chief Justice Roberts has abused We the People with his pretense that judges have “no tolerance” for judges’ abuse. Through self-interested coordination, they even have a scheme to get away with it.

E. Journalistic investigation of judges’ common knowledge of their abuse

Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices and judges attend the meetings of the Judicial Conference, the judicial councils, and/or the circuits’ §333^[3] judicial conferences, all of which are held anywhere, mostly in fun cities.
They also attend seminars and speaking events organized by private parties, e.g., corporations that can afford them as occasions for publicity and lobbying and may pay for all their judicial guests’ expenses, which is prohibited due to the risk of bribing. So, judges frequently fail to report their attendance at them(jur:146²⁷²). The late Justice Scalia is reported to have attended more than 250 of them.
For most judges, these are out-of-town meetings and may include a hotel stay. Judges have lots of fun, particularly at the party in the suite of a chief judge or the seminar host.
After they have had lots of whisky, cognac, lobster, caviar, waitresses and waiters too catering to them, their tongues move from serious conversations on valuable, especially if confidential, information to fun ones on how they abusively cut their workload(“The math of perfunctoriness and abuse”, ^†>OL2:608§A) and manhandle clerks: It is time for Hollywood Access-type of outboasting each other.
Drivers, bar attendants, maids, and similar little people invisible to VIP judges have lots of fun information and are not bound by confidentiality agreements.
They and clerks, who can be turned into insider informants(jur:106§c; ^†>OL2:468), should be contacted by journalists who find statistics and statutory provisions too dull for themselves or their audience.

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

I encourage you to donate to the effort to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. One of the intended uses of donated funds is the development of this website, http://www. Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, as a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and searched by anybody for commonalities revealing patterns of all types of abuse(*>OL:274; ^†>OL2:592, 563)

Donate through this button

subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
> + New or Users >Add New

As a call to join forces in a coalition to expose abusers of any kind and hold them accountable and liable to compensate their victims, share this article with the officers and members of the MeToo!, Time’s Up, and Women’s March movement and all those who shout self-assertively:

Enough is enough!
We won’t take judges’ and anybody else’s abuse anymore.

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, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net,

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

Ushering in a promising New Year with a concrete, feasible, and realistic strategy for the MeToo! public to be taken seriously as it shouts “Enough is enough! We won’t take unaccountable judges’ abuse anymore”

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

A. The most propitious time to expose the abuse of the most powerful public officers in our country: unaccountable judges

Judges dispose of people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives. They affect you and your friends and family, whether you are a party before them or are subject to the precedential effect of their decisions. For proof of judges’ power, consider that a single judge of the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of a president that campaigned on the promise of issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million people; and three appellate judges of one circuit upheld the suspension nationwide. Are you confident that judges are so much in owe of you that they will respect your right to due process and equal protection of the law at the expense of their own convenience or profit?
However, the astonishing event of last December 18 provides evidence that the accusers of abusive judges can be taken seriously as a result of the transformation of an intimidated public of abusees into a MeToo! public of courageous accusers:

Former 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski
resigned unexpectedly on accusations of sexual abuse
and the impending investigation by his own peers.

This means that women have been emboldened enough by the MeToo! attitude to accuse even a mighty life-tenured, in practice irremovable federal judge. They are expected to be taken so seriously by other women and men that an accused judge resigns rather than be investigated by his peers.
The resignation of Judge Kozinski is all the more astonishing because he was on the bench for 35 years. So he must have collected numerous IOUs from his peers and their friends over the years on the strength of which he could wield powerful leverage over them. Yet, he could not cash them in to have the accusations against him dismissed, prevent the investigation of him by his peers, or ensure that it would be a whitewash.
Though federal judges are appointed for life and as such the most firmly established members of the Establishment, not even they can take for granted any longer that they will be held unaccountable for their abuse, regardless of the nature of such abuse.

B. Concrete, feasible, and realistic strategy to expose judges’ abuse of any kind
Our strategy is to cause the MeToo! public to accuse judges who have abused their power in any way, even where their abuse is not sexual in nature. This includes abuse through their perfunctoriness(†>OL2:608§A) and wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3, *>OL:154¶3). Judges’ abuse harms litigants as well as the rest of We the People, who must bear the consequences of their decisions, as was the case after the Muslim travel ban was suspended.

