Indictments fabricated on false and insufficient evidence by NY City prosecutors and NYPD officers, and covered up by judges, including those of the NY State Court of Appeals

A test case intended to
expose similar abuse of power in all other jurisdictions.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero-Court_of_Appeals_cover-up.pdf

By

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

NOTES: a. The text below had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the text -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable through this link.

b. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:

1) go to <left panel ↓Register; or

2) click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or

3) fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.

c. To read the latest articles, go to http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf.


Hon. Rowan D. Wilson, Chief Judge
and
Each of the associate judges of the
NY State Court of Appeals [the highest state court]
20 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207;
tel. 1(518)455-7700

Dear Chief Judge Wilson,

  1. Starting with my complaint of May 28, 2022 infra, I have informed the successive chief judges, the associate judges, clerks in their offices and in that of the clerk of court of the NY State Court of Appeals (CA) of my having witnessed as a grand juror in the Bronx County Supreme Court Criminal Term in NY City the fabrication of indictments on false and insufficient evidence(§A).
  2. After I asked in the grand jury room critical questions pointing to such fabrication, I was discharged on the spot by Grand Jury Justice Laurence Busching with the subsequent approval of Administrative Justice Alvin Yearwood. Thereby I suffered injury in fact by deprivation of my right to be a member of a grand jury; and of my constitutional rights to confront my accusers and to be afforded due process to defend myself.

  3. The defendants who were charged with murder in the fabricated indictment and others who have been victimized by such indictments have suffered and will continue to suffer even more grievous injury in fact as a result of the base motives and complicit cover-up of those to whom I have complained, some of whom are identified hereunder(§B).

  4. There is no denying such cover-up: Till this day, I have not received from any CA member even written acknowledgment of receipt of my letters, let alone a statement of how they will proceed.

  5. On the contrary, when I have called, clerks Heather Davis, Ann Byer, and Ms. Taylor have acknowledged that my letters were received; and stated that the respective judge would be informed of my call; and my call would be referred for action to “the Counsel”, meaning most likely Chief Clerk and Legal Counsel Lisa LeCours. Nobody has contacted me.

  6. The consistency of their refusal to engage me in any discussion allows the reasonable inference -which jurors are allowed to draw even in capital cases- that their way of dealing with me had been coordinated: Public servants intentionally misled me with a false expectation despite knowing that nobody would contact me.

  7. The cover-up has taken a self-incriminating form: I filed my complaint about Justices Yearwood and Busching with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The latter dismissed it alleging that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to process it because those justices were not members of the NYS Unified Court System (UCS)! I filed with Acting C.J. Cannataro, C.J. Wilson, and the other CA judges the letters between the Commission and me; and UCS webpages showing that those justices are UCS members. The CA judges knew that and received notice thereof through those webpages.

a. The CA judges and their clerks had actual knowledge of fabricated indictments and of the Commission’s mendacity; and

b. had duties of supervision of the UCS and the Commission;

c. ‘the end does not justify the means’;

d. “people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions”;

e. ‘power corrupts and unaccountably wielded is absolute and corrupts absolutely’; and

f. ‘I was following orders’ affords no defense.

  1. Thus, since knowing about fabricated indictments and condoning them, the judges and clerks have constructively intended to fabricate them and coordinate their cover-up. They have sent the ‘fabricated’ indictees to, and kept them in, those hellish places of terrifying depravity and wanton violence that are the Rikers Island and the other NYS prisons.
  2. Action requested: I respectfully request that you:

a. take notice of the statement of facts next;

b. have CA issue me with a written order to disclose to it my 4,743-word, 8-page sworn statement of facts(¶14d infra); and

c. investigate this complaint, summoning me to discuss it with you and the investigators.

Dare shout “I accuse!”…You may trigger history and enter it.

I, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 and under penalty of perjury that I am submitting on 8 March 2024, as true and correct to the best of my knowledge the following:

A. How the fabrication of indictments and its cover-up were revealed

  1. I am a lawyer and hold a Ph.D. in law. I was a member of a grand jury in Bronx, New York City. I had the knowledge1 and was in a position to realize that the prosecutors and police officers had charged people with murder despite their lack of any evidence that any crime had been committed:

1 This complaint is supported by my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. They are the skills that have already produced my three-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

The study discusses evidence supporting the axiom ‘Unaccountability breeds abuse’. Its corollary is ‘What judges allow themselves to do -exposed by top national news networks, e.g., The Wall Street Journal, Thomson Reuters, and The Boston Globe, others copy and exceed’.

How many judges and the individuals and entities, such as government departments and private companies, with whom they coordinate their abuse have found comfort and encouragement in the unethical and illegal acts that justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and the ‘Friends of the Justices’ have committed for decades, as revealed by ProPublica?

Some of my articles on unaccountability and abuse of power are posted to my website Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and impressed them so positively that as of 9 March 2024, those who had become subscribers numbered 49,760.

They read what was in front of them and asked for more. They can reasonably be expected to be educated, intellectually curious, influential, affluent, and ready to seek compensation in a class action against public servants who fabricate indictments and judges who in self-interest condone such fabrication and coordinate its cover-up.
____________________

  1. The prosecutors presented no footage of the crime or photos of the victim or the street crime scene, or incident or autopsy report. The footage of the restaurants flanking the street showed no crowd of onlookers or vehicles of the police, the medical examiner, or crime scene investigators.
  2. One footage showed only a Chinese female customer talking to the bearded white male clerk of a bodega over the counter and it had no sound! This footage had no probative value. But it proved the saying “a prosecutor can manipulate a grand jury into indicting a ham sandwich” by exploiting grand jurors’ known indifference and uncritical judgment. So, it was presented in bad faith to mislead the grand jury into thinking that it justified the indictment.

  3. When I asked critical questions, the presenting and the supervising prosecutors referred me to the grand jury judge. He discharged me in his courtroom with a court reporter although neither those prosecutors nor anybody else showed up to make any accusation against me.

  4. I stated these facts in a 4,743-word, 8-page sworn statement and submitted it to the administrative judge. Late enough, he sent it to the grand jury judge, who with no oral argument dismissed it by letter on the disingenuous allegation that the grand jury term had expired.

  5. Rogue prosecutors present to a grand jury charges whose supporting evidence is lacking, false, or insufficient to warrant their degree of gravity, i.e., they are baseless or overcharges. If the jury votes them true, the prosecutors have successfully fabricated an indictment. With it, they seek to coerce the indictee into agreeing to a power abusive plea or prosecute him/her on fabricated charges.

  6. The fabricators reciprocally cover up so leveraging fabricated indictments because through them they secure higher conviction rates; greater chances of reelection and promotion; and IOUs to be cashed in when needed.

  7. They gain a benefit while inflicting injury in fact on the fabricated indictees, such as sending them to jail; causing them financial hardship by requiring bail; and stigmatizing them with a criminal record. Thereby their family and friends are also injured.

  8. Everybody who learns about fabricated indictments is injured by the fear of becoming a fabricated indictee, thus suffering the loss of trust in the justice system.

  9. The public at large is injured by deprivation of the honest services that the fabricators are duty-bound to render it as public servants.

  10. The fabricators join in committing abuse of power, honest services fraud, racketeering, and enterprise corruption.

B. Public officers who instead of investigating have coordinated a cover-up

  1. I wrote a complaint letter, mailed it and its follow-ups and adaptations, and subsequently made calls, to:

To have access to those letters through links, read this article at OL3:1650.

a.       i.   NY State Court of Appeals then-Chief Judge Janet DiFiore; -tel. (518)455-7700-;

ii. succeeding Acting Chief Judge Anthony Cannataro;

iii. current Chief Judge Rowan Wilson; and

a) each of the associate judges -tel. (518)445-2360-;

b) Deputy Clerk of Court Heather Davis; and

c) Clerks Ann Byer and Ms. Taylor in the Office of the Chief Judge;

b.      i.   Bronx County [NY City (NYC)] Court Supreme Criminal Term Administrative Justice Alvin Yearwood -tel. (718)618-3700-; and

ii. Grand Jury Justice Laurence Busching;

iii. NYC Criminal Court Administrative Judge Tamiko A. Amaker -tel. (646)386-4937, (646)386-4900-;

c.      i. former NYS Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks;

ii. current NYS Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas; and

iii. Principal Administrative Secretary Tonya Speckhardt -tel. in Albany, NY, 1(518)453-8680; in NY City, (212)428-2884 and (212)428-2120-;

iv. Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Deborah Kaplan, Civil Term -tel. (646)386-5567-;

d.     i. former NY Police Department (NYPD) Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) Chief David Barrere;

ii. current IAB Chief Miguel Iglesias -tel. (212)741-8401-;

iii. IAB Lt. Atala, Det. Arata, Det. Atway, Sgt. Cortez, Sgt. Dario, Duran, Capt. Keon, Det. Kifaieh, Kim, Det. Peattie, Det. Perez, Det. Pier-Owens, Det. Sunu, Officer Washington,

1) complaints to IAB #     2022-13831;      2022-15482;             2022-15601;     2022-19474;      2023-00275;         2022-03787;

2) Records Unit -tel. (212)741-8414-; and Assessment Unit -tel. (212)741-8444-;

e.       i. former NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell -tel. (646)610-5410; fax (646)610-5865-;

ii. current NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban;

f.       i. former NYPD captain and current NY City Mayor Eric Adams;

ii. Chief of Staff Frank Carone -tel. (212)639-9675-; Mayor’s Operation Unit complaint reference no. EC-00482580

g. Clerk Ms. Brenda, NYC Department of Investigation -tel. (212)825-5959-; complaint reference no. EC-00482590

h.      i. Office of Court Administration Inspector General Sherrill Spatz, Esq., and

ii. Deputy Inspector General Carol Hamm, Esq. -tel. (646)386-3500, fax (212)514-7158-;

i.       i. NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams;

ii. Chief of Staff Rance Huff -tel. (212)669-7200-;

j.       i. NYS Attorney General Letitia James -tel. (800)771-7755-;

ii. Public Integrity Chief Gerard Murphy -tel. (212)416-8610-;

k.      i. NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct -tel. (646)386-4800; fax (518)299-1757-;

ii. complaint # 2022/N-1084;

l. et al. (OL3:1518; 1561; 1562)

  1. Since 28 May 2022, some 50 public officers, including entities, with the duty to serve and authority to investigate, have been informed by letter(OL3:1650) fax, phone, and over 10,500 emails of the fabricated indictments and requested to investigate them for their victims’ sake; their email addresses are:

iab@nypd.org, iabcmdcntr@nypd.org, outreach@oignypd.nyc.gov, Shawn.Morris@nypd.org, Sherman.Tyson@nypd.org, Fernando.Garza@nypd.org, Billy.Ramirez@nypd.org, Jesus.Ramos@nypd.org, Kandice.Hall@nypd.org, Robert.Candela@nypd.org, John.McLoughlin@nypd.org, Xiomara.Linton@nypd.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, question@nycourts.gov, ig@nycourts.gov, bronxjury@nycourts.gov, doipress@doi.nyc.gov, agencymail@customercare.nyc.gov, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, rhuff@advocate.nyc.gov, reception@advocate.nyc.gov, jdominguez@advocate.nyc.gov, recordsaccess@advocate.nyc.gov, nsmith@advocate.nyc.gov, gethelp@advocate.nyc.gov, public.integrity@ag.ny.gov, NYAG.Pressoffice@ag.ny.gov, ig.press@ig.ny.gov, Press.Office@exec.ny.gov, mtcsciq1@bb.nyc.gov, scheduling@bronxbp.nyc.gov, pressinquiry@bronxbp.nyc.gov, mivory@bronxbp.nyc.gov, Everas@bronxbp.nyc.gov, lwalton@bronxbp.nyc.gov, jpeguero@bronxbp.nyc.gov, webmail@bronxbp.nyc.gov, jcortes@bronxbp.nyc.gov, rmiraglia@bronxbp.nyc.gov, amukoko@bronxbp.nyc.gov, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, dinowitz@council.nyc.gov, accessibility@council.nyc.gov, district8@council.nyc.gov, district12@council.nyc.gov, district13@council.nyc.gov, district14@council.nyc.gov, district15@council.nyc.gov, district16@council.nyc.gov, district18@council.nyc.gov, socratessolano2021@gmail.com, Info@bronxdefenders.org, justineo@bronxdefenders.org, media@bronxdefenders.org,

  1. The informed public officers have failed to even reply -but see ¶7 supra- despite their duty to investigate with due diligence a credible complaint of public corruption based on verifiable facts. Any looking the other way, willful ignorance, or willful blindness on their part constitutes dereliction of duty.
  2. What are the odds of none of them replying but for coordination established before this case?

  3. Their conduct is non-coincidental, the product of a tacit or expressed complicit agreement on cover-up and reciprocal protection; cf. agreements in restraint of competition by following the price leader. Their failure to investigate results from their common interest in avoiding judges’ retaliation and ensuring their protection if needed, the rights of indictees and the public notwithstanding.

Dare shout “I accuse!”…You may trigger history and enter it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York City, USA 10472-6506
Judicial Discipline Reform
tel. 1(718)827-9521

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

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


If a former president can be held accountable, so can the members of a justice system because “Nobody is above the law”

Under the law are also prosecutors, police officers, and judges
as well as the commissions on judicial conduct.
All of them should be held accountable
for
their abuse of power
and dereliction of duty
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero_holding_justice_system_accountable.pdf

 By

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

NOTES: a. The text below had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the text -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable through the link below.

b. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:

1) go to <left panel ↓Register; or

2) click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or

3) fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.

    c. To read the latest articles, go to http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf.

Dear  Journalists, Media Outlets, Attorneys, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

  1. Former president Donald Trump was arraigned in a court in Lower Manhattan, NY City on April 4, 2023. He is being held accountable for his conduct.
  1. The members of the justice system must also be held accountable. This is a proposal for holding accountable those members who have sought and obtained indictments against likely thousands of people based on false accusations raised by prosecutors and police officers with the connivance of judges.
  2. It is reasonable to expect that the journalists and media outlets that scoop this story will be rewarded professionally and personally handsomely. Their scoop will launch a generalized media investigation through our country at a time when current events, e.g., the current investigations of Mr. Trump and demonstrations against police brutality, have focused the national public’s attention on the fairness and honesty of prosecutors, the police, and judges, and intensified its demand for holding public officers accountable for their performance and liable to compensation to their victims.

  3. Hence, the proposed investigation can do for a journalist and his or her media outlet what the investigation did for those who scooped the breaking and entering into the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate complex in DC on June 17, 1972, namely, then-rookie reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, and those who continued to lend them their unwavering support, to wit, WP publisher Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee.

  4. Their competent and courageous journalistic investigation and publication were rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize; a best-seller and a blockbuster movie, both bearing the title All the President’s Men -a reference to all his White House aides ending up in jail-; and the catapulting of The Washington Post to the level of The New York Times as a preeminent investigative journal.

  5. Moreover, as part of the Watergate scandal that they broke, they are studied in all schools of journalism as icons of journalists playing their role at their best: holding the powerful accountable. They were instrumental in causing the unthinkable to pass: the resignation of president Nixon on August 8, 1974.

  6. However, the stakes of the investigation proposed below are much higher. The investigation will take place at the most propitious time, that is, when not only the four current investigations of Trump, but also the primaries and the general campaign for the 2024 Presidential Election will keep directing journalistic attention to the conduct of prosecutors, the police, and the courts, and make the national public ever more critical and demanding of consequences.

  7. As a result, the unthinkable can happen: the resignation of one, several, or all the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for committing as principals civil or criminal offenses under the law or even only failing to “avoid improprieties”(Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges); covering up as accessories those of their colleagues; and disregarding their supervisory duty to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary and judicial process.

  8. Yet, that outcome is thinkable on the strength of multiple precedents(OL3:1482, Section C). This can bring about, not just the fall of the top officer of a branch, i.e., president Nixon’s, but rather a branch itself, that is, the Federal Judiciary due to unaccountable judges risklessly running it as a racketeering enterprise.

  9. Accordingly, Section A of the article below discusses the extensive investigations by top media outlets from which you can reasonably conclude that abuse of power among federal and state prosecutors, police, and judges is pervasive, pernicious, and persistent so that it has become their modus operandi, that is, their way of doing business based on “intertwined corruption”.

  10. For its part, Section B will convince you that you can cost-effectively undertake the initial proposed investigation because it is realistically limited to abuse in one district attorney’s office and one court of a single state concerning only one case for which concrete leads are provided:

a. names of people and places

b. dates of events

c. nature of abuse

d. a contemporaneous detailed statement of facts

e. official, court public records containing the names and whereabouts of people indicted and arraigned at the time;

f. official letters of public officers involved; etc.

  1. For good measure, the second article hereunder provides a brief description of cases that I have made ripe for class action. Their journalistic investigation is promising because they involve millions of abusees and a corresponding large audience interested in being informed about the exposure of their abusers, obtaining compensation, and compelling reform.
  2. That audience consists in part of the people abused by:

a. Medicare and HMOs, which condone illegal balance billing and surprise medical bills, both of which can drive their insureds into a financial predicament where they have to choose whether to pay those bills, buy food, make rent…or declare bankruptcy;

b. Walgreens (the second largest pharmacy chain in the U.S.) and its purchase incentivizing and deceptive Cash Rewards program;

c. those indicted on false accusations, who have been sent to jail, forced into a dire financial situation to make bail, and inflicted devastating professional and reputational injury due to having a criminal record;

d. the public officers who in their personal and collective interest abuse the means and opportunity of their government entities to intercept the emails and mail of the public at large in order to detect and suppress those critical of them; and

e. a commission on judicial conduct that in dereliction of its duty has left complainants and the rest of the public without any remedy and at the mercy of the abusers.

  1. The audience of abusees will be increased by their affected relatives and their friends, their neighbors, their suppliers and buyers, their competitors, the stakeholders of the abusers, etc.
  2. Attracting all of them to your audience warrants examining the investigation proposed next. Hence, I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoRic@yahoo.com

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


Top media outlets have exposed how
prosecutors, police officers, and judges
abuse people unaccountably and thus, risklessly.
A current story illustrates how you too may have been abused.
Here is a test case showing how you can
expose them, demand compensation, and compel reform,
thus becoming a nationally recognized Champion of Justice.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero_holding_justice_system_accountable.pdf

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

A. Media outlets that have exposed abuse in an unaccountable justice system

  1. The Wall Street Journal, in its article “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”, published initially on September 28, 2021, wrote thus:

“[Federal] judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found…Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.”

a. One of its updating articles, published on April 27, 2022, under the title “Dozens of Federal Judges Had Financial Conflicts…”, stated the following:

“A Wall Street Journal investigation found that 152 federal judges around the nation have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing 1,076 court cases involving companies in which they or their family-owned stock. As a result of the Journal’s reporting, judges in 883 cases have notified courts that they presided in the lawsuits improperly and that the cases are eligible to be reopened.”

  1. Thomson Reuters is a major U.S. news organization with some 2,500 journalists and some 600 photojournalists. In “The Teflon Robe” report, whose first of three parts was published on June 30, 2020, it reported “hardwired judicial corruption”: corruption that is an integral element of state judiciaries and that intertwines their judges and the conniving entities duty-bound to supervise them. Far from doing so, those entities cover up their abuse of power by not investigating, let alone punishing, them, not even disclosing the names of complained-about judges and their accomplices.

3. The Boston Globe published on September 30, 2018, its investigative report “Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings, who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”. Those conducting the hearings may not be lawyers or know the law.

4. Competitors of the above publishers, such as The New York Times[1], The New Yorker[2], The Washington Post, Above the Law, LexisNexis, and your own media outlet may not want to cede to any of those courageous competitors the exposure of judiciaries as racketeering enterprises.[3]

[1] “2 Ex-Timesmen Say They Had a Tip on Watergate First”, by Reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, who rightly remarked that “If [Mr. Phelps’s] and Mr. Smith’s accounts are correct, The Times missed a chance to get the jump on the greatest story in a generation”; NYT; 24may09. Do not let others jump on this tip and earn all the credit for turning it into their scoop.
[2] The New Yorker’s article exposing sexual abuser Harvey Weinstein, together with that of The New York Times, published on October 10 and 5, 2017, respectively, caused the MeToo! movement to erupt. The world has not been the same since. Their articles are precedent for the transformative impact that an article can have.
[3] See my three-volume study* † ♣ of judges and their judiciaries titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

Also, visit my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. My articles posted there have so positively impressed its countless webvisitors that as of July 28, 2023, they had turned into subscribers 48,294 of them.

B. Story of abuse by prosecutors and the NYPD covered up by the Commissioner, the Chief Judges, the Mayor, et al., though injuring likely thousands of people

    1. On May 23 and 24, 2022, Bronx ADA Burim Namani and supervising ADA Diana Jetta presented an indictment for murder allegedly committed on or around May 24, 2021, early in the evening in a Bronx street flanked by restaurants and bodegas. When they asked whether grand jurors had questions, I, a grand juror, asked critical ones because the 12 exhibits that they presented contained:

a. not a single photo or video of the scene of the crime or of the victim whether taken by the police, a surveillance camera of the neighboring restaurants and bodegas, or any bystander…in the age of the ubiquitous smartphone with camera and a citizens journalist mentality!;

b. no police report or autopsy report by the medical examiner; no statement by relatives;

c. nothing but the allegations of five NYPD officers, including detectives, and an alleged friend that had been walking with the alleged victim that evening but who did not witness the murder.

  1. On May 25, I was summoned to the courtroom of Grand Jury Justice Laurence E. Busching. He acted as lead counsel for those who had accused me of ‘being disruptive and making other grand jurors feel uncomfortable’; denied me the opportunity to confront them and present witnesses; showed no evidence; had me surrounded by four intimidating NYPD officers; and discharged me.
  2. I described these events in a 4,743-word, 8-page sworn statement and submitted it to his supervisor, Administrative Justice Alvin Yearwood, tel. (718)618-3700, at the Bronx County Supreme Court Criminal Term, 265 E. 161st St., Bronx, NY 10451. Without acknowledging receipt or taking my calls, he forwarded it to J. Busching. The latter, as judge in his own cause, biasedly dismissed it on the trivial fact that the grand jury term had expired.

  3. They condoned and aided prosecutors and NYPD officers seeking indictments on false accusations. Thousands may have been indicted, sent to prison, devastated financially while trying to make bail, and ruined professionally and reputationally by being tainted with a criminal record.

  4. NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell and Internal Affairs Bureau Chief Miguel Iglesias; former NYPD captain and now NYC Mayor Eric Adams; Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, and many other public officers(OL3:1568) have failed to even reply to my repeatedly submitted complaint. Two Chief Judges of the Court of Appeals -the highest court in NYS-, former CJ Janet DiFiore and Acting CJ Anthony Cannataro, have been derelict in their supervisory duties as have IGs.

  5. The Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed the complaint by dishonestly alleging that ‘those judges are not NYS judges, so we lack jurisdiction’. The inaction of these officers points to an implicitly or explicitly coordinated reciprocally beneficial agreement not to investigate.

C. Proposed action: a presentation by me, and an investigation and articles by us

  1. I respectfully propose that journalists and their outlets take action on behalf of thousands people injured by indictments obtained through false accusations.

  2. Let’s meet in your office or on Zoom for a presentation by me and a Questions and Answers session. We can discuss taking the next steps: holding a press conference; publishing one or a series of my(A and B) and our articles; and conducting a joint investigation. That is how a generalized media investigation can be launched that turns you and your media outlet into nationally recognized Champions of Justice.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoRic@yahoo.com

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


In search of one or more knowledgeable, experienced, and financially capable law firms, investigative journalists, and Information Technology (IT) experts with whom to join forces to further prosecute cases with national scope that are ripe for class action

 The link to this posting is http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_proposal_for_class_actions.pdf .

By

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

(To read the latest articles, go to
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf)

Dear Attorneys, Journalists, Professors, IT experts, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

  1. I am searching for qualified parties among you to whom to propose a joint venture to further prosecute any or all of the three cases that I1 have brought to ripeness for class action2.
  2. This search is an exercise of the rights most cherished by We the People, namely, those guaranteed by the 1stAmendment to the Constitution to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people [the sovereign source of all public power in a democracy] peaceably to assemble [on the Internet too], and to petition [also through class actions] the Government [such as its third branch, the judiciary, and its agencies, e.g., Medicare; as well as private parties] for a redress [through transparency, accountability, and compensation] of grievances”.
  3. You can expand the cases’ brief description below by going to the file at which has links to detailed information.

a. Medicare administers $100s of billions for the benefit of its more than 33 million insureds. It works with hundreds of HMOs and other health insurance entities. They have common interests: pay the fewest claims and attract to, and maintain in their, networks the largest number of medical services and equipment providers.

1) To advance their interests they:

a) deny and uphold the denial of as many of their insureds’ claims as possible;

b) disregard the legal obligation to accept as total payment Medicare’s schedules of fees for medical provisions3; and

c) condone the billing of insureds for the unpaid balance.

2) Most insureds who appeal denials and balance billing appear pro se. Due to their ignorance of the law, they are abused by having their rights denied or disregarded.

3) I appealed to the Medicare Appeals Council. After I appeal to the Medicare Board, the class action can be filed in a federal district court.4 The recovery can be huge and force transformative change in the health insurance system.

a4) A Supplemental Brief was filed by me on March 13, 2023; its link is http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ALJ/23-3-11DrRCordero_supp_brief-Medicare_Appeals_Council.pdf. It describes the lengths to which administrative law judges (ALJ), other officers of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals and the Medicare Appeals Council, and the opposing parties have gone to withhold evidentiary materials from me that incriminates them in coordinated complicit conduct and its cover-up.

5) This is attested to by ‘a smoking gun’ “Report of Contact”. It shows, among other things, that a party and an ALJ office engaged in ex parte communications and that they knew that my appeal had been denied before I had filed my Statement on Appeal and before the ALJ hearing had even been scheduled. The outcome of the hearing had been predetermined and the holding of the hearing was pro forma.

6) The ALJs, officers, and parties have turned the health insurance and Medicare appeal process into a pretense to the detriment of the tens of millions of their insureds. Their conduct warrants bringing a class action against them.

b. Walgreens is described as having had $139.5 billion in revenue in 2020 and 277,000 employees in 2021. Its purchase-incentivizing program is Cash Rewards. It is a misnomer, for rewards are not earned by paying in cash and cannot be redeemed for cash despite its false advertisement: “Save time. Redeem your rewards instantly at checkout”. But at checkout you cannot pay the total cost of the purchase with your Cash Rewards. You can only apply a single “tier” per purchase of either $1, $3, $5, or $10 if it is equal to or less than the purchase cost, i.e., “tiers” cannot be stacked. You must pay the balance with your money. Your rewards, though earned, are not yours, for they expire and you can use them only at Walgreens. The program is a bait and switch scam.

1) This is a test case for suing big businesses that make enormous gains by defrauding millions of customers of small amounts that do not justify the substantial cost of individual prosecution.

c. While serving as a grand juror, I witnessed how prosecutors and New York Police Department (NYPD) officers charged people with a murder that those people could not have committed because no evidence of a crime was contained in the 12 exhibits presented:

i. not a single photo or video of the scene of the crime, which allegedly occurred in the middle of a street flanked by restaurants and bodegas; or of the victim, whether taken by the police, a surveillance camera of those restaurants and bodegas, or any bystander…in the age of the ubiquitous smartphone with camera and a citizens journalist mentality!;

ii. no police incident report; no medical examiner autopsy report; no death or burial certificate;

iii. nothing but the allegations of five NYPD officers, including detectives, and an alleged friend that had been walking with the alleged victim that evening but who did not witness the murder.

1) The indictment was sought to gain plea bargain leverage by taking advantage of the well-known grand jurors’ indifference and uncritical judgment.

2) When I asked critical questions, the presenting and the supervising prosecutors referred me to the grand jury judge, who discharged me without affording me the opportunity to confront my accusers.

3) I described these events in a 4,743-word, 8-page sworn statement and submitted it to the administrative judge. Late enough, he sent it to the grand jury judge, who with no discussion dismissed it on the trivial fact that the grand jury term had expired. I filed a complaint with the NY State Chief Judge, the NYS and NYC administrative judges, the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau chief and the Commissioner, the Bronx council members, public advocates, et al., who have not replied.

4) They form the defendant class: They do not investigate judges to avoid retaliation5. They also pursue a pecuniary benefit, which is anything to which a monetary value can be assigned. Their dereliction of duty is a policy and a systemic cover-up based on actual or constructive complicit coordination; cf. companies that coordinate their anti-competition practices by following the price leader, which has been held illegal under antitrust law and case law.

5) Acting under color of law, they have violated the civil rights of the likely thousands of people against whom they have levelled false accusations, thus causing them injury in fact by being indicted, jailed, prosecuted, devasted financially in an effort to make bail, and ruined reputationally by having a criminal record.

6) The latest statement of facts, dated February 23, 2023, in this case describes the flagrant misconduct of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. It is aimed to protect the two judges involved in covering for the prosecutors and police officers who based on false evidence accused two people of murder: The Commission has founded its dismissal of my complaint on the demonstrably false grounds that those two judges are not members of the NYS Unified Court System. See the Commission’s letters at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero-Commission_Judicial_Conduct.pdf.

7) Meantime, the number keeps growing of those who have been abused by false accusations. They form the plaintiff class. Their claims for compensatory and punitive damages keep growing too…but so does the abuse that they continue to suffer.

8) Competent and principled lawyers capable of joining the legal team being assembled to bring this class action can do the right thing on behalf of the plaintiffs while making for themselves both a substantial amount of money, including treble damages and attorney’s fees, and a national name as Champions of Justice.6

  1. I offer to make a presentation on these cases via video conference or, if in New York City, in person.

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

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

Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking conducted at

Judicial Discipline Reform

DONATE

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

from your account

to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;

or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

 I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoRic@yahoo.com

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


ENDNOTES

1 This email and its above-stated link can be shared with others who are potentially interested in joining any of the class actions under FRCP Rule 23 and attending my presentation on this proposal. The latter is supported by my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking; they are the skills that undergird my three-volume study*   of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*  

a. The study collects and discusses abundant evidence(OL:194§E) showing that judges ensure each other’s unaccountability by systematically dismissing 100% of complaints against any fellow judge and denying 100% of petitions to review dismissals.

b. They are also protected connivingly by the politicians who put them in office and for whom they are ‘our men and women on the bench’.

c. Judges engage in abuse of power risklessly for their gain and convenience individually and as a coordinated class. Their pattern of conduct shows that they run their judiciary as a racketeering enterprise. See footnotes 5 and 6 hereunder.

d. Some of my articles have been posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform. That site has attracted countless webvisitors and as of 18 March 2023, had turned into subscribers 46,757 of them. They are potential class members.

e. The latest articles are included in Volume III of the study.

2  The class actions can expect sympathetic juries. Indeed, since the advent of the MeToo! and BLM movements, and the demonstrations against police brutality, and racial and socio-economic inequality, the national public has become ever more intolerant of all forms of abuse, as expressed in its self-assertive rallying cry: 

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

a. Trump lawyers settled a case on their way to the first trial day rather than risk a huge verdict from one of the blue-collar juries in the Bronx, New York City, known for their distrust of, and resentment toward, big companies and government; and more ready than others to “stick it to ‘em”.

Section 1902(n)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code of federal laws, as modified by Section 4714 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, prohibits Medicare providers from balance billing Medicaid QMBs [Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries] for Medicare cost-sharing. The provider must submit its bill to Medicaid and accept as full payment what Medicaid pays.

Victims of abuse by Medicare officers, including administrative law judges, can share their story with the Medicare Appeals Council. The latter is the venue for the fourth of five levels of appeal in the Medicare system (the fifth level appeal lies with the Medicare Appeals Board). Hence, if you have not gone through the previous appeal levels, which begins with your HMO or other medical services or equipment provider, the Council will not treat your story as a complaint on appeal.

a. However, you together with as many victims as possible can submit your story in order to inform the Council of the nature, frequency, and gravity of abuse within the Medicare system. There is strength in numbers. Numerous statements from unrelated parties yet consistent with each other allow for the detection of patterns of abuse of power. Patterns make an impression in the minds of those who detect, or are made aware of, them.

1) The federal criminal code provides at 18 U.S.C. §1961(5) that a ‘pattern is constituted of at least two acts committed within ten years’.

b. By writing your story, you take the first step toward showing that you have questions of law or fact and claims common to the class suing Medicare and providers, and qualify as a member of it(R.23(a)), entitled to share in any compensation that the action may win for it.

c. Your story must be brief. Never-ending rambling and whining sagas are wasteful of your and everybody else’s effort and time. They are not read to the end or taken seriously.

d. By contrast, a story written in up to 500 words is more likely to be impactful if it consists only of verifiable and accurate facts, names, and addresses identifying only the most outrageous events that may have developed during months or years of abuse and litigation. Read and apply the two-phase method for writing such a story. You will be happily surprised by how helpful that method is. By applying it, you can write a story that may get you invited to tell it to the state or national public at the proposed UNPRECEDENTED CITIZENS HEARINGS on judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power.

e. Your story can contribute to detecting the most persuasive type of evidence of abuse: patterns of conduct of the same, related, or similarly situated officers and their cronies that harm many unrelated individuals in similar ways. A pattern of similarities may show that officers and cronies acted in a coordinated rather than coincidental way; and that stories have common facts and claims that qualify you and other abusees as members of the class action.

f. By making public your story, you too will be asserting your rights under the First Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the [little] people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet too], and to petition [as a numerous and thus big class] the Government [of which judges form the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including by holding judges and their cronies accountable and liable to compensation]”.

g. Add at the top of your story the following reference; and mail and email it to the following addresses:

Reference: for consideration by the Medicare Appeals Council and the Board in appeal M-23-386

1) Go to https://dab.efile.hhs.gov/, register, and “File correspondence…and other written material in pending case” M-23-386. Thereby your story may become part of the record that may be filed on appeal in a federal district court and contribute to the formation of the class action and the holding of the citizens hearings.

2) Department of Health and Human Services
Departmental Appeals Board
Medicare Appeals Council, MS 6127
Cohen Building Room G-644
330 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

3) DABMODHotline@hhs.govOSDABImmediateOffice@hhs.govMedicare.Appeals@hhs.govappeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov

Developments in the judiciary establish strong precedents that support a favorable expectation for the class actions:

a. In the civil suit Stricklandv. U.S., the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held on April 26, 2022, that the Federal Judiciary and its judges in their official and individual capacities can on due process and equal protection grounds be sued and held liable. The plaintiff’s exposure of 4th Circuit judges’ complicit coordination forced all the judges of that Court to recuse themselves! Judges from other circuits were seated by designation on the three-judge appellate panel.

b. Ninety gymnasts sued the FBI and agents for over $1 billion last June 8 for its failure to act on the complaints against sexual predator Dr. Larry Nassar brought to FBI agents and the FBI’s cover-up of their dereliction of duty. This is in addition to the $380 million that USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic Committee had to pay to Nassar sexual abuse victims.

c. A Pennsylvania state court ordered judges who sent juveniles to government paid/privately run detention facilities in exchange for kickbacks to pay $206 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

6 The Wall Street Journal has published a series of articles that began on September 28, 2021, under the initial title “131 [now 152] Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”.

a. Led by their motive of protecting their illegal gains and gain schemes, judges intercept -which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. §§2511– people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics.

b. The Federal Judiciary has the means of doing so, as it runs one of the largest national computer networks and has the Information Technology (IT) expertise necessary therefor: It handles daily the filing, storage, and retrieval of hundreds of millions of briefs, motions, applications, records, reports, recordings, dockets, calendars, orders, decisions, certificates, etc., through its Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

c. Judges have the opportunity to also compel such interception by the intelligence agencies to which in a quid pro quo they grant 100% of their secret requests for secret orders for secret surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(50 U.S.C §§1801-1885c).

d. There is proposed to hire IT experts to examine the communications and computers of critics of judges. The exposure of judges’ interception in a suit with counts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO;18 U.S.C. §1961) on behalf of their victims can generate national outrage, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. The examination can be announced at a press conference intended to capture national attention and to interest critics and victims of judges’ abuse in sharing their stories with the IT experts.

1) See former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s suit against the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for the latter’s hacking into her home and CBS computers to spy on the stories that she was investigating and that had deeply embarrassed the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder. Eventually, AG Holder was held in contempt of Congress for withholding evidence on those stories and forced to resign.