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

1. The concrete, feasible, and realistic elements of our strategy are:

a. to inform(OL2:631, 634) the public through emails, presentations(623), and allies of result(607), about judges’ abuse and provoke such national outrage at abusive judges as to encourage ever more abusees to come forward with their MeToo! accusations of any kind of abuse until the public shouts self-assertively

Enough is enough!
We won’t take unaccountable judges’ abuse anymore!

b. to cause the outraged public together with the media and journalists acting in their own commercial and professional interest to insert the issue of abusive judges in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections;

c. to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to call for, and hold, nation- and state-wide televised public hearings on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power, which will provide the most visible forum for exposing the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse, and demonstrate the profound judicial reform required to prevent, detect, and punish it;

d. to cause the hearing findings so to intensify public outrage at judges’ abuse of power in connivance with politicians(†>OL2:610§3) as to make it no longer avoidable by Congress to convoke the constitutional convention petitioned by the constitutionally required 34 states since April 2014; and

e. to enable the People, the masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’, to adopt a new system for holding their public servants, including judicial public servants, account-able and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power. Just as judges hold lawyers, doctors, police officers, and even the President accountable, they too should be held accountable. But today they are unaccountable Judges Above the Law.

**C. Reaching out to MeToo! abusees to turn them into accusers requires donations**

7. These are some of the means for reaching out to MeToo! abusees and the rest of the public:

a. mass emailing and what is still more professional even if slower and more expensive, that is, mass mailing of a formal business letter(OL2:641) to potential organizers of…

b. presentations at law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools, civic organizations, and press conferences(OL:197§G);

c. the upgrading of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org to make it a clearinghouse for complaints against, and decisions of, judges, uploaded by the public and researched by it with the assistance of search engines to find the most convincing evidence of abuse of power: patterns of bias and wrongdoing(jur:274, 304);

d. the investigation of the unlawful interception(OL2:633§D, 583§3, 526¶56) of the communications of advocates of honest judiciaries by those who have the most to lose from the exposure of judges’ abuse, and who intercept them in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of “freedom of speech, [] of the press, [] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:2212b). Exposing judges’ interception as a means of silencing their accusers and covering up their wrongdoing would provoke national outrage and vastly contribute to inserting the issue of their abuse in the mid-term campaigning.

8. Implementing this strategy costs a lot of effort and money. Therefore, I encourage you to make a gift in this season of giving in behalf of your own and the common interest in exposing judges’ abuse and ensuring their accountability to We the People.

Donate through this PayPal and credit card button

and subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
> + New or Users >Add New

I hope that we can join forces to usher in the New Year of the MeToo! People for Justice.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Chief Judge DiFiore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline–Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can become here and abroad the Champion of Justice.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

To donate, use the following button:

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

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

Based on the study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. the exhibits to each; and

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

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

a. identify the relevant facts and controlling issues;

b. research case precedent or statutory law;

c. consider attenuating and aggravating circumstances;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

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

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

So, judges have no scruples about going through the motions of judicial process without revealing to filers that their $45 motion filing fee and their $315 appeal filing fee will get the substantial majority of them nothing but a perfunctory dumping form.
.
For the payment of consideration in the form of such fees, filers enter with judges into a contract for “justice services” that the judges know will in most cases not be delivered. They not only fail to administer justice according to the rule of law, but also engage in false advertisement and the concealment of a pre-programmed breach of contract. They run in self-benefit a judicial system that is in effect only a fraud scheme.
.
Judges deserve this criticism because they have failed their duty, imposed by themselves in their own Code of Conduct for Judges, to ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’(jur:68^123b, 44⁷¹).
.
Even if judges are overworked, they have dealt with that problem wrongfully, as the math of their operation reveals: Judicial process is mostly only for show because judges have neither the time, nor the need, nor the will to do the work required to assure due process and the equal protection of the law to the majority whose cases are dumped by form and the few who get fair and impartial process leading to a decision that judges expect to be scrutinized by the media and law journals, and that they strive to make meritorious of inclusion in a law school casebook and of their being considered for a higher court.
.
It has been judges’ duty of integrity(*>jur:68^123a) to inform the public thereof so that people could decide whether they wanted to gamble their effort, money, time, and hopes on the off chance that they might receive the offered dispute resolution services if they went to court to sue or defend.
.
Since judicial process is pro forma, judges should have:
.
a. suspended the fraudulent collection of fees;
.
b. encouraged the parties to choose an alternative dispute resolution means;
.c. demand from politicians more funds to run a judiciary capable of delivering the offered “justice services”; and
d. accept an external control system that holds them accountable for their delivery, thus recognizing that self-discipline is anathema to human nature: Nobody can be an unbiased judge in his own cause(OL2:548).