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

NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and  >OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.
**************************************************************

A proposal for a presentation on how law and journalism schools can benefit from pursuing three class actions in the public interest

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_presentation_to_professors&students.pdf

By

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

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

NOTES:   a. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:

1) go to <left panel ↓Register; or

2) click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or

3) fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.

b. The text below had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the text -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable through the above link:

Deans of Law and Journalism Schools and
in their care to their peers and the officers of the student class and other          appropriate student organizations
Law and Journalism Schools

Dear Deans, Professors, and Officers,1

  1. This is a proposal1 for a presentation on how through a series of steps2 (see the article below this one) and a public interest course (since it will include real representation of clients by students under the supervision of professors it is known as a clinic) you all can counter the problems besieging law schools: dwindling enrollment, imperiled financial viability, and diminishing chances of finding a law job upon graduation. It is based on precedent..

    .

    a. In the civil suit Strickland v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held last April 26 that the Federal Judiciary and its officers, including judges, can on constitutional grounds be sued and held liable in their official and individual capacities.

    .

    b. 90 gymnasts sued the FBI and agents for over $1 billion last June 8, for its failure to act on the complaints against sexual predator Dr. Larry Nassar brought to FBI agents and the FBI’s cover-up of their dereliction of duty.

    .

    c. A PA state court ordered judges who sent juveniles to government paid/privately run detention facilities in exchange for kickbacks to pay victims $206 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

    .

    2. The presentation will center on three ongoing cases that can be further prosecuted through the device that can gain the highest payoff for law schools and compensate the largest number of victims: class actions including RICO charges. They can provoke national outrage3; open the floodgates of motions that create a niche practice for law students; and lead schools to hold citizens hearings that transform their role into We the People’s watchdog4 on unaccountable judges and their judiciaries.

    .

    a. A person in an official capacity acquired knowledge firsthand about prosecutors, NYPD officers and detectives, and judges of a NY criminal court colluding to obtain an indictment against people charged with murder even though their ‘supporting evidence’ revealed that no crime had even occurred. A complaint was filed with the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) requesting that it investigate its members’ participation in such wrongdoing. Its handling by over a dozen officers for three months indicates that IAB has coordinated a cover-up. A complaint against it has been escalated to NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell5. The potential class action plaintiffs are thousands of people who were charged and/or prosecuted on false indictments and even incarcerated. The potential defendants are the wrongdoers and the tens of administrative judges, elected officers, public defenders, and their institutions chargeable with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate.
    ..
    b. Medicare administers a budget of $100s of billion for the benefit of its more than 33 million insureds. It works with hundreds of HMOs and other health insurance entities. They have common interests: pay the fewest claims and attract and maintain in their networks the largest number of medical services providers. To advance their interests they deny and uphold the denial of as many of their insureds’ claims as possible; disregard the legal obligation to accept as total payment Medicare’s schedules of fees for services; and condone the billing of insureds for the unpaid balance. The majority of insureds who appeal denials and balance billing appear pro se. Due to their ignorance of the law, they are abused. The recovery can be huge and force transformative change6.

.
c.
Federal judges intercept7 people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics. Thereby they deprive the People of their most cherished rights, i.e., those guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [e.g., compensation]”8.

  1. The professors and students participating in the proposed public interest clinic can reasonably expect broad support: The MeToo! and BLM movements and those against police brutality, and for racial and socio-economic equality are expressions of the People’s self-assertive rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won’t take any abuse from anybody anymore. So, the participants can give rise to a key midterm issue and be nationally recognized as the People’s Champions of Justice.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

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

  1. Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.

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

  1. Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking at:

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

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

from your account

to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;

or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Endnotes

 a. This letter is at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_presentation_to_professors&students.pdf. It and its link can be shared widely; distributed at the student organizations fair at the start of the academic year, and posted to social media. The letter is sup-ported by my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking; they under-gird the production of a three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries titled thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

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

Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-1492+

b. The study collects and discusses abundant evidence(OL:194§E) showing that judges ensure each other’s unaccountability, which is also protected connivingly by the politicians who put them in office, and for whom they are ‘our men and women on the bench’. Hence, judges engage in abuse of power risklessly for their gain and convenience individually and as a coordinated class.

c. Some of my articles have been posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. That site has attracted countless webvisitors and turned into subscribers 44,711 of them as of 5 September ‘22. They are potential class members.

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

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

4 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_from_abortion_decision_to_new_constitution.pdf

5 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero-NYPDCommKSewell.pdf

6 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ALJ/22-8-17DrRCordero_motion_recuse_ALJLFleming.pdf

7 http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_emails_mail_intercepted_by_judges.pdf

The most recent and indisputable evidence of unaccountable judges’ abuse of power is found in the series of articles that The Wall Street Journal began to publish on September 28, 2021, under the initial title “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”.

a. At last count, 58 of those judges had instructed their clerks of court to notify the parties to those cases that those judges should have recused themselves then, have done so now, and new judges will be assigned to their cases. However, to date, not a single of those judges has been investigated, subjected to disciplinary measures, let alone referred for impeachment, or forced to disgorge the gains that they made by resolving in their favor their conflict of interests.


Proposal to law and journalism deans, professors, and students for exposing judges’ abuse of power through a series of steps leading up to transformative change in their schools’ role in society

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

NOTES: a. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:

1) go to <left panel ↓Register; or

2) click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or

3) fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.

b. The text below had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the text -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable through the link below.

Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen Harvard Law School jsg@law.harvard.edu Professor Susan Rose-Ackerman
Yale Law School
ackerman@yale.edu

Dear Professor Gersen, Professor Rose-Ackerman, peers, and students,
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProfSRoseAckerman_ProfJSGersen.pdf 

  1. I read with interest, Prof. Rose-Ackerman, your paper “Judicial Independence and Corruption”.
  2. Thanks to your arguing, Prof. Gersen, of Strickland v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held on April 26 that the Federal Judiciary and its officers, including judges, can on constitutional grounds be sued and held liable in their official and individual capacities.

  3. This is a proposal to follow a series of strategic steps to expose judicial independence as unaccountability that allows judges’ riskless corruption and abuse of power for their gain and convenience. Those steps should lead to a class action to compensate their victims. Yale and Harvard law students can take the lead in that exposure as they did in the opposition to the nomination of J. Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The action can be a teaching event, as shown infra.

  4. The first step is for you and your students to invite me to present the proposal by video conference or in person to you, them, and your peers. You can preview it my article at and on my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. That site has attracted countless webvisitors and turned into subscribers 44,711 of them as of September 4, 2022..

  5. They have been induced to subscribe by my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. You all can assess the validity of that statement by reviewing the foundation of my articles posted there, namely, my three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting
*

  1. That study collects and discusses abundant evidence(OL:194§E) showing that judges individually and as a class through coordination engage in corruption and abuse of power.

a. The most recent and indisputable evidence thereof is found in the series of articles that The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) began to publish on September 28, 2021, under the initial title “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”. At last count, 58 of those judges had instructed their clerks of court to notify the parties to those cases that those judges should have recused themselves then, have done so now, and new judges will be assigned to their cases.

  1. The Federal Judiciary has not taken any disciplinary action against any of those judges. Judges protect each other through their explicit or implicit reciprocal cover-up agreement: ‘Today you protect me and tomorrow I’ll protect you, for if you let them take me down, I’ll bring you with me!
  2. This explains why no action is going to be taken by AG Merrick Garland given that he was a member, and for 7 years the chief judge, of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

a. Any investigation of judges authorized by him even if he subsequently recused himself would incriminate him as their accessory: He kept quite after learning of their act of corruption and abuse, whereby his expected silence enabled them before their next act; let alone if he were a principal. So, it falls on law professors and students, and lawyers to muster the courage and take the initiative to expose judges’ misconduct and the cover-up agreement that perpetuates it.

9. The second step envisages your and your students’ sharing this proposal with the officers of the student class and associations that will vie for new members during the fair of associations to be held at the beginning of next academic year. Thus, time is of the essence. It is also so because the public is getting ready to vote in the midterm elections. It can hold accountable the politicians who nominated and confirmed judicial candidates and since then protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’, their harm to others notwithstanding. Hence the importance of turning into a key electoral issue judges’ corruption and abuse of power and politicians’ condonation of them.

  1. The third step aims to do that by professors and students holding press conferences where they ask the media to join them in demanding that President Biden release the secret reports that the FBI has submitted to presidents after vetting judicial candidates by exercising, when needed, its subpoena power. That demand will be justified by the need to answer this question: What did the President and his predecessors know about their corruption and abuse and when did they know it? Will they claim that the reports were ‘accidentally erased during a system upgrade’, as the Secret Service and Homeland Security have concerning emails related to the January 6 Capitol assault?
  • The fourth step is the class action on behalf of judges’ victims. It will be supported by a public informed and outraged by journalists pursuing a scoop. It finds a strong precedent in the suit brought by 90 gymnasts against the FBI and agents for over $1 billion last June 8, for its failure to act on the complaints against sexual predator Dr. Larry Nassar brought to FBI agents and the FBI’s cover-up of their dereliction of duty. In the same vein of suing even top government officers, seven Capitol Police officers have sued former President Trump and the organizers of the rally at the Ellipse where he held the inflaming speech that preceded the January 6 assault on the Capitol.

  • The above are manifestations of the strongest support for the class action, to wit, the national mood of intolerance of any form of abuse.

  • a. Indeed, the public has grown increasingly determined to hold public figures and officers accountable and liable to compensate their victims since the eruption of the MeToo! and BLM movements; the protests against police brutality, socio-economic inequalities, and the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade; the public hearings of the House January 6 Committee and the lip service assurance by AG Garland that “nobody is above the law” so that the Department of Justice will prosecute all Capitol assault organizers and participants.

    1. The class action will generate a flood of motions to vacate, remand, and for new trials; for the reimbursement by recused judges of the cost of judicial process that they rendered useless and of disentangling contracts based on their now void or voidable decisions; and for actions against state judges and judiciaries. They will create a much-needed niche practice for you and your students.
  • Judges’ and their judiciaries’ conduct forms a pattern of racketeering that warrants bringing a count against them under federal and/or state civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961). They provide that the injured party “shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and at the attorney’s fee” (§1964(c)).

  • The fifth step is for professors and students to develop their niche practice through public interest clinics centered on consulting and bringing those motions and actions on behalf of judges’ victims. Those clinics can return a profit for law schools at a time of dwindling enrollment and revenue.

  • Instead of teaching lofty principles of law only in theory applied by judges, law schools can give practical effect in their own and the public interest to their knowledge that judges have institutionalized their corruption and abuse of power as their modus operandi. Judges do so risklessly for their gain and convenience because they are held by themselves and politicians unaccountable.

  • You, your peers, and students can take the proposed steps to lead the transformative change of law schools into a pole of power that uses its independence and knowledge of legal grounds to hold judges and their judiciaries accountable and liable. Let your actions speak with facts a tenet of our justice system: Nobody is Above the Law. Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

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

    1. Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.

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

    1. Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking at:

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

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

    from your account

    to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;

    or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    Sincerely,

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

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


    The SCt. abortion draft opinion has set the mood for national outrage to explode by the media exposing justices and judges running the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise

     

    Proposal to Reuters, WSJ, WP, and all other media outlets
    for a joint venture at the most propitious time:
    when the Supreme Court’s leaked abortion draft opinion
    has set the mood for national outrage to explode as a result of
    the exposure of justices’ and judges’ participation in
    abuse of power and financial criminality
    so coordinated and widespread as to amount to
    their running the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise:
    “Scandal sells” and can win Pulitzer Prizes by leading to
    the serial resignation of justices, judges, and courts;
    the loss of public trust in the Federal Judiciary that brings it down;
    the calling of the constitutional convention already petitioned by 34 states;
    and a new constitution by today’s We the People
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_from_abortion_decision_to_new_constitution.pdf

    By

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

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

    NOTES: i. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:

    a. go to <left panel ↓Register:    or
    b. click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or
    c. fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php .

    ii. This article had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of this article -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is found here and downloadable through the next link

    A. The foundation for exposing judges’ and justices’ abuse of power and financial criminality

    1. The leaked draft opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito revealing that a majority of the Court favors overturning Roe v. Wade has caused national jubilation but even more outrage.
      .
    2. That outrage would pale by comparison to that which can be provoked and overcome much jubilation by a series of responsible and principled articles, such as those already written and available for review(Appendix 6§A) or that can be written on commission(Appendix 6§B), exposing how the justices, who are unaccountable and not even held to any ethics code, run and condone the running of the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise.
      .
    3. There is solid basis for raising these charges against justices and judges. To begin with, there is the series of articles that The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) began to publish on September 28, 2021, under the initial title “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”.
      .
      …….a. Another article in the series was published on November 2, 2021, titled “Hidden Interests – Federal Judge Files Recusal Notices in 138 Cases After WSJ Queries. [U.S. Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Texas] Rodney Gilstrap initially argued he didn’t violate financial-conflicts law”; James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Michael.Siconolfi@wsj.com.
      .
      …….b. The judges who failed to recuse themselves in order to grab money necessarily engaged, lest they incriminate themselves, in inside trading, fraud, concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering. Those are crimes. They are complex and require coordination. When judges committed them as principals or condoned them as accessories, they became the judicial class that turned the Federal Judiciary into a ‘racketeer influenced and corrupt organization’(Cf. Title 18 of the U.S. Code of federal law, section 1961 (18 U.S.C. §1961)).
      .
      …….c. When a chief judge engages in such systematic abuse of power and financial criminality, how strongly do his fellow judges feel justified and encouraged by his example in committing any and all sorts of abuse and crimes so that abuse and criminality become their judiciary’s institutionalized way of doing business?
      .
      …….d. Today journalists must ask the famous question that Sen. Howard Baker, the ranking minority member of the Senate Watergate Committee, asked of every witness at the Watergate hearings to find out what President Nixon knew about the Watergate affair(paragraph 14 infra), adapting it so:

    1) What did Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., know about the abuse and criminality of his fellow judges, whom he is supposed to supervise, and when did he know it?

    2) What did Justice Samuel A. Alito, the circuit justice assigned under 28 U.S.C. §42, to, and with supervisory duties over, the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, know about it, and when did he know it?

    3) What did Justice Clarence Thomas know about his wife’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results; and when did he know it? Let him “deal with it” and with his failure to report in his annual financial disclosure reports her earnings(jur:72§b).

    4) What did Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor know about the DeLano case, over which she presided and which so clearly “beyond a reasonable doubt” incriminated her in a cover-up of a bankruptcy fraud scheme that it was suppressed from the documents on her submitted to the Senate Committee on Judicial Nominations dealing with her confirmation to the Supreme Court; and when did she know it(jur:65§§1-3).

    5) What did President Joe Biden know through the FBI secret vetting reports about the participation in judges’ abuse and criminality, or their cover-up, by former Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, now his Attorney General, and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sits in that Circuit; and when did he know it?

    1. Thomson Reuters, on the strength of its 2,500+ journalists and 600+ photojournalists, can scoop the story of the justices’ abuse and criminality. It already dare publish on June 30, 2020, the first of its three-part report “The Teflon Robe” on its massive investigation of state judges led by John.Shiffman@thomsonreuters.com and Michael.Berens@thomsonreuters.com. It found that “hardwired judicial corruption” intertwines state judges and the state commissions on judicial performance that are duty-bound to supervise and discipline them.
      .
      a.  
      a. Reuters asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges…and it was “inundated” with them. This goes to showing that people who have suffered or witnessed judges’ abuse want to tell their story to the largest public possible.
      .
    2. The mood for exposing the justices’ unaccountability and their consequent riskless abuse of power and financial criminality is manifest in Congress. This is shown by The Hill, in its article “House panel to explore impeachment [of Justice Clarence Thomas], judicial ethics in wake of Ginni Thomas texts” by Emily Brooks, published on April 2, 2022. It reported that:
      .
             a. “Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), the chairman of the House Judiciary courts subcommittee, …last year introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act to implement a judicial code of conduct that applies to the Supreme Court. Jones co-led the Twenty-First Century Courts Act, which would similarly implement a code of conduct for the justices.
      .
      b.b.
      b. “He said, “Recent reports that the text messages of a justice’s spouse urging the overturning of a free and fair election may have been at issue in a case in front [sic] the Supreme Court — but that the justice did not recuse himself from the case — is just the latest and particularly egregious example in an unfortunately long list of illustrations as to why Supreme Court justices need to follow a formal code of ethics,” Johnson told The Hill. “I have been calling for this sort of reform for years, and I am encouraged to see a large, bipartisan majority of the public in favor of this long overdue legislation…Johnson called for Thomas’s resignation.”
      .
      6. Strickland v. U.S., no. 21-1346, is a civil case where a decision was handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on April 26, 2022. It is unprecedented, for it holds that the Federal Judiciary and its officials are suable on grounds of the 5th and 14th Amendments due process and equal protection of the law clauses, as well as specific acts of Congress. Hence, it reversed the outright dismissal by the trial court, which had invoked judicial immunity –a doctrine self-servingly conjured up by judges themselves in defiance of the Constitution– and remanded for further proceedings.
      .
      …….a. Strickland opens the door for all abusees joining forces to collectively demand compensation from the Federal Judiciary and the justices themselves. Imagine the amount of business generated if Thomson Reuters, I, and other media outlets showed the abusees how to demand such compensation.

    B. What I bring to the joint venture

    1. I established Judicial Discipline Reform. Its website is at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. There I post articles with law research findings and legal strategy to which the national public has access. Those articles have attracted so many webvisitors and appealed to them so positively that as of June 8, 2022, the number of them who had become subscribers was 44,206+.(Appendix 3)
      .
      …….a. Do you know of any law firm, let alone a lawyer, that has so many subscribers to their website?
      .
    2. The subscribers to my site have found my articles appealing although the articles are intellectually demanding and written in long form. It is reasonable to assume that the subscribers are mostly the type of highly educated and well-off readers of such top publications as The New York Times and its Sunday Edition, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, TIME Magazine, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, etc.
      .
    3. These subscribers can afford the books and services of Thomson Reuters and other publishers, just as their lawyers can.
      .
      10. The general public too, including pro ses, is attracted to the website and can patronize its sponsor’s advertisement there thanks to the concrete, reasonable, and feasible ways in which I have proposed that people take action in their own interest; e.g.:
      .
      …….a. the two-phase method for writing their own story;
      .
      …….b. how to use legal sources of information for brief writing(see a list of them at Appendix 6§C);
      .
      …….c. the folly of pro ses improvising themselves as lawyers;
      .
      …….d. how to seek free legal assistance.

      11. Judicial Discipline Reform, its articles, and site rely on a three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, the product of professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. It holds the materials corresponding to the (blue references) herein; and is titled and downloadable thus* :

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

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

    Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-1484+

    112. Moreover, I bring to the joint venture a plan of also concrete, realistic, and feasible actions that media outlets and I can undertake right away and that is reasonably calculated to be financially and reputationally beneficial for all venturers. It includes an investigative plan with an abundance of leads(OL:194§E).

    C From judicial resignations, an institutional crisis, a constitutional convention, to a new constitution by today’s We the People

    113. Reuters, WSJ, The Washington Post (WP), and all other media outlets can do so much better than merely sit back and watch as spectators how other publishers and Congress scoop the exposure of judges’ and justices’ commission or condonation of abuse of power and financial criminality, just as Politico scooped the abortion draft opinion. They have the means of taking the reins of the investigative bandwagon and set out towards Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.
    .
    114. The Washington Post published with courage and persistence a series of articles that set in motion a generalized media investigation of the crimes that President Nixon and ‘All his Men’ committed by organizing and covering up the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972, to commit political espionage. WP was instrumental in forcing Nixon to resign and causing ‘All his Men’ to go to jail. For that, WP became the symbol of excellence in journalism in the public interest, in general, and investigative journalism, in particular.

    115. Today, Reuters, WSJ, WP, and all other media outlets can do much more than just bring down a group of men who went rogue. Rather, they can expose how a whole branch of government, the Federal Judiciary, has gone rogue to become a racketeering enterprise.

    116. They can inform the national public about, and so outrage it at, judges’ and justices’ abuse and criminality as to stir up the public, having lost its trust in their integrity and honesty, to demand the resignation of judges, justices, and even a whole court, such as the Supreme Court.

    117. This inform and outrage strategy is realistic, for the public is strongest during primaries and in view of elections. Then it wields its enormous power to donate money, volunteer as campaign workers, spread positive word of mouth, and vote.

    a. Ironically, this strategy is unintentionally validated by Justice Thomas, who recognized the dire impact on the Supreme Court of the loss of trust in it when he said in connection with the leaked abortion draft opinion: “”When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder…What happened at the court was tremendously bad,…I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder when they’re gone or destabilized, what we’re going to have as a country.” Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court leak has eroded trust in institution; Robert Barnes; The Washington Post; May 14, 2022.

    b. The likely answer to his rhetorical question is ‘we are going to have a summer of rage’. That is precisely the mood that can fuel the series of events leading to those discussed hereunder.

    118. There is also precedent for the inform and outrage strategy in the forced resignations of(OL3:1423§c):

    …….a. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969;

    …….b. Former Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on December 18, 2017;

    …….c. Circuit Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of President Donald Trump, who resigned from the 3rd Circuit on February 11, 2019;

    …….d. Circuit Judge Robert Bork of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had his resignation preempted by the Senate’s rejection on October 23, 1987, of his nomination to the Supreme Court. He was doomed by the public outrage that he had provoked more than a decade earlier when he carried out President’s Nixon’s order to fire Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre on October 20, 1973.

    119. Public outrage is a powerful force very difficult to resist. The outrage unleashed by the exposure of justices’ and judges’ abuse and criminality can set off an institutional crisis: Which of the other two branches would dare hold judges accountable, who could retaliate by holding their laws and even their electoral programs unconstitutional or interpret them so expansively or restrictively as to render them ineffective?(jur:23fn17a)

    220. That crisis can force the occurrence of what 34 states have petitioned Congress to do since April 2, 2014, but its members will not do voluntarily, lest they lose their privileges and power: call a constitutional convention in accordance with the amending provisions of Article V of the Constitution.

    221. A constitutional convention ran away with its mandate and instead of reforming the Articles of Confederation that the Second Continental Congress had approved on November 1, 1777, cast them aside. The convention, likewise made up only of white landed Christian free men, drafted the current Constitution, which was ratified by the 13 states in 1789.

    122. Public outrage has been building up since the eruption of the MeToo! and BLM movements, the protests against social and economic inequality, the resentment against the Covid mandates and discrimination of Asian and Pacific Islanders communities, the fast-intensifying animosity among supporters and opponents of the leaked abortion draft opinion.

    .23. That outrage can reach its paroxysm and clear the way to the irrepressible will of the living today to break free from the now dead hands of those who wrote the Constitution 233 years ago. Never conceived to deal with a world that their heads could not even imagine, that Constitution is twisted to read one way at one time and the opposite way at another time by nine unelected justices…who even unaccountably and risklessly participate in, or cover up, their and their colleagues’ abuse of power and criminality.

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

    224. Their outrage casting aside the current Constitution even before they become assembled in a constitutional convention, today’s men, women, and LBGTQs, rich and poor, those of faith and no faith, of any color, whether in cities, suburbs, rural areas, and Indian land, workers at desks or with tools in their hands, from young adults to senior citizens, all of them can choose for themselves as the sovereign source of all public power the fundamental rules by which they want to live. They can author the Code of Governance of Today’s We the People.

    D. First steps toward the key objectives of the business venture

    225. The media outlets that are instrumental in launching this chain of events can become for generations the symbol of excellence in journalism and its power to bring about transformative change in the public interest. Such recognition can begin with winning Pulitzer Prizes and making money, for “Scandal sells”.

    226. You all and I can in our own financial and reputational interest take the lead by Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. Our audience will be, in general, the national public in voting mood, and, in particular, the scores of millions of people who have suffered or witnessed judges’ abuse of power and financial criminality.

    227. The first steps of the joint venture consist in both the serial publication by you of the following articles that I have written and can edit upon your review of them(Appendix 6§A); and others that I can write on commission, whether along the lines of my sample of subjects(Appendix 6§B) or a subject proposed by you; and the further investigation to follow the leads that they contain; e.g.:

    …….a. judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics; and its investigation by forensic Information Technology experts;

    …….b. the mathematical demonstration that the overwhelming majority of briefs are not read by judges, but rather are disposed of to lighten their workload by their having clerks rubberstamp reasonless, unresearched, fiat-like 5¢ dumping forms; and its further statistical strengthening by auditing judges’ decisions, most of which they post to their courts’ websites, whose addresses can be found through the federal court finder;

    …….c. the development of advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary research software to analyze all sorts and vast amounts of writings to detect the most persuasive kind of evidence: patterns and schemes of abuse;

    …….d. the Follow the Money! and Follow the Wire! investigations that apply forensic research techniques, e.g., Fraud and Forensic Accounting(jur:102§a; OL:194§E) to discover assets that judges have grabbed, concealed, evaded taxes on, and money laundered(OL:1); and determine their illegal use to do so of government property, such as the Federal Judiciary’s vast, national digital network and expertise; cf. CM/ECF (Case Management/Electronic Case Filing) and PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records);

    …….e. judges’ abuse of the congressional grant to them of self-discipline authority under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(28 U.S.C. §§351-364) by dismissing 100% of complaints filed against any federal judge and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals, thus institutionalizing judges’ implicit or explicit complicit agreement for reciprocal exoneration from all complaints: ‘Today I exempt you from the complaint against you, and tomorrow you exempt me and my friends from any complaint against us, no matter the nature, extent, and gravity of the abuse complained-about’;

    …….f. the investigation of Supreme Court justices and congressional leaders, which can benefit from the abundance of leads that I have collected(OL:194§E; jur:65§B).

    228. The business venture can also enhance my site technologically into a clearinghouse and a research center. This will allow people to post their stories of abuse by judges that they have suffered or witness as well as their complaints against judges already or to be filed; and to research them for patterns and schemes of abuse of power and financial criminality that but for coordination among judges and between them and their cronies would not have been organized and become operational.

    229. The venture can enable people to tell their stories to the national public at unprecedented citizens hearings. The latter will be organized by Reuters, WSJ, WP, other media outlets, their journalists, and professors and students. They will be held at university auditoriums, media stations, and via video conference to make it inexpensive for the largest number of people to tell their stories and virtually attend the citizens hearings.

    …….a. Those hearings will be a source of invaluable leads for researchers to further their investigation of justices’ and judges’ abuse and criminality. The hearings can be expected to become a self-reinforcing research mechanism that makes any investment in mounting the learning curve pay off and become long-term financially and reputationally profitable.

    E. My offer to make a presentation on this proposal for a joint venture

    330. I offer to present this proposal for a joint venture via video conference and, if in NY City, in person. Preview its key features by reviewing my webinar and its slides.

    331. To schedule the presentation use my contact information below.

    332. To invite people to attend the presentation and send you their complaints and stories of judges’ abuse that they have suffered or witnessed  you can as widely as possible share this article with all your friends, relatives, workmates, etc., and post it to social media, such as:

    Facebook,   YouTube,   LinkedIn,   Instagram,   Google Plus,   Pinterest,   Reddit,   Snapchat,   WhatsApp

     Tweet: Tell journalists your story of justices’ & judges’ abuse, which can lead to citizens hearings, their resignations, the Federal Judiciary’s fall & Today’s We the People constitution http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_from_abortion_decision_to_new_constitution.pdf

    333. To encourage the investigation of justices and judges by top journalists(OL3:1452§1) and the law professors who were members of the Biden Commission on the Reform of the Supreme Court, place each of the following blocs of email addresses in the To: and the cc: box, respectively, of this email so that they too receive this article. Then  every day go to your “Sent” folder, where a copy of the emails that you sent is found, open it, click “Reply All” and “Send“.

    To: [journalists]

    James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, kate.davidson@wsj.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com ,blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, contact@go.reuters.com, newstip@globe.com, patricia.wen@globe.com, brian.mcgrory@globe.com, spotlight@globe.com, dbiscobing@abc15.com, adam@abcactionnews.com, iteam@abcactionnews.com, assignmentdesk@abc15.com, iteam@abc.com, cmartel@thehill.com, erik.ortiz@nbcuni.com, Anna.Brand@nbcuni.com, Tim.Perone@nbcuni.com, Jessica.Simeone@nbcuni.com, Jaquetta.White@nbcuni.com, adenney@alm.com, pam.spector@law360.com,  insiders@icij.org, tips@publicintegrity.org, gryle@icij.org, ginger.thompson@propublica.org, andrea@americanthinker.com, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@thomsonreuters.com, drew@americanthinker.com, contact@icij.org, fshiel@icij.org, investigations@icij.org, charles.ornstein@propublica.org, newsletters@abovethelaw.com, email@washingtonpost.com, Lisabennett418@gmail.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.com, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, tips@propublica.org, info@AP.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, info@mail.huffpost.com, aturturro@alm.com, support@washposthelp.zendesk.com, Opencourt@cnn.com, aj.cameron1@gmail.com, wpmagazine@washpost.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, colorofmoney@washpost.com,

    cc: [professors]

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

    334. This is an opportunity for you and the rest of the media, so unjustly denigrated as “the enemy of the people”, to redeem yourselves by informing the people and channeling their outrage so as to enable them to assert their status as the Masters of all public servants, including justices and judges, entitled to exercise their authority as such to hold them accountable for their abuse of the public power entrusted to them and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

    335. By so doing, we can become financially and reputationally rewarded not only with Pulitzer Prizes, but also by being nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

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

    336. Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.

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

    337. Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking at:

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

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

    from your account

    to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;

    or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    Sincerely,

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

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


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

    Journalists interested in a scoop and a Pulitzer Prize,
    primarying politicians, and
    those outraged by The Wall Street Journal
    finding in only a sample of cases that
    “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by
    Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”,
    yet they have been
    neither investigated by either their Federal Judiciary or
    former chief judge now Attorney General Merrick Garland,
    nor required to disgorge the gains that they grabbed,
    can use the official statistics of his and J. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s
    District of Columbia Circuit to show their participation in a cover-up
    concerning their peers’ law-breaking and other forms of abuse of power, and
    effected by dismissing 100% of complaints against their peers and
    denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals,
    thus revealing their lack of courage to expose their peers’ abuse and interest
    in not being shunned as traitors but rather
    in being accepted by their “brothers and sisters of the robe”
    at the expense of the complainants and
    the integrity of the system of justice, left to fester with
    the underlying and untreated cause for complaint:
    judges emboldened by reciprocally ensuring
    the risklessness of their abuse
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-journalists_politicians_scooping_judges_racketeering.pdf

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
    NOTE: This article was formatted consistently. However, after posting it, changes in paragraph indentation, spacing, character color, etc., creep in. They are unintended. Kindly overlook them.
    To subscribe:
    a. go to <left panel ↓Register;   or
    b. click   + New   or   Users   >Add New; or
    c. fill out the New User form here https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php .
    Dear Journalists, Politicians, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
    1. Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2022. However, she will not take her seat on the Supreme Court until the end of this term in the summer. This affords a unique opportunity to journalists, including the media outlets for which they work, who want to make a scoop that can lead to their winning a Pulitzer Prize; principled and opportunistic primarying politicians; and people who are interested in the integrity of the judiciary:
    a. They can examine the integrity and character of both J. Brown Jackson and former chief judge now Attorney General Merrick Garland in light of the official reports and statistics of their District of Columbia Circuit. There she sat as a trial judge from 2013 to 2021, and has sat as an appellate judge of the Court of Appeals for that Circuit(CADCC) since June 2021; and he served as that Court’s chief judge from 2013 to 2020.
    b. It follows that the comments made here referring to J. Brown apply even more forcefully to Now-AG and Then-Judge and even Chief Judge Garland, as they do to Justice Clarence Thomas. Hence, such application is not made explicit in every instance.

    A. The official statistics on complaints against judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    11. The above provides reasonable grounds, and even probable cause, to believe that during her long career in the Federal Judiciary -even longer for Then-Judge and Chief Judge Garland-, including nine years on the bench of federal district and circuit courts, Judge Brown acquired actual knowledge of the abuse of power of judges and their complicit agreement on reciprocal exoneration from complaints against them. She satisfies the standard that makes jurors suitable peers of a defendant: ‘a person with common sense reasonably becomes aware and informs herself of the circumstances affecting her and the people close to her emotionally, physically, or socially and forms an opinion of what is right or wrong”.
    12. Judge Brown has breached the reporting duty under 18 U.S.C. §3057 -Title 18 contains the federal Criminal Code- on any judge “having reasonable grounds for believing [which is a standard lower than “probable cause to believe” and much lower than “evidence admissible in court ”] that any violation under chapter 9 [on bankruptcy, the classification of over 70% of all cases filed in the Federal Judiciary] of this title [18] or other laws of the United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or reorganization plans has been committed, or that an investigation should be had in connection therewith [which lowers the standard below, and precedes, “having reasonable grounds for believing”].
    a. “Probable cause to believe” that a person has committed the offense with which he has been charged is a standard of proof. It need not be satisfied to warrant investigating a person. Before any investigation, it may be satisfied by the facts known up to then, e.g., those surrounding the person’s detention. That explains why it can be applied before conducting discovery. In criminal cases, district attorneys may invoke it to justify the indictment that they present to the arraignment judge. The latter may reject the not guilty plea of the defendant and rely on probable cause to commit him to jail with or without bail. If the defendant cannot post the bail set, he is committed to jail until he can or the case is finally disposed of.
    b. Neither willful blindness nor willful ignorance(jur:88§§a-c) prevents knowledge of such breach from being imputed to judges or their clerks.
    13. Likewise, Judge Brown has breached her ethical reporting duties under the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 3(B)(6)).
    a. Judges have legal and ethical duties to report other judges’ breach of their duties and “improprieties and even the appearance of improprieties”(id., Canon 2).
    14. Judges must not perform such reporting pro forma, but rather must pursue it in good faith by exercising due diligence until the reporting achieves its intended purpose of safeguarding their own integrity and that of judicial process, lest the judges end up inured to the commission or cover-up of the breach, condoning it, and becoming chargeable with misprision of felony(18 U.S.C. §4).
    15. It follows that by Judge Brown not reporting judges’ abusive self-exoneration from complaints, she has covered it up. Thereby she has contributed to judges’ committing with impunity the abuse underlying the complaints. In fact, she has aggravated their abuse, for people who commit one type of abuse without suffering any adverse consequences are, far from deterred, encouraged by risklessness and the lure of more gains and convenience to grab them by committing ever more types.
    a. For both her, as accessory after the last abuse that she knew about but covered up and as accessory before the next abuse that the principals committed in reliance on that cover-up precedent of hers, applying the law, never mind doing so fairly and impartially, has become only an afterthought…’so long as it does not keep me from grabbing ever more or making me run the risk of being treated as a traitor to “my brothers and sisters in the robe”.
    b. That is how Judge Rodney Gilstrap broke the law by deciding 138 cases in which he had a financial interest and the judges that heard him brag about it covered him by failing to report him(supra, paragraph 10).
    D. The opportunity for journalists and the politicians
    1. Conducting journalistic and and calling for congressional investigations
    16. Journalists in their investigation and the senators in their written questions before the hearing and their oral ones at the hearing can ask that historic question asked of every witness by Senator Howard Baker, a cochairman of the Senate committee holding hearings on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate building in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972, by Republican operatives engaged in political espionage in favor of the campaign for the reelection of President Nixon: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
    a. The answers to that question led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the incarceration of all his aides.
    17. Journalists and politicians can reformulate that question to determine whether J. Brown and A.G. Garland have shown willful ignorance and blindness, bias toward her peers, and culpable l indif­ ference(jur:88§§a­c) toward parties and the rest of the public in disregard of their oath of office(28 U.S.C. §453) that disqualify them from remaining on the bench or at the Justice Department:
    a. What did J. Brown and Then-Judge Garland know and when did they know about judges’:
    1) implicit or explicit agreement for reciprocal exoneration from complaints against judges, including Then-Judge, Now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh;
    2) breaking the law by failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they had a financial interest;
    3) bragging in court and out of court, e.g., at the suite of the organizer of a judicial seminar, a country club, restaurants, about the gains and convenience that they had grabbed by breaking the law that way and any other way;
    4) concealing assets, evading taxes, money laundering, and filing misleading and false mandatory annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978(Appendix to 5 U.S.C.) with the all-judge Financial Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference(28 U.S.C. §331) in reliance on the Committee examining them only pro forma with the approval of their appointer, none other than the Chief Justice.
    18. Many other questions are suggested throughout my three-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries, the product of my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. The study is titled and downloadable thus
    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *
    i. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.
    a) Some of my law articles included in that study are also posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
    b) My articles analyze current events and propose concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that webvisitors can take in their own interest.
    c) Those articles have attracted so many visitors and elicited in them such a positive reaction that the number of those who had become subscribers as of April 23, 2022, was 43,835+(Appendix 3).
    d) How many law firms, let alone lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
    e) You too can subscribe: go to the website <left panel ↓Register;    or    + New  or  Users  >Add New;  or fill out the New User form at https://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php .
    19. Those questions can be supplemented by one that can have far reaching implications by exposing the politicians-judges’ appointer-appointee connivance as well as for the first time breaking open a window into the complicity of the clerks of the U.S.’s most secretive entity: the Federal Judiciary.
    a. What did President Biden know through the secret FBI report vetting Judge Brown and Then-Judge Garland for embarrassing or disqualifying actions and when did he know it?
    b. Cf. Justice Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, was exposed by  CBS Newson March 25, 2022, as working with Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, with whom she exchanged 29 emails, and members of Congress to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and make Trump the president. Justice Thomas was the only justice who voted to allow Trump to keep secret documents sought from him in the official investigation of the House Committee on the January 6 insurrection. One can think of the situation where Justice Thomas screams at his peers what all judges have etched on their forefronts: ‘If you let them take me [or my wife] down, I’ll bring you with me!‘  If so, the domino effect of his retaliatory revelations can cause one or more judges and justices to topple others until the Judiciary crumbles from the inside.
    c.i. Cf. The Judiciary’s highest policy-making body, i.e., the Judicial Conference of the U.S., whose presiding officer is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,  adopted rules at its March 2022 meeting for:
    1) the automatic release of judges’ annual mandatory financial disclosure reports and the screening of conflicts;
    2) the certification by judges twice a year of a statement that they do not have conflict of interests, whether financial or otherwise; and
    3) the expansion of the lifestreaming audio of proceedings.
    c.ii. The wealth of information that may be available for comparison with what judges have reported for the past seven years can prove devastating to the Judiciary, the most secretive branch, the one that holds all its adjudicative, policymaking, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;
    or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.
    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
        tel. +1(718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com
    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and >OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
       *******************************