3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

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

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

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

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

Your I accuse! can allow you to:
.
a. denounce the unaccountability and consequent riskless perfunctoriness and wrongdoing of the most powerful public servants in government by the rule of law, judges;
.
b. thus cause the undertaking of what must precede any talk of reform: the full exposure of their conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity, and their connivance with politicians;
.c. set off a flood of motions to recuse, disqualify, vacate, etc., that will give your I accuse! and Initiative the widest practical effect and publicity;
d. inform the national public and outrage it(OL2:604) into forcing all candidates in the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections to put that issue at the center of their platform, rallies, and townhall meetings;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ambassador Antonov and General Consul Golubovskiy,

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

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

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

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

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

President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee was Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor. She was suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(>jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets(>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), which entails the crimes(*>OL:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering.
What did President Obama(jur:77§5), Senator Schumer and Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and judges(jur:105fn213b) know about it but covered it up and lied(*>OL:64§C) about it to the American public by vouching for her honesty because P. Obama wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it and other wrongs of hers(jur:65§§1-3)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(OL:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(OL:1; jur:72§b, 105fn213b); and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Letting the Russians know your support for this proposal

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

August 4, 2017

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

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

Dear Director Wray and Assistant Director Sweeney,

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

.Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial–Discipline-Reform.org

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

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

ENDNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

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

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

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

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

A. The development of a judicial auditing software product

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

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

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

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

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

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

A. Analyzing your odds of winning by suing in court

1. Bankruptcy judges are appointees and thus protégés of circuit judges

2. Role playing to realize the harmonious and conflicting interests in an interpersonal system

3. A suit against judges is lost before being filed

B. The out-of-court strategy to inform and outrage a public intolerant of any form of abuse and preparing to vote

1. Going out of court to battle judges

2. Strengthening your association by searching for other victims of judges’ abuse and helping to develop a clearinghouse and a research center

3. Giving journalists and media outlets an interest of their own in investigating your case as a means of exposing a bankruptcy fraud scheme

C. The concrete, realistic, and feasible action that you and your associates can take now in your own interest

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

A. Your donation will benefit you by helping to expose how unaccountable judges abuse you and everybody else

1. Judges hold themselves unaccountable: we are at their mercy

2. Politicians hold judges unaccountable to avoid their retaliation: they look after themselves, not you

B. The campaign’s foundation: already available for your benefit

C. How the funds will be used for your and the People’s benefit

D. Funds needed for timely action to influence the primaries

Share this:

Like this:

A. The time has come for the exposers of sexual abusers and the exposers of unaccountable abusive judges to join forces

B. The out-of-court inform and outrage strategy to expose judges’ abuse and its joint implementation with other exposers of abusers

C. Concrete, realistic, and feasible means of implementing the strategy

1. Campaign to inform the public about judges’ abuse and make it an issue of national discussion

2. Insert the issue of judges’ abuse in the campaigns for the 2018 primaries and mid-term elections

3. A Let’s hear it call for public hearings on judges’ abuse

1) Public hearings conducted first by the media and then by lawmakers

4. Form a coalition of talkshow hosts

5. Investigate the interception of the communications of critics of judges

6. Proposed journalistic investigations

7. Make a documentary on judges’ abuse

8. Analysis of the official statistics of the courts

9. Development of a clearinghouse for complaints about judges, and a center for research and coordination and funding of litigation thereon

10. Fundraising to implement the strategy to expose judges’ abuse

D. You too need to take action now, before the beginning of the mid-term campaigning, to advance our common cause

E. An offer to make a paid presentation on the joint exposure of all abusers

Share this:

Like this:

A. The circumstances forcing the Chief Justice to cease tolerating harassment

B. Means of abuse: confidentiality agreements and retaliatory end-of-clerkship letters

C. Official knowledge of the Federal Judiciary’s statistics on systematic dismissal by judges of complaints against them

D. Complaint processing rules can be suspended by any of their implementing judges to exonerate their peers and tolerate their abuse

E. Journalistic investigation of judges’ common knowledge of their abuse

Share this:

Like this:

A. The most propitious time to expose the abuse of the most powerful public officers in our country: unaccountable judges

B. Concrete, feasible, and realistic strategy to expose judges’ abuse of any kind

1. The concrete, feasible, and realistic elements of our strategy are:

C. Reaching out to MeToo! abusees to turn them into accusers requires donations

Share this:

Like this:

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

1. Judges’ mutually assured survival results in extortionate complicity

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

3. Judges’ and politicians’ mutually beneficial conniving relation

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

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

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

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

The strategic benefit for the Russians

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

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

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

C. Letting the Russians know your support for this proposal

Share this:

Like this:

A. The development of a judicial auditing software product

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

2. The auditable material: judicial statements

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

4. Categories where patterns of abnormal frequencies reveal biases

5. Competitive advantage gained from using the product

6. Knowledge worth paying for

7. Product development financing

**C. How the funds will be used for your and the People’s benefit**

**C. Reaching out to MeToo! abusees to turn them into accusers requires donations**

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

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

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

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

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