    Webinar and Workshop on judges’ abuse of power; and for writing your story and promote unprecedented citizens hearings

    WEBINAR
    at the most propitious time for
    exposing judges’ abuse of power, financial criminality, and cover-up
    :
    precisely when
    the confirmation of a justice nominee and
    top media outlets’ reports on judges’ wrongdoing
    have drawn public attention to everything judicial and
    primarying politicians
    need to appear responsive to public outrage;

    and
    WORKSHOP
    for learning to write in up to 500 words your story
    of judges’ wrongdoing that you have suffered or witnessed,
    and promoting the holding by
    journalists, professors, and students of
    unprecedented citizens hearings
    where people can tell their stories to the national public and
    so inform and outrage the public as to stir it up to take action,
    such as collectively demanding compensation
    from judges and their judiciaries
    by applying judges’ own decisions that have held
    churches, universities, and sports organizations
    liable for their handling of
    sexually abusive priests, pastors, and officers.

    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

    As of March 10, 2022, the number of subscribers to this website, Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, was 43,454 and counting. (See Appendix 3.)

    You are invited to subscribe. Simply go <left panel ↓Register   or   + New   or   Users   >Add New.

    The scores of articles posted here are the product of professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking.

    They analyze current events and propose concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that webvisitors can take in their own interest in:

        1. exposing judicial abuse of power and financial criminality;
        2. collectively demanding compensation; and
        3. setting in motion reform of the justice system ‒as opposed to only the Supreme Court, the narrow target of the Biden Commission‒ through transformative change, i.e., what goes into the process of change comes out transformed into a different entity.

    Hence, the articles, far from being entries for a law debating society, have a pragmatic purpose for journalists and their audience, lawyers and their clients, and pro ses. You will benefit from reading them.

    The articles are supported by the three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

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

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

    Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-1455+


    SLIDES

    for

    The Webinar
    on exposing judges’ unaccountability and
    consequent riskless abuse of power and financial criminality

    and

    The Workshop
    on writing in up to 500 words your story of abuse by judges
    and prepare to tell it to the national public at
    unprecedented citizens hearings;
    see hereunder a detailed description of
    the two-phase method for writing your story
    presented by
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    of
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    A. The Webinar

      1. Abuse of power by judges on their turf: their courts

    a. Government officials, who appoint judges, will not expose their appointees

    b. Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland will not expose other judges

    c. expository reports in The Wall Street Journal, Thomson Reuters, Boston Globe, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, ABC, NBC, The Center for Public Integrity, and The Washington Post.

      1. Out-of-court inform and outrage strategy for exposing judges’ abuse

    a. Using your stories to persuade journalists and students and professors

    1) they are numerous and have expertise, means, and sources

    2) can audit many stories and detect patterns of coordinated abuse

    3) can inform the national public of their findings and outrage it

    1. Outraging the national public before the primaries of the mid-term elections

    a. hold unprecedented citizens hearings at media stations & universities

    b. help organize local chapters for collectively demanding compensation

    1) apply decisions holding Catholic Church liable for pedophilic priests

    1. Outraged public turning judges’ abuse and criminality into key electoral issue

    a. principled and opportunistic politicians pay attention to voters’ concerns

    b. politicians can use subpoena and contempt power to investigate judges

    B. The story-writing Workshop

    5. Two-phase method for writing your story of abuse by judges

    a. in up to 500 words

    b. a story that is accurate, significant, and verifiable

    1. Phase 1: creative, allows the free flow of dots of information, such as:

    a. dots of What!? Who? Where? When? How? Why? What now?

    1) names of people and entities: titles and relationships

    2) events: eviction, belongings removed, auction announced & held

    3) property: location; and before and now ownership and value

    4) documents: titles, docket numbers, citations to laws and rules

    5) terms, concepts, phrases, causes of action, claims

    6) dates: deadlines, statute of limitations, payments, filing, trial

    b. start organizing the dots chronologically; ask “then what?”

    c. connect the dots by jotting words or phrases describing or explaining

    1. Phase 2: critical, requires checking dots, grammar, logical flow of story
    2. Send your story using the two blocs of email addresses of:

    a. the members of the Biden Commission on reforming the Supreme Court

    To: [box of your email containing your story] cristina.rodriguez@yale.edu, robert.bauer@nyu.edu, kandrias@law.columbia.edu, jack.balkin@yale.edu, baude@uchicago.edu, madams@yu.edu, charles@law.duke.edu, acrespo@law.harvard.edu, wdellinger@omm.com, ecb95@law.rutgers.edu, justin.driver@yale.edu, rfallon@law.harvard.edu, heather.k.gerken@yale.edu, ngertner@harvard.edu, jgoldsmith@law.harvard.edu, tgriffith@law.harvard.edu, tgrove@law.ua.edu, bhuang@law.columbia.edu, mkang@northwestern.edu, ojohns@law.columbia.edu, lacroix@uchicago.edu, lemos@law.duke.edu, levi@law.duke.edu,  staff@pcscotus.gov, trevor.morrison@nyu.edu, cnelson@law.virginia.edu, rick.pildes@nyu.edu, mramsey@SanDiego.edu, krooseve@law.upenn.edu,  bross@law.virginia.edu, d-strauss@uchicago.edu, tribe@law.harvard.edu, awhite36@gmu.edu, kewhitt@princeton.edu, michael.waldman@nyu.edu,  caroline.fredrickson@georgetown.edu,  development@naacpldf.org,  Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,

    b. journalists; students and professors of journalism, law, business, IT

    cc: [box of your email]  James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, contact@icij.org, fshiel@icij.org, investigations@icij.org, newstip@globe.com, insiders@icij.org, tips@thomsonreuters.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, contact@go.reuters.com, tips@publicintegrity.org, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, gryle@icij.org, ginger.thompson@propublica.org, andrea@americanthinker.com, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@thomsonreuters.com, drew@americanthinker.com, help@washpost.com, patricia.wen@globe.comrs.com, <brian.mcgrory@globe.com>, spotlight@globe.com, charles.ornstein@propublica.org, tracy.weber@propublica.org, Thehill@email.thehill.com, newsletters@abovethelaw.com, tips@propublica.org, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.com, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, info@AP.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, MCoyle@alm.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, inytletters@nytimes.com, info@mail.huffpost.com, aturturro@alm.com, support@washposthelp.zendesk.com, Opencourt@cnn.com, letters@nytimes.com, Matt.Rocheleau@globe.com, oped@nytimes.com, Jackie.Botts@thomsonreuters.com, wpmagazine@washpost.com, hello@propublica.org, Jaimi.Dowdell@thomsonreuters.com, letters@washpost.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, Vernal.Coleman@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, national@washpost.com, colorofmoney@washpost.com, email@washingtonpost.com, oped@washpost.com,

    c. ask that they hold unprecedented citizens hearings

    d. share and post Dr. Cordero’s email/article on these webinars and two-phase story writing method.

    C. Advancing a common cause

    1. Donating

    1. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
      none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money.
    2. Support the common cause of advocating honest judiciaries. That is what  Judicial Discipline Reform  has done by engaging in professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking.

    3. That is how it has produced the webinar and
      workshop, and their underlying 3-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-1397+.

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

    1. Donate by making a deposit or an online transfer using the Bill Pay feature of your online banking account or through Zelle to:

    Citi Bank, routing # 021 000 089, account # 4977 59 2001;
    TD Bank, routing # 260 13 673, account # 43 92 62 52 45

    2. Investing capital to advance the common cause

      1.  There are many activities that can advance the common cause of advocating honest judiciaries by holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse and financial criminality. They can be financed also by capital investment in Judicial Discipline Reform, as described in its business plan.
      2. Among those activities are the following, which can help to:a. continue the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking, which has produced a three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

     b. develop the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, whose articles(Appendix 6§A) have attracted countless webvisitors and elicited in them such a positive reaction that 43,448+ have become subscribers as of March 9, 2022(App.3). The website can be developed from an informational platform into:

    1) a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by anybody;

    2) a research center for fee-paying clients auditing judges’ decisions and searching many other writings from many sources that through computer-assisted statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis can reveal the most persuasive type of evidence: judges’ patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse of power, e.g.; their interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics; and

    3) the digital portal of the multidisciplinary academic and business venture leading up to the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy attached to a university or news network;

    c. organize and embark on a tour of webinars and workshops to you and your group of guests, organizations, and students and professors at law, journalism, business, Information Technology, and social sciences schools; media outlets; etc., via video conference or, if in NY City, in person. To assess my capacity to present view my video and follow it on its slides;

    d. hold together with academics, journalists, and media outlets the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings, where people will have a chance to tell the national public their stories of judges’ abuse of power and financial criminality;

    e. organize the first-ever, and national, multidisciplinary and multimedia conference on judges’ abuse in connivance with politicians, who fearing their power of retaliation allow them to be unaccountable, where the report on the citizens hearings will be presented;

    f. publish as a sequel to the hearings report an academics/journalists multidisciplinary Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power, which can become the citizens’ version of what judges have fiercely and successfully opposed: an independent inspector general of the judiciary;

    g. launch a generalized media investigation into judges and their judiciaries because Scandal sells & wins Pulitzer Prizes;

    h. promote the formation of a national, single issue, apolitical, non-denominational civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of abusees, and reform through transformative change(¶77); etc.(¶48).

      1. To explore capital investment opportunities, contact Dr. Cordero.

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
    tel. +1(718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

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

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and  >OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    THE WORKSHOP’S
    TWO-PHASE METHOD FOR WRITING YOUR STORY

    Using your story for demanding that
    the Biden Commission on Supreme Court reform
    hear your testimony at its “public meetings”; and
    asking universities and the media,
    such as the news agencies The Wall Street Journal, Thomson Reuters, The Boston Globe, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists,
    The Washington Post, TIME, The New Yorker, Propublica, and
    The New York Times,
    to let the national public hear your story by holding the proposed
    unprecedented citizens hearings
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_method_for_writing_your_story.pdf

    By

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Not a professionally written story, but written after doing your homework

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

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

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

    E. Advice on story writing tested and applied successfully

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

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

    Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-1397+ (This article is at OL3:1329.)

      1. This article is also posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. It and similar ones have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 43,448+ have become subscribers to it as of March 9, 2022(Appendix 3).
      2. How many law firms, never mind lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
      3. You can join the subscribers thus: go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or + New   or   Users   >Add New.

    F. The two-phase writing method

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

    1. In the end you want to produce a story that flows smoothly into your audience’s mind and that is accurate, significant, and verifiable. But at the beginning, there is the big bang of story creation: The story bursts out of your mind chaotically onto a computer page (or paper). Anything makes its way out. Nothing is subjected to critical thought controls. If it pops up, jot it down.
    2. Sit at your computer and write on a word processing page whatever word, term, or phrase identifies a person, event, place, document, thing, idea, concept, etc., apparently associated with your story. They are your story’s informational dots. Each opens a crack in your mind and lets other escape.

    3. You are not yet trying to write grammatically correct and complete sentences. You only want to get started telling your story. Blurt anything and everything onto the page.

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

    5. Widen and multiply the cracks in your mind by asking yourself about your story the journalists’ W-questions: What!? Who? Where? When? How? Why? What now?

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

    7. If informational dots or you ask questions that you cannot answer right away, only jot them down. Do not interrupt the fireworks of dots. Let it rip! Enjoy. Search for answers and evaluate their significance in phase two. Gradually questions will become more complex:

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

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

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

    1. When you have about ten informational dots, move them up and down in a rough chronological order of appearance in your story. As you do so, add to them any other words, terms, and phrases that enlarge their meaning, identify them more narrowly, or should be inserted between them.
    2. Keep reading the dots, even aloud. Put them in a jingle, make them rhyme even if they make no sense…and they will come alive!, dancing in your mind and inviting to dance other words, terms, and phrases that are also dots. Let them jump onto the stage of your page.

    3. Something like sentences will begin to appear. Keep ordering them chronologically and inserting more dots between them or enlarging them with details.

    4. Painting by numbers, using stars to draw a constellation, you are connecting the dots into the sketch of a figure. It seems to be telling a story…your story! You can do this. You did it! You are telling your story!

    5. Use a ‘balancing test’ to compare the dots’ weight of outrageousness for the story to make sense and be significant to them: the ones who do not know you or your story. Remove to another page dots that feel of ‘lighter’ significance. You are starting to recognize a hierarchy among the dots. That will help you stay within the 500-word limit. Combine the dots into rough sentences.

    6. HOURS later you will feel that you have told your story from beginning to end. Let it sit for a day. You are not done, not even close: You only wrote your first draft. But you did!

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

    1. Come back to your draft and read it through. Only thereafter start moving around and connecting the sentences in a way that will make sense to a person who does not know anything about it.

    2. Avoid confusing your audience: Use the same word to refer to the same person, idea, event, object, etc. Double check your dates; the names of places, people, and their titles. Make sure who said what to whom. Do not trust your memory. Case and other documents. Research the law to provide citations. Journalists will check them and you must ensure that they can verify them. Be accurate.

    3. Right now you are writing for an audience of journalists. They are knowledgeable, critical, and demanding. But they do not know anything about your story. Do not assume that they can fill in the details that you left out that are necessary for your story to make sense to them.

    4. Try to the best of your ability to tell them a story that persuades them of the outrageousness of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. But do not be melodramatic; do not exaggerate.

    5. Never make up details. Always make a clear distinction between facts, opinion, and impressions. Admit that you do not know what you do not know. You may be able to tell a lie as to a dot here or there. But journalists look at the whole picture and realize how false dots do not fit in. Lie-ridden mouths are not invited to tell their story. Even if you did not intend to provide false details, as when lying, but your details are incorrect for failure to check them against documents and other sources, you become an unreliable storyteller. You lose credibility. Never compromise it.

    6. Self-editing means revising and rewriting your draft story; and correcting your grammar and the position of paragraphs, sentences, and clauses. It will take longer than drafting it: Dots were connected into a sketch. Now you are painting the sketch with the colors of accuracy, verifiability, and significance that reveal the outrageousness of the abuse of power of the judges in your story.

    a. What to omit

    1. Abstain from outbursts intended to elicit pity and appeal for commiseration. Do not appear emotionally fragile, unstable, or hypersensitive. Do not come across as a basket case.

    2. Do not dilute your story’s significance with trivial details and petty grievances. A barrage of charges betrays incapacity to identify what is legally relevant. Do not diminish the credibility of your story with unfounded accusations, speculation, and extravagant claims. Trying to turn your experience into a nightmare does not make for a serious story; you are not scripting a horror movie.

    3. Do not impair your story’s verifiability by making unprovable claims. Fantasy allegations make your story a fairy tale. Let independent investigators reveal what coming from a party –and as such biased toward her side of the story− sounds preposterous. Turn ‘reality that is stranger than fiction’ into a question that becomes a lead for investigative journalists:

    a. Did the judge put his kids on food stamps although he earns a judges’ salary?!
    b. Did he have his niece hired by the winning party to have her pay his gambling debts?
    c. Does he tell his law clerks that if at the end of their clerkship when they search for a job they want him to write them a glowing letter of recommendation, which can earn them a substantial sign-up bonus from the hiring employer, they have to decide the cases assigned to him and write the decisions, which explains why the style of the decisions signed by him is so oddly different every year after the start of the new clerkship?

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

    b. What to include

    1. Focus on the judges’ violation of criminal law, which their fellow judges will not want to appear defending, lest they dirty their own image: e.g.,

    a. denial of due process and equal protection of the law;
    b. conflict of interests;
    c. abuse of public office and confidential information for self-enrichment;
    d. bribery;
    e. bankruptcy fraud, concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering;
    f. interception of people’s mail and emails to detect and suppress those critical of judges; disregard of rules of conduct;
    g. cronyism;
    h. cover-up;
    i. ethnic, racial, socio-economic, gender, or religious bias;
    j. physical or sexual abuse;
    k. arbitrariness; and
    l. what offends the common sense of decency and propriety.

    1. Provide pieces of information, e.g., names and dates, that can be treated as data: They can be scanned into a database to find the most convincing type of evidence: patterns of abuse by judges and their cronies, formed by their recurrence in the stories separately provided by different people.
    2. Let your story sit for a day or two. Come back to it for another phase-two session. You are writing your story to tell it first to journalists; and if it passes muster, they will bring it to the national public. Eventually it will be the basis for your claim for compensation. What you say now binds you later on. Do what it takes to get your story right. It must be accurate, verifiable, and significant.

    G. Title, subtitle, and theme of the story

    1. After writing your story, you will recognize a theme running through it. Turn it into the title that expresses the nature of your story and its main takeaway.

    2. In general, the theme of your story and that of the other witnesses is “judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power”. In particular, emphasize, whether in the title and certainly throughout the story, the judges’ three most outrageous acts. “If the most cannot do it, the lesser need not try.” There follow sample titles that summarize their respective story in a sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

    1. It is assumed that you will email your story. Attachments to them are risky because when opened they can release a virus into the recipient’s computer. As a result, some email computers (servers) do not accept for delivery emails with attachments. Do not send them.
    2. Instead, turn a reference to a person, event, place, document, etc., into a linking blue keyword, which holds embedded in it a ‘hidden’, not visible, link to a supporting document: Click on the keyword >in the dropdown menu click on the word Hyperlink >in the box type in the hyperlink >click enter. The keyword should turn blue indicating that it has an embedded link.

    3. Be reasonable: do not mar your story with dozens of blue words. Use your good judgment to identify the documents whose links should be embedded. If readers need more supporting documents, they can ask you for them. Store the linked documents either on your website, DropBox, Google Plus, Academia, or any other cloud storage facility.

    4. If need be, you may provide at the end of your story a “List of links to supporting documents”. Add a brief description of what the corresponding document deals with.

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

    I. Sign and date your story

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

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

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

    J. Advocates’ reciprocal revision of their stories, checklist, and chapters of story writers to demand collective compensation

    1. Before submitting your story, share it with the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to whom I send my articles –see the To: and cc: boxes of my emails and OL2:1140¶28–. Ask that they provide feedback on it just as you offer to do the same if they share with you their story.

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

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

    4. All of you can draw up a “Checklist and Evaluation Form for Stories of Abuse of Power by Judges”. It can be used when composing the proposed Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse of Power in America.

    5. Reciprocal revisions will afford you the opportunity to know each other. You and others can form a chapter of Advocates who promote in turn the formation of a national, civic, single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform.

    K. Blocs of email addresses where to send your story

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

    To [for the commissioners of the Biden Commission]:  cristina.rodriguez@yale.edu, robert.bauer@nyu.edu, kandrias@law.columbia.edu, jack.balkin@yale.edu, baude@uchicago.edu, madams@yu.edu, charles@law.duke.edu, acrespo@law.harvard.edu, wdellinger@omm.com, ecb95@law.rutgers.edu, justin.driver@yale.edu, rfallon@law.harvard.edu, heather.k.gerken@yale.edu, ngertner@harvard.edu, jgoldsmith@law.harvard.edu, tgriffith@law.harvard.edu, tgrove@law.ua.edu, bhuang@law.columbia.edu, mkang@northwestern.edu, ojohns@law.columbia.edu, lacroix@uchicago.edu, lemos@law.duke.edu, levi@law.duke.edu,  staff@pcscotus.gov, trevor.morrison@nyu.edu, cnelson@law.virginia.edu, rick.pildes@nyu.edu, mramsey@SanDiego.edu, krooseve@law.upenn.edu,  bross@law.virginia.edu, d-strauss@uchicago.edu, tribe@law.harvard.edu, awhite36@gmu.edu, kewhitt@princeton.edu, michael.waldman@nyu.edu,  caroline.fredrickson@georgetown.edu,  development@naacpldf.org,  Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,

    cc [for journalists]:   James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, contact@icij.org, fshiel@icij.org, investigations@icij.org, newstip@globe.com, insiders@icij.org, tips@thomsonreuters.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, contact@go.reuters.com, tips@publicintegrity.org, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, gryle@icij.org, ginger.thompson@propublica.org, andrea@americanthinker.com, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@thomsonreuters.com, drew@americanthinker.com, help@washpost.com, patricia.wen@globe.comrs.com, <brian.mcgrory@globe.com>, spotlight@globe.com, charles.ornstein@propublica.org, tracy.weber@propublica.org, Thehill@email.thehill.com, newsletters@abovethelaw.com, tips@propublica.org, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.com, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, info@AP.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, MCoyle@alm.com, communication@lexisnexis.com, inytletters@nytimes.com, info@mail.huffpost.com, aturturro@alm.com, support@washposthelp.zendesk.com, Opencourt@cnn.com, letters@nytimes.com, Matt.Rocheleau@globe.com, oped@nytimes.com, Jackie.Botts@thomsonreuters.com, wpmagazine@washpost.com, hello@propublica.org, Jaimi.Dowdell@thomsonreuters.com, letters@washpost.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, Vernal.Coleman@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, national@washpost.com, colorofmoney@washpost.com, email@washingtonpost.com, oped@washpost.com,

    1. Post the article to social media, such as: Facebook,   Youtube,   LinkedIn,   Instagram,   Google Plus,   Pinterest,   Reddit,   Snapchat,   WhatsApp, Twitter.
    2. Send this tweet:

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

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

    Your name and address,
    phone number; email address

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

    Dear Commissioners, Journalists, and Advocates,

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

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

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

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

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

    It is overdue: In the 233 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is only 8! For comparison, the number of federal officers on the bench on September 30, 2020, was 2,341. Federal judges need not fear losing their jobs. In practice, they have turned public power entrusted to them into the power of a State above the state.

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

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

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

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

    Date and location:                                   Name:

    L. My offer to present this articles

    1. I offer to make a presentation on this article to you and your group of guests followed by a Q&A session. It can take place via video conference and, if in New York City, in person.
    2. To ascertain the quality of my presentation, watch my video and follow it on its slides.

    3. To schedule it and agree on its terms, use my contact information below.

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

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

    Donate

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

    Judicial Discipline Reform

     by making a deposit or an online transfer using the Bill Pay feature of your online banking account or through Zelle to:

    Citi Bank, routing # 021 000 089, account # 4977 59 2001;
    TD Bank, routing # 260 13 673, account # 43 92 62 52 45

    or by mailing a check to the address below.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
    tel. (718)827-9521

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

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

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    A call for journalists, media outlets, universities, and the rest of the public to join forces to tell their stories of judges’ abuse of power at UNPRECEDENTED CITIZENS HEARINGS

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

    By

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

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

    1. The formation by President Biden of his Commission to study ways of reforming the Supreme Court was announced on April 9, 2021 (discussed in an article hereabove and also downloadable). The biographical note on each of the 36 commissioners shows that they are former law clerks to judges and justices (herein “judges” includes “justices”, unless the context indicates otherwise), and/or current law professors.
    2. As former law clerks, the commissioners are bound by the confidentiality agreements that they signed with the judges in order to be allowed to clerk for them. While clerking, they did whatever the judges asked them to do because that was the only way of obtaining the one thing that mattered to them more than anything else: a glowing letter of recommendation that would determine whether they could get any of the jobs for which they would apply at the end of their clerkship.

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

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

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

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

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
    and Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

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

    b. I  have also presented findings and arguments in the articles that I have written and posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 40,242+ have become subscribers to it(Appendix3) as of November 12, 2021.

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

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

    B. Salient features of the unprecedented citizens hearings

    1. The proposed citizens hearings are unprecedented because they will not be the traditional public hearings held in Congress or by another government entity, such as the Biden Commission.
    2. Politicians are the very ones who after recommending, endorsing, nominating, and confirming judicial candidates to judgeships and justiceships, have connivingly protected them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ regardless of their abuse of power. Their sham hearings are pre-determined not to expose judges’ abuse and provoke their retaliation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D. Some economic and institutional consequences of the citizens hearings

    1. Judges’ abuse has harmed the parties that have appeared and that are currently appearing in their courts. Their abuse provides the basis for those who have appeared before the same judge or in the same court to form local chapters to jointly demand to be compensated by judges and their judiciaries.
    2. As things stand now, any suit for such compensation will be dismissed summarily by application of the doctrine of judicial immunity that judges have conjured up in abusive self-interest, while holding accountable and liable priests, doctors, lawyers, politicians, police officers, their institutions, and everybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. The citizens hearings can be an opportunity for their organizers, witnesses, and the national public to form physical and virtual (on the Internet) groups in the guise of Tea Party local chapters to demand the calling of a constitutional convention.
    2. That is the kind of convention that since April 2, 2014, 34 states, constituting the two thirds of states required by the amending provisions of Article V of the Constitution, have petitioned Congress to convene.

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

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

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

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

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

    1. The transformation can consist in a new form of government where the People assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power. As Masters of all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, the People can hold them accountable for the power entrusted to them and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of it.
  • The citizens hearings can expose abuse of power to have become such an integral part of judges’ and their judiciaries’ way of doing business that the outrage and demand for compensation can turn reformatory measures that today appear inconceivable into ones whose adoption becomes unavoidable. But everything begins with informing the People thereof.

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

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

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

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

    b. Post it to social media, such as:

    Facebook, Youtube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram, Google plus, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, and Twitter:

    Send this tweet:

    Tell your story of judges’ abuse & ask for compensation at unprecedented citizens hearings; the Biden Commission on SCt reform will not let you do it; invite your audience, the People; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_citizens_hearings_outrage_compensation.pdf

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

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

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

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

    1. Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.

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

    DONATE

    to support the professional law research and writing, and

    strategic thinking

    of

    Judicial Discipline Reform

    by making a deposit or an online transfer

    through the Bill Pay feature of your online account or Zelle,

    to Citi Bank, routing # 021 000 089, account # 4977 59 2001;

    or TD Bank, routing # 260 13 673, account # 43 92 62 52 45

    or
    by mailing a check to the address below.

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
    tel. (718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

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

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    Have P. Biden and Attorney General Judge Garland connived to reduce the commission to reform the court system to reform only the Supreme Court so as to spare judges any investigation into their abuse of power?

    Candidate Biden had announced the nomination of
    a commission to reform the court system;
    President Biden has formed a commission
    only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit justices’ terms.

    Has Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland prevailed
    to reduce the commission’s scope
    so as to prevent any investigation into judges’ conduct,
    which would have exposed
    his unlawful 100% dismissal of complaints against fellow judges and
    the consequent cover-up of his and their underlying abuse of power?

    Exposing the connivance between
    the President and the Federal Judiciary
    can bring down, not just a president, but rather a branch:
    an unaccountable Judiciary
    risklessly running a racketeering enterprise.

    Pitching a story with Pulitzer Prize potential
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf
     
    By
     
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
     
     
    Mr. Charles Ornstein, Managing Editor
    Ms. Tracy Weber, Deputy Managing Editor
    ProPublica
           tel. (917)512-0222
           charles.ornstein@propublica.org
           tracy.weber@propublica.org,
           https://www.propublica.org/people
     
     
    Dear Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, all other members of the media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
     
    This is a story pitch.
    Your experience, as described in your bionote, has drawn me to pitch the story to both of you in particular: You have investigated national entities, namely, the health care and the pharmaceutical industries. You, Mr. Ornstein, won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service; and you, Ms. Weber, won the Pulitzer for National Reporting. Combined, you have won an impressive array of other major journalism awards.
    You are a team of journalists capable of investigating the national story summarized in the above title. In the process, you can make a name for yourselves and ProPublica, and bring so much needed relief to those who individually can do nothing but continue to be the victims in the story: We the People.

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

     1. You “produce accountability journalism on issues of importance to the community”. The issue of accountability is at the top of the public debate here and abroad. That is shown by the movements MeToo!, BLM, against police brutality, for socio-economic equality, and to protect the Asian/Pacific Islander communities.
    2. Your investigation can set in motion a generalized media investigation to hold the most powerful public officers accountable, namely, federal judges. A single federal judge can declare any law unconstitutional, although debated, passed, and enacted by 535 members of Congress and a president elected by scores of millions of voters.
    3. By declaring laws, and progressively the whole agenda of a party, unconstitutional, federal judges can prevent politicians, even a whole party, from delivering on their campaign promises, dooming them to appear inefficient and incompetent when running for reelection.
    a. In fact, federal District Judge James Robart of Seattle, Washington State, suspended nationwide President Trump’s ban on Muslim travel and a panel of three circuit judges –although two would have sufficed– sustained the ban nationwide. Yet, candidate Trump had campaigned in 2016 on issuing that ban and received the votes of more than 62.5 million voters.
    4. In addition, federal judges are the only officers to have a life-appointment and the concomitant long memory for holding grudges.
     
    5. As a result, the politicians who recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm them thereafter fear their devastating power of retaliation:
    6. To avoid becoming their retaliatory target, politicians dare not even investigate ‘their men and women on the bench’ regardless of how illegal or unethical their conduct may appear to be. This explains how federal judges are in practice irremovable: In the last 232 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!
    7. Protected from any investigation and held unaccountable by politicians -and by themselves, as shown below-, federal judges grab gains and convenience(>OL2:455§§B, D) individually and as a judicial class by risklessly abusing their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity.
    8. Federal judges –who set the example of allowable abuse for their state counterparts– confirm Lord Acton’s statement in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton of April 3, 1887:  “Power corrupts, and absolute power [whose essential element is unaccountability] corrupts absolutely”.
    9. You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, have the experience to start the investigation into federal judges’ riskless abuse of power and thereby set off a generalized media investigation that starts holding them accountable on behalf of the People

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

     10. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016. President Obama nominated his successor, to wit, Then-Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

    12. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. This inevitably posed the question whether the Republicans would be consistent in applying the same principle, and all the more so since the general election of November 3, 2020, was much closer. The Republicans were not. Instead, they nominated and confirmed Then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
    13. This caused the Court to tilt to the right with a decisive 6-3 Republican-leaning majority given that meanwhile President Trump had successfully nominated thereto Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.
    14. The debate ensued whether if Candidate Biden won the election, he would increase the number of Supreme Court justices –popularly known as ‘packing the Court’– so as to nominate more candidates that would ensure a Democratic-leaning majority.
    15. When Candidate Biden was interviewed by CBS newsanchor Norah O’Donnell on October 22, 2020, he was asked whether he would increase the number of justices. Instead of answering that question, he emphatically announced that if he became president, he would nominate a bipartisan commission to study for 180 days, ‘not the number of justices, but rather the reform of the court system’ and report its recommendations.

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

    16. After Candidate Biden won the presidential election, he nominated as his attorney general precisely Judge Merrick Garland, whose 7-year term as chief judge had ended on February 11, 2020.
    17. Judge Garland’s status as judge and now attorney general has given rise to an insurmountable conflict of interests. This is how it has arisen.
    18. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act; 28 USC §§351-364) allows any person to file a complaint against a federal judge in the court of appeals of the circuit, or the national court, where the judge sits.
    19. The official statistics on complaints against federal judges are collected and submitted to Congress(§604(a)(3-4)) as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(§601).
    20. The complaint is first reviewed by the chief judge, who must not investigate it. But the chief judge can dismiss it by alleging, for example, that the complaint is not within the scope of the Act; or is “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling” or “frivolous”(§352).
    21. To protect their fellow judges, chief judges systematically dismiss 100% of complaints and deny 100% of the petitions to review dismissals.
    22. The significance of those statistics becomes apparent upon learning that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (known as RICO; 18 USC §§1961-1968) provides that two acts of racketeering committed within 10 years constitute “a pattern of racketeering activity”(§1961(5)). A defendant convicted of having engaged in such a pattern can be imprisoned for 20 years and, depending on the offense, for life.
    23. The 100% complaint dismissal and petition denial is a pattern and far much more: It is a policy. As such, it can reasonably be presumed to have been explicitly coordinated among federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices. It is their institutionalized modus operandi.
    24. Judges implement that policy by abusing their power to ensure their unaccountability. They do it at the expense of complainants, whom they knowingly deprive of any relief from, or compensation for, the abusive conduct complained about. Federal judges conspire to deprive We the People of the due process right to “equal protection of the law” (U.S. Constitution, 14th and 5th Amendments). They arrogate to themselves the status of “Judges Can Do No Wrong Under Any Law”.
    25. So, the official statistics show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Garland, and their peers in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against federal judges in their Circuit. Chief Judge Garland and his predecessor dismissed 100% of them.
    26. In addition, these chief judges and their peers and colleagues in their Circuit’s judicial council (28 USC§332) denied 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals. They did so –as all other judges do– in the most perfunctory way possible: by having the clerk of court dump review petitions out of court by issuing a form whose only operative word is “denied”, with no discussion of the law or any statement of reasons or facts whatsoever. A denial as arbitrary and contemptuous as a fiat, for ‘kings need not explain; they only order’.
    27. By so doing, Chief Judge Garland and his peers and colleagues arrogated to themselves the power to render that Act of Congress useless as a means of complaining against federal judges.
    28. He and they have shown bias and partiality toward their fellow judges and their riskless abuse of power for their gain and convenience. Conversely and necessarily, they have shown reckless indifference to the plight of the complainants and the fate of the rest of the People, left at the mercy of unaccountable judges regardless of the nature, extent, and gravity of their abuse. Their systematic dismissal and denial is typical of what their peers and colleagues throughout the Federal Judiciary do.
    29. It is obvious that if Attorney General Judge Garland allowed the investigation of complaints against judges by the commission for the reform of the court system that Candidate Biden had announced, never mind a complaint filed with the FBI or the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, he would end up investigated and incriminated for both his abuse of power in dismissing 100% of complaints against his fellow judges and denying 100% of dismissal review petitions; and covering up the abuse of power underlying the complaints.
    30. Such cover-up has made Judge Garland an accessory after the abuse that he learned about but explicitly or implicitly agreed to turn a blind eye to; as well as an accessory before the abuse that the same abuser or other people committed in reliance on the expectation arising from his previous conduct that he would likewise turn a blind eye to it. Of course, he may also be covering up his own abuse as a principal, i.e. the person who actually committed the abuse or ordered its commission.
    31. Moreover, his abuse of power as a principal and/or an accessory has made him vulnerable to fellow judges’ “trading up” in plea bargaining, whereby in exchange for leniency they would agree to testify to the abuse of ‘a bigger fish’ than them, that is, AG Judge Garland, or even ‘the biggest fish’, his boss, President Biden. Of this grave risk he is reminded by the menacing warning that all judges have carved on their foreheads: ‘I know about your own abuse. If you let anybody bring me down, I’ll take you with me!
    32. These facts set the foundation for the investigative question prompted by the White House press release of April 9, 2021, “President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States”
    a. Did AG Judge Garland in connivance with President Biden scale down the commission from one to reform the court system to one dealing with only the enlargement of the Supreme Court and the limitation of justices’ terms, not because that was in the interest of justice, let alone of We the People, but rather because they wanted to protect their own interest in not being investigated and ending up at the center of a national scandal exposing federal judges as riskless grabbers of gains and convenience and the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise?

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

     33. Due to Covid-19, millions of people have lost their jobs or only have precarious ones and suffer every day from lack of food or food insecurity. How outraged would they become if they learned that judges, who individually earn some four times the average national household income, abuse their power to grab yet more gains and convenience?
    34. Public outrage can be so intense as to lead to the resignation of one, several, or all the justices. They participated in the abuse as lower court judges and currently cover it up as circuit justices (28 USC §42) allotted with supervisory duties to the several circuits. Many chief circuit judges and fellow judges would also find the call for their resignation by an outraged People too widespread and profound to remain in office.
    35. You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, can set off such public outrage by conducting a pin-pointed and cost-efficient investigation that in turn sets in motion a generalized media investigation.

    E. Leads to investigate abusive judges and their racketeering Judiciary

    36. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a politician knowledgeable about financial matters, dare denounce in her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too” how federal judges fail to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in a company that is a party to the case before them in order to resolve the ensuing conflict of interests in their favor by protecting or increasing their stock’s value. Sen. Warren refers to such practice throughout the Federal Judiciary as judges’ abusive self-enrichment. She attributes it to their unaccountability.
    a. Such self-enrichment necessarily entails their commission of the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of contract for judicial services, of public trust, and of the oath of office. But it is riskless for judges. So they become predators, always prowling for the next prey.
    37. Thomson Reuters conducted a nationwide investigation into state judges and published the first of its three-part report “The Teflon Robe”, which found “hardwired judicial corruption”, on June 30, 2020.
    38. Boston Globe, the main newspaper in Massachusetts and a reputable one, published on September 30, 2018, its report “Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings [conducted even by clerks with no law degree], who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”.
    39. The FBI has vetted thousands of judicial candidates and produced reports on them kept secret up to now. To vet them it exercised its power of subpoena, search and seizure, and contempt, which the media lack. Its reports are bound to contain embarrassing and incriminating information about the unethical and illegal conduct in which judicial candidates engaged before taking the bench and even thereafter given that they have felt protected by their peers and colleagues, who abuse their power to cover up their fellow judges’ abuse. After all, people were acceptable as judicial candidates because they had shown that they understood how the power game is played and were playing it.
    a. You can call into question President Biden’s honesty, good faith, and commitment to transparency by demanding that he release the FBI’s secret vetting reports on judicial candidates.
    b. It is reasonable to expect that progressively many other journalists and media outlets will join you in such demand as they realize that they must not fail to jump on the investigative bandwagon that you have set rolling.
    40. I have collected an abundance of leads to start the investigation into, generally, judges and their judiciaries(OL:194§E) and, particularly, AG Judge Garland, and Supreme Court justices.
    a. I am willing and able to participate in the investigation. For proof, there is my three-volume study* based on professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking, thus titled:
     
    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

    i. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.
     
    b. Supported by that study are the articles that I have written and posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 38,574+ [as of May 24, 2021] have become subscribers to it(Appendix 3). How many law firms, never mind lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
     
    1) You can join the subscribers thus:
    go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register  
    or
    + New   or   Users   >Add New.
     
    c. You can publish one or a series of my articles(>Appendix 6) bound to outrage parties to cases as well as the rest of the People, such as:
    1) the mathematical demonstration that judges do not read the overwhelming majority of briefs. The outrage that this will provoke can lead to the formation of local chapters of parties to collectively demand that the same judge before whom they have appeared or those of the same court in which they filed their cases compensate them for the waste of money in producing their briefs –which can cost a party $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce– and for the fraud inflicted on them.
    2) judges’ interception of the emails and mail of people to detect and suppress those of their critics. This can constitute one of the most outrageous abuses because it infringes on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, guaranteeing their “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including compensation for waste and fraud]”;
    3) judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme. The gains that they grab through this scheme they must necessarily cover up. To that end, they pretend to comply with their duty to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 USC, Appendix). They do so by including false and misleading data in their reports. The latter are filed with a reviewing committee composed of other fellow judges, who are also subject to the same filing duty. Hence, the reviewers have every interest in being as indulgent with the filers as they want the filers and their friends to be eventually with them. Judges’ reports have been collected by, and are downloadable from, JudicialWatch.org.

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

    41. We can join forces in promoting unprecedented citizens hearings on unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. For the first time ever, hearings on a public issue will be organized by media stations and universities throughout the country.
    a. These citizens hearings will afford the opportunity for victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power to tell their story to the national public; and do so mostly through interactive video conference to reduce travel expenses; reach the largest life audience possible; and receive their feedback in real time.
    b. They will have their stories taken down by, and answer the questions of, multidisciplinary panels of journalists, professors, and experts.
    c. The leading panelists will draw up a report to be presented at the first-ever conference on judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power, which will be broadcast nationally and internationally.
     d. The citizens hearings are intended to be the unbiased and uncompromising means of exposing judicial abuse of power; spark the formation of local chapters of victims; and impart the unstoppable momentum for We the People to reform, not only the court system, but rather the system of justice here and abroad.
     
    G. My offer of a presentation to you and your group of colleagues
     
    42. I offer to pitch this story to you and a group of your colleagues at a presentation via video conference or, if here in New York City, in person.
    43. To assess my capacity to make such presentation, watch my video and follow it on its slides.
    44. To set its terms and schedule it you may use my contact information below
    45. To consult with others on this pitch and/or interest potential guests in attending my presentation you may widely share this article and post it to social media, such as:
    Facebook
    Youtube
    WhatsApp
    LinkedIn
    Instagram
    Google plus
    Pinterest
    Reddit
    Snapchat
    Twitter: Did P Biden drop his announced commission to reform the court system, limiting it to the Supreme Court, at the urging of AG Judge Garland trying to prevent any investigation into himself & fellow judges; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf 

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

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    passion for justice are.
     
    DONATE
    to
    Judicial Discipline Reform
     
    by making a deposit or an online transfer to Citi Bank,
    routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001
     
     
    or by mailing a check to the address below.
     
     
    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.
     
    I look forward to hearing from you.
     
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
           tel. (718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
     
     
    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
    **********************************

    Will Associated Press and/or any other journalists and media outlets dare expose judges’ criminality, rendered riskless by their abusive 100% dismissal of complaints against them?

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

    By

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

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

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

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

    All other journalists and media outlets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    §352. Review of complaint by chief judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (1) dismiss the complaint—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Sources of evidence of judges’ criminality

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

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

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

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

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
    and Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D. Examples of judges’ criminality

    1. Abusive self-enrichment

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

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

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

    2. Fraudulent filing and approval of financial disclosure reports

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

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

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

    3. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme

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

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

    4. Interception of emails and mail

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

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

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

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

    5. Failure to read the overwhelming majority of briefs

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

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

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

    6. Sham hearings on the Rules for Processing Complaints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    65. present your letter at a press conference;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    F. My offer to present this article and its proposals

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

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

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

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

    Facebook, Youtube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram,

    Google plus, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, and

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

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

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

    Donate to

    Judicial Discipline Reform

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

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

    or

    by mailing a check to the address below.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
    tel. +1(718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and >OL2:1114§G; when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: box of your email so as to increase the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    Send your story of abuse by judges now, when the confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court has focused national attention on all things judicial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Introduction

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

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

    Table of Contents

        [¶¶1-3] Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. If you are a lawyer, you too are abused by judges, who risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience, as shown by the official statistics of the federal courts submitted annually to Congress as a public document.
      http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_accountability_presentation.pdf >OL2:455§§B, D
    1. You can continue to go to court as one of the scores of thousands of lawyers in our country to argue yet another case. Or you can out of court expose the judges for the public to see their abuse of power. If you choose the latter, you will set in motion transformative change in the judicial and legal system. The public will recognize you here and abroad as a historic Champion of Justice. It is your choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      F. Free aids to researching and writing your story

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Length of your story for Reuters: 500 words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    39. Identify your addressees thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. The two-phase writing method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [subtitle of every story]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    See these supporting documents:

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

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

    8. Sign and date your story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    71. In brief, it is proposed that they:

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

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

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

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

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

    1) a clearinghouse for complaints uploaded by anybody; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    h. experts in fraud and forensic accounting

    i. strategists and lobbyists of Congress and state legislatures

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

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

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

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

    n. fundraisers

    o. accountants

    p. office managers

    q. secretaries

    r. handyman

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

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

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

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

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

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

    K. Unique opportunity arising from the concurrence of circumstances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    c. post it to social media, such as:

    LinkedIn                      Facebook                       Youtube

    Google Plus               Instagram                       Pinterest

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

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

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

    Judicial Discipline Reform

    Subscribe for free to its articles similar to this one:

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

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

    DONATE

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

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

    or by mailing a check to:

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York City 10472
           tel. +1(718)827-9521;  Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com
    Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

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

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and >OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    A proposal to extend Reuters’s investigation of state judges, which found “hardwired judicial corruption”, to federal judges, who have institutionalized their abuse of power as their modus operandi, running the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise

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

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1)  concealment of assets

    2)  tax evasion

    3)  money laundering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    b. held at universities and media outlets;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    b. a research center that upon payment of a one-time or subscription fee enables users to audit (*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints; judges’ annual mandatory filing of financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), which are misleading(jur:105213b); and their decisions and other writings in search of the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(>OL2: 792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. It will develop software for statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis of writings to ascertain authorship, biases, impeaching-inconsistencies, etc.(OL:42, 60, 115, 255; jur:131§b)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    a. Those who ‘only’ have kept silent have become accessories after the abuse committed by the principal and which they knew or could have known about but for their indifference and willful ignorance or blindness(*>jur:90§§b, c), for they had a legal and ethical duty to report it -18 U.S.C. §3057; Code of Conduct for judges, Canon 3B(6) (*>jur:68fn123a)-.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Judicial Discipline Reform

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

    Visit its website at

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

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

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

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

    Donate

    through Paypal

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

    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign at

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

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York City 10472
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    tel. +1(718)827-9521
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and >OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses; * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf.

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

    From searching court decisions for citations to realizing the folly of appearing pro se before judges, to joining the formation of a movement to expose judges’ abuse of power, demand compensation, and force reform

    By

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

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

    Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    A. Finding pertinent quotations from judges’ decisions

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

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

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

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

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

    a. Thomson-Reuters Westlaw:

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

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

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

    b. LexisNexis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1) concealment of a material fact

    2) abuse of superior knowledge

    3) intentional frustration of reasonable expectations

    4) misleading advertisement of adjudicatory services

    5) fraud in the inducement and the performance

    6) breach of contract

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

    8) intentional infliction of emotional distress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Donate

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

    Judicial Discipline Reform

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

    through Paypal

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

    or

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

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

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

    Proposal to form an international team to research judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power; and in reliance on the international public’s mood that led to the MeToo! movement and the protest against police brutality develop a movement to hold the far more abusive judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensation

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

    By

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

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

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

    Dear potential team members and Advocates,

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

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

      5. You and your counterparts at thousands of professional reviews and journals publish scores of thousands of articles and notes every year written by professors, experts, and students. But do they make a difference by improving the quality of the judicial and legal system? To answer this question these official statistical facts, taken from the U.S. context for illustrative purpose, are outcome-determinative:
      a. In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:21§a; for(* >blue footnote-like references) see infra §B) To gauge the implications of that number compare it against the 2,340 federal judicial officers on the bench on September 30, 2019.
      b. Federal judges dismiss 100%(*>jur:10-11; >OL2:548, 748) of complaints against them, which under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 -28 U.S.Code §§351-364 (jur:24fn18a)- must be filed with them, and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals.
      c.  Judges’ official statistics showing those rates of dismissals and denials are submitted to Congress as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(*>jur:21fn10), as provided for under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:26fn23a; >OL2:551fn1). The Administrative Office (AO) was established under §601, which empowers the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint its director and deputy director.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. The team’s activities include the application of both Information Technology and fraud and forensic accounting to perform statistical, linguistic, literary, and accounting analysis(*>jur:131§b; *>OL:255) of documents to detect patterns(>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. Analyzed will be the misleading mandatory(*>jur:65fn107.d) annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a and fn213b) that judges file to commit concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering(*>jur:65fn107.c).
    2. The media can pursue the abundance of leads for their field investigation of judges and justices of the Supreme Court(*>OL:194§E).
    3. At the appropriate time, the research center based on the enhanced website can acquire a physical presence as an entity attached to a top university or think tank. There it will continue its activity, with franchises in other countries, as the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy(*>jur:131§5).
    4. Forms of judges’ abuse of power that will outrage the public
    5. The team can begin researching concrete forms of judges’ abuse. Its findings together with those in my study will outrage the public. Those forms are stated hereunder only as blurbs; their summaries are at(>OL2:1097§G) ; and their fuller discussion is in the(* >references) and the linked articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. You may use the information in the letterhead to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.
    2. Time is of the essence: There is less than 5 months to Election Day on November 3 in the U.S.
    3. The interception of emails containing this article and of replies to them
    4. Since June 12, I have repeatedly emailed the above article to you and the others in the above bloc of addressees; the 12 researchers cited in “The Responsive Judge”(supra ¶2); and thousands of other professors, members of the media, lawyers, and students. Yet, I have not received any acknowledgment of receipt, much less a comment on it. This is not possible but for the interception(supra ¶23.d) of replies to me.
    5. There is probable cause to believe that some of you have indeed replied to me: My website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org has received so many visitors and they have reacted so positively to my articles posted there that 32,141+ have become subscribers to it. To subscribe, go to the site <left panel ↓Register or + New or   Users   >Add New.
    6. Those subscribers are likely educated and affluent people, who are attracted by college level text with no video or pictures. They are similar to the audiences of the likes of The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, and TIME. They are apt to form an opinion and be articulate enough to express it by email, mail, or phone call. Yet, I do not receive any from them.
    7. In a country as divided as the United States and within a group of people with as different interests as professors, journalists, lawyers, and students, it is statistically impossible for 100% of thousands of them to have reacted in a unique way: ‘I won’t reply or otherwise communicate with Dr. Cordero’. Not even a single outlier so that the dependent variable on the Y axis has never risen above the origin point 0 regardless of the nature of the independent variable on the X axis. It is reasonable to conclude that some of you have replied to me but that your replies have been intercepted.
    8. To achieve such 100% effectiveness, the interceptor must intercept the communications of everybody in the population so as to detect and suppress those of people like me and you that it does not want reaching their addressees. The intelligence agencies, e.g., NSA; the companies that control the central nodes of the Internet, such as the large telephone and email service providers; and the USPS -see its Informed Delivery service- have the capacity to conduct such wholesale interception.
    9. The interceptor is likely to be an entity with the greatest interest in preventing me from communicating with you and you with each other because it is the target of my criticism and proposed expo-sure, to wit, unaccountable judges risklessly abusing their power(supra §C).
    10. Such interception is unquestionably illegal, cf. 18 U.S.Code §§2511 and 1030(*>OL:5a/fn13, 14).
    11. Graver still, it is an outrageous infringement on We the People’s right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including the collective demand as members of local chapters of abusees for compensation for the abused suffered]”(>OL2:972¶1).
    12. If you find probable cause to believe that judges intercept the public’s communications, including yours, and it outrages you, you can seize this opportunity to join forces to expose it(supra §B.3).
    13. It is reasonable to expect that by joining forces and relying on the precedents of the Tea Party and the MeToo! movement(supra §D), and the current worldwide movement against police brutality, we can set in motion transformative change in a millennial impossible(*>jur:xlv§G) to compel historic reform(>OL2:1093§B): We the People can end up holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate their victims. That is change demanded by an honest belief that “Nobody Is Above The Law” or immune to the consequences of harming others in ‘government, not of men and women, but of the People by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6; jur:82fn172).
    14. To discuss the publication of my article; forming a team to set off an international movement to expose judges’ abuse by promoting citizen hearings and compensation(supra §E); and my offer to make a presentation to you and your colleagues(§F), I invite you to call me at +1(718)827-9521 until you have me on the phone. I speak English, Spanish, and French, and you can speak to me in German and Italian. You can write to me in any of those languages, but will your email reach me?
    15. Support Judicial Discipline Reform in its professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking

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

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

    Donate
    through

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

    How victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, news publishers, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries can advance their own interest in exposing judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse, obtaining compensation, and rehabilitating their public image while increasing their audiences

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

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

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

    B. The inform and outrage strategy for advancing your interests

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

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

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

    b. so outrage the public that

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

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

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

    C. Congressional hearings and unprecedented citizen hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    a. Bloc 1

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

    b. Bloc 2

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

    c. Bloc 3

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

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

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

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

    DONATE

    to
    Judicial Discipline Reform 

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

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

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

    or at

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

    Advancing your interests by enlisting an embarrassed Trump in exposing judges who will abuse Covid victims

    By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. The interest in being compensated is bound to attract many of the scores of millions of people who were, are, or will be parties to the more than 50 million cases filed in all courts every year(*>jur:8fn4,5) and whom judges abused, are abusing, or will abuse. They constitute The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System(>OL2:951). They are a huge untapped audience, whose recognition as a market and reformative force we can pioneer. Local chapters of demanders of compensation can unite into a single issue Tea Party-like national movement for judicial reform.

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

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

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

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    28. A key circumstance enabling these crimes is that judges file misleading annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:65fn107c) required by the Ethics in Government Act(jur:65fn107d).

    a. Though public documents(*>jur:105fn213a), those reports are filed pro forma with, since they are approved as a matter of course by, not independent non-judges, but rather other judges. The latter are the members on the committee to review those reports just as they are the filers’ peers, colleagues, and friends; the reviewers too are subject to the same filing obligation(jur:102§a; fn213b).

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

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

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

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

    31. Covid-19 has made more than 22 million people unemployed and sent millions to food banks. Many will not be able to find a job and will default on their mortgage, rent payments, or medical bills. Many will go bankrupt, as will many of the 30+ millions of small businesses.

    32. The immense majority of bankrupts will not be able to afford attorneys’ fees. So, they will appear in court without legal representation as pro ses, i.e., self-represented. They will very soon be overwhelmed by the unimaginable complexity of:

    a. the bankruptcy forms which they must fill out(*>jur:28fn35, 43fn65) and which make reference to:

    b. the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 U.S. Code [of federal laws]) and

    c. the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure(11 U.S.C. appendix) as supplemented by

    d. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(28 U.S.C. appendix) all as well as

    e. the rules of the court in which they are filing(*>OL:131), as interpreted by

    f. judges’ procedural and substantive decisions…Stop! Stop!! Get me out of here!!!

    33. Parties represented by attorneys will not fare much better: In most of the 90 bankruptcy courts nationwide(*>jur:20), which are part of the Federal Judiciary, there are three or fewer bankruptcy judges. Attorneys must appear before them time and again(jur:66¶139). Practically none will challenge the judge, never mind appeal from his decision(jur:28§3), because antagonizing the judge results in becoming the target of that judge’s and his peers’ devastating retaliatory power (*>Lsch:17§C). Hence, attorneys will take their clients’ money and give the judge a subservient and fearful “Yes, your Honor. Yes, yes, yes!, your Honor”.

    34. It follows that clients need to ‘grill’ their attorneys on how vigorously they have represented their previous clients and will dare represent them…but they need to do much more.

    35. Parties need to know what they are getting into and dealing with, before going to bankruptcy court and while there. They must apply the aphorism KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

    36. Parties must learn as much as they can about the process(*>jur:37§§4, 5) and each player in it, as shown in the seminar on role playing(>OL2:712§E; OL:359§F).

    37. Yet, neither self- nor attorney-represented parties are a match for judges and their cronies(*>jur:32§§2, 3), among whom attorneys are. Parties, each proceeding separately, will be picked out one by one by unaccountable judges who abuse their power risklessly for their gain and convenience (>OL2:1051). But parties will at least know what hit them and got them wiped out!

    3. Judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs

    38. Judges’ failure to read most briefs is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(>OL2:608§A). This is an innovative way of analyzing judges’ performance by using the objectivity of math rather than the subjectivity of a personal assessment of their decisions.

    39. Judges require that each party file in support of its case or motion a brief that costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce(>OL2:760§A)ϕ although they know that they will in all likelihood not read it.
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

    40. Instead, they have their clerks dump most briefs out of the judges’ caseload by applying robotically guidelines to identify those cases to be disposed of by the clerks issuing unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders lacking any discussion of the facts and the law, and contained in what the clerks only need to date, fill out the blanks, and rubberstamp: a dumping form!

    4. Judges’ interception and suppression of people’s emails and mail

    41. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics so as to protect their pretense of honesty and thereby keep their unaccountability from congressional supervision(>OL2:1083§§A-B)ϕ.
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Thomson_Reuters.pdf

    42. To that end, they abuse their own vast, nationwide computer networks and expertise, which enable the daily filing and retrieval of millions of briefs, motions, records, decisions, orders, docket entries and inquiries, etc.; and the dependency of the intelligence agencies, such as the NSA, for the approval of their secret requests of secret orders for secret surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(>OL2:781§§A-B)ϕ and other subpoenas and warrants.
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_intercepting_emails_mail.pdf

    43. With these interception and suppression, judges breach their oath and duty to safeguard the Constitution in behalf of We the People, and instead, protect their personal and class interest in concealing and continuing their abuse of power.

    44. In so doing, they trample on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the First Amendment guaranteeing “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [by email and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including their payment of compensation]”(>OL2:792¶1).

    45. Exposing their interception and suppression will cause national outrage graver than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leak of documents showing the NSA’s unlawful surveillance of scores of millions of phone calls to collect their metadata, e.g., phone numbers of callers and callees, duration of the call, call origin and destination, but without suppressing any call at all.

    5. The sham hearings in Congress and the Federal Judiciary on judicial accountability

    46. Sham hearings on judicial accountability have been held by politicians and the judges that they put and protect on the bench. Aside from Sen. Warren, politicians do not dare criticize judges, for they fear their power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) to assert their unaccountability(*>jur:23fn17a):

    a. A single federal judge suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of a president who had campaigned on issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million voters; three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide, although only two on a three-judge federal appellate panel would have sufficed.

    b. Then-Justice nominee and Now-Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed judges’ gang mentality when he said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:546). This ‘we against the rest of the world’ attitude excludes the possibility for court/law clerks and parties to lawsuits of a fair and impartial hearing of their grievances against judges(OL2:1056ϕ).
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

    6. Invoking in one’s own trial the precedents set by the Chief Justice while presiding over the impeachment trial

    47. After the courts reopen for business, parties can invoke as precedent for their own benefit the disregard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., during the Senate impeachment trial of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(>OL2:1040ϕ, 1045); and his application in connivance with the Senate of a mutual self-serving live and let live complicit arrangement:
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

    a. I will let you run the impeachment trial however you want, and you let us, the judges, run the Judiciary however we want, regardless of due process and equal protection requirements.

    7. Judges’ abusive self-exoneration by dismissing 100% of complaints against them and its cover-up by politicians

    48. Judges ensure their unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; OL2:548, 748). Through such systematic self-exoneration, their power of retaliation, and their connivance with politicians, they protect and run what they have built for themselves: a State within the state.

    H. From impunity >outrage >investigations >transformative change

    49. All this brings us to the one single statistic that people need to keep in mind who understand human nature and can draw implications from facts as if they were using data to make a mathematical demonstration: In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:2214)

    50. It follows that once a judicial candidate is nominated and confirmed to the bench, he or she can do whatever they want in reliance on that historical record and the assurance that “their brothers and sisters of the robe” will close ranks behind them to defend their impunity.

    51. As a reminder of their gang duty to mutually ensure their survival, judges have written on their foreheads a threat screaming: ‘I and my friends know enough about the abuse that you and your friends have committed or covered up. So, if you let anybody bring me down, I’ll take you with me!

    52. The articles proposed for publication do not charge any one judge with abuse of power. Rather, they show that all judges commit it or cover up that of their peers, colleagues, and friends. By coordinating their abuse and executing it as principals or accessories for their gain or convenience, they run their branch as a racketeering enterprise(supra §F; >OL2:1051).

    53. Exposing them as members of it can turn that threat on their foreheads into the most self-destructive state of mind for any organization: Every man for himself! When that happens, they may topple themselves as a row of dominoes or resign jointly or severally. This is a reasonable expectation: The articles can launch its realization, just as the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’ abuse sparked the MeToo! movement.

    54. In the same vein, the articles can so inform and outrage the public as to prompt a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse(*>OL:194§E).

    55. Its findings can lead, not to the impeachment of one top officer, but rather to making “the appearance of impropriety” censured by Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for Judges(*>jur:68fn123) so flagrant as to render untenable holding on to office. Based on the precedent of the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969(*>jur:92§d), the forced consequence can be the resignation of judges, justices, and even the Supreme Court itself.

    56. That is how by publishing the articles, you, Washington Post(>OL2:1093), and others can become the historic agents that set in motion transformative change in the system of justice.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Washington_Post.pdf

    I. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    passion for justice are.

    DONATE

    to
    Judicial Discipline Reform 

    which through its professional law research and writing and
    strategic thinking has
    produced the article below and its supporting study, and
    maintains a website that has 31,808 subscribers and counting at

    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    PayPal
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or at

    the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1051)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    tel. +1(718)827-9521

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    *********************************

    Proposal to adapt to a shrinking and Covid-dried up legal market to make money while pioneering transformative change in the system of justice

    Bringing down
    not just a top officer and ‘All his men’,
    but rather the Supreme Court and a whole branch
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_Covid_legal_market.pdf

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    To subscribe go to <left panel ↓Register   or   + New   or   Users   >Add New.

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    A LexisNexis representative sent me an email where he ended with this empathetic statement:

    …today is not normal. So, we want to do everything we can to support you – so you can support your clients. If there is anything I can do in the meantime, please reach out.

    A. An already shrinking legal market totally shrunk further by Covid-19

    1. I am reaching out to you, law, newspapers, and magazine publishers, journalists, and lawyers, with a proposal that may not be the normal way in which you support your audience and clients, but is what you can do to support them and even grow your pool of them nationwide during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

    2. Indeed, with the courts closed and jury trials and oral argument suspended, clients are not paying anymore, never mind bringing new business to lawyers.

    3. In fact, the only sector of the legal market growing today is that of the pro ses. It will only keep growing, for people who are or have been unemployed due to the Covid pandemic will not flock to lawyers after it is over to pay them attorney’s fees of $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 or more per hour. The prospect for lawyers is bleak.

    4. By contrast, the prospect for you can be bright if you adapt to these new long-term realities of the legal market and the rest of the economy. Here is how:

    5. Clients and 100% of the non-essential workforce are staying home. They have much more time to read emails and postings to your online publications. This is the most opportune time to offer them information about how judges run judicial process. The latter forces people to go through one of the most anxiety-causing experiences in their lives, for so much is at stake; it is so difficult to understand; and it confronts them with expenses that run into the $1Ks and even $10Ks.

    6. Judges affect 100% of the workforce and everybody else, regardless of whether they are, have been, or will never be parties to lawsuits but will continue to be susceptible to the precedential value of judicial decisions. Everybody is subject to judges’ exercise of their enormous power over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

    7. Judges abuse that power because they are unaccountable so that ‘their power is absolute, which corrupts them absolutely’(*>jur27fn28). Their abuse is riskless. Committing it only has an upside: grabbing gain and convenience.

    8. Nothing reaches deeper into the human soul and festers longer therein than the feeling of being or having been abused; nothing makes people more passionate and committed than the quest for Justice. Very often, that quest aims to obtain or can only end up receiving monetary compensation. The insightful appreciation of these facts and the competitively savvy handling of them open a business opportunity for a pioneering publisher.

    B. Adapting to the new normal legal market by informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ abuse of power

    9. Providing information about how judges abuse their power and outraging the people who were and may be abused by going to court constitute the foundation of a reasonably calculated strategy for adapting to these times of a shrinking legal market, which Covid-19 has reduced to zero, while pioneering a new one.

    10. Consequently, my proposal is for you(>OL2:744) to publish one or a series of my articles, whether already written(OL2:719§C) or written on commission, on how unaccountable judges risklessly abuse lawyers, parties, and everybody else.

    11. These articles are supported by my 2-volume professional study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    C. Articles for pioneering a legal news and publishing market

    12. The following is a sample of subjects(>OL2:719§C) of articles and joint investigations apt for you and others(OL2:1060) to adapt to the new normal legal market by informing and outraging the national public concerning unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. They can become our Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation thereof(*>jur:98§2).

    1. Sen. Warren’s denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment

    13. In her “plan for the Judiciary too”, Sen. Elizabeth Warren dare denounce federal judges for failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold shares in the company of one of the parties before them and resolving such conflict of interests in their own favor so as to protect or enhance the value of their shares. Sen. Warren explains judges’ abusive self-enrichment by their reliance on their unaccountability. Her plan envisages the adoption of legislation to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves abusively(>OL2:998, 1003).
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

    14. Sen. Warren’s denunciation unwittingly validates the key finding of the study* : The class of judges acting collectively as opposed to rogue judges acting individually, have institutionalized their abuse of power as their and their judiciary’s modus operandi.

    15. Their abusive self-enrichment necessarily entails judges’ committing in an organized way the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud.

    16. A key circumstance enabling these crimes is that judges file misleading annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:65fn107c) required by the Ethics in Government Act(jur:65fn107d). While they are public documents(jur:105fn213a), they are filed pro forma with, since they are approved as a matter of course by, not independent non-judges, but rather other judges, who are their peers, colleagues, and friends; subject to the same filing obligation(jur:102§a; fn213b); and dependent for their survival on reciprocal approval since they too commit and cover up crimes(jur:88§§a-c). The resulting unaccountability removes the moral reins on greed and allows it to run amok into corruption.

    17. Another area of organized criminal activity is the     bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614) involving $100s of billions(jur:27§2). Judges abuse bankrupts, most of whom for obvious reasons cannot afford lawyers; appear pro se; are incapable of understanding the mind-boggling complexity of the Bankruptcy Code and procedural rules; and although unfair game are wiped out!

    18. The editor and publisher who support the publication of this story can reap commercial and reputational benefits for years to come(*>OL:3§F). They will be acting like Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham. Both of them approved the publication of the story by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972. Thereafter they unflinchingly supported their follow-up stories until President Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

    19. This story of judges’ criminal self-enrichment can force the resignation of judges and even justices(*>jur:92§c), who have committed it and covered up its commission by their peers and colleagues. The story can set in motion the downfall of the Federal Judiciary itself by exposing it –and its state counterparts, whose judges are unaccountable too(>OL2:887§A)– as corruptly organized to function as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1051).

    2. Judges do not read the vast majority of briefs

    20. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(>OL2:608§A), which constitutes an innovative way of analyzing judges’ performance by using the objectivity of math rather than the subjectivity of a personal assessment of their decisions.

    21. Judges require that each party file in support of its case or motion a brief that costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce(>OL2:760§A) although they know that they will in all likelihood not read it. Instead, they have their clerks dump most briefs out of the judges’ caseload by applying robotically guidelines to identify those cases to be disposed of by the clerks issuing unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders lacking any discussion of the facts and the law, and contained in what the clerks only need to date, fill out the blanks, and rubberstamp: a dumping form!
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

    3. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and
    suppress those of their critics

    22. Judges’ interception and suppression of people’s emails and mail(>OL2:781, 929) amounts to their trampling on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the First Amendment guaranteeing “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(>OL2:792¶1).

    23. Exposing this interception by judges will cause national outrage graver than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leak of documents showing the NSA’s unlawful surveillance of scores of millions of phone calls to collect their metadata, e.g., phone numbers of callers and callees, duration of the call, call origin and destination, but without suppressing any call at all.

    4. The sham hearings on judicial accountability

    24. Sham hearings on judicial accountability have been held by politicians and the judges that they put and protect on the bench, lest the judges defend their unaccountability by resorting to their devastating power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C). As a result, neither court/law clerks nor parties to lawsuits can expect a fair and impartial hearing of their grievances against judges(>OL2:1056ϕ).
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

    5. Judges’ abusive dismissal of 100% of complaints against them

    25. Judges self-ensure their unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; >OL2:548, 748). Through such systematic self-interested dismissals and their power of retaliation, judges maintain the status that they have arrogated for themselves: a State within the state.

    6. Invoking the Chief Justice’s conduct at the impeachment trial

    26. After the courts reopen for business, parties can invoke as precedent for their own benefit the disregard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., during the Senate impeachment trial of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(>OL2:1040ϕ, 1045); and his application in connivance with the Senate of a mutual self-serving live and let live complicit arrangement: ‘I will let you run the impeachment trial however you want, and you let us, the judges, run the Judiciary however we want, regardless of the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law’.
    ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

    D. Pioneering citizens hearings and the conference on judges’ abuse of power

    27. The articles mentioned above and similar ones will allow you to take the lead in joining forces to hold unprecedented citizens hearings.

    28. As opposed to congressional hearings, citizens hearings are to be held at reputable media outlets, particularly national publications and TV/radio networks, and universities; nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia; conducted by reporters, professors, and other experts, who will take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse; likely to appeal to presidential and all other 2020 candidates, who have an electoral interest in gaining the attention, donations, and votes of the huge(*>OL:8fn4,5) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

    29. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented to the national public at an event that you can also take the lead in organizing: the first-ever conference on judicial abuse exposure and compensation of victims, hosted by a top university and media networks and attended by life and digital audiences.

    E. Abuse institutionalized for millennia and deemed impossible to change has been defeated through transformative change

    30. Forms of abuse have been institutionalized for thousands of years to protect powerful abusers and maintain the season open to keep preying on the weak. But courageous and stubborn people have never stopped fighting the abuse although theirs appeared to be a losing battle. Yet, it was not.

    31. Slavery, in place since the beginning of mankind when some people realized that they were stronger than others, was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

    32. The ban on women voting, a symbol of the oppression of women by men, was lifted by the 19th Amendment in 1920.

    33. Beginning with a Louisiana case in 1985, judges have held pedophilic priests and their churches accountable and liable despite their invocation of the state and church separation clause of the First Amendment. This was the first time in the recent past that a form of institutionalized abuse that had lasted thousands of years began to undergo transformative change.

    34. To date, the Catholic Church has paid its victims of sexual abuse well over $2.2 billion in compensation. After the enactment in at least 15 states of lookback laws that allow the filing of sexual abuse claims stretching back decades and otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, some 5,000 new cases could force the Catholic Church to compensate the victims by paying them more than $4 billion.

    35. Sexual abuse of women and the disbelief of their claims had been an institution of society for millennia. But then The New York Times (NYT) and The New Yorker (NY) published on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation. In less than a week, on October 16, the MeToo! movement began to emerge worldwide after actress Alyssa Milano called on Twitter for victims of sexual abuse to accuse their abusers. MeToo! accusers have brought people at the top of the entertainment and news industry and the rest of society down for their sexual abuse.

    36. Those are reliable precedents for other forms of abuse, also reputed to be millennial impossibles, such as holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power, to be defeated by transformative change.

    F. Judges’ abuse of power exposed through a scoop and leading to investigations

    37. Judges and their judiciaries are among the last bastions of institutionalized abuse of power. The time has come for them to be held accountable and liable to compensation, for in government by the rule of law Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

    38. By publishing my articles, you can make a scoop. The articles may go viral. They can launch the first salvo against the judges’ and their judiciaries’ bastion.

    39. Other publishers will join the fight in a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation into unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and its several manifestations mentioned above(>OL2:1060).

    40. That investigation will be conducted by professional journalists with the support of an army of citizen journalists among the scores of millions of people who have been abused by judges. It will lead, not just to the impeachment and trial of one officer, but rather to the resignation of judges, justices(*>OL:92§c), and even a whole branch.

    41. The investigation conducted jointly by you and me can jump ahead from the springboard of a wealth of leads(*>OL:194§E). Both my articles and our investigation can cause an informed and outraged public to keep coming back to us for more information and the latest findings.

    G. Victims seeking compensation through local chapters of a national movement

    42. The articles and the presentations can alert parties to the abuse that judges inflicted, are inflicting, and will likely inflict upon them. Almost all parties, whether pro se or represented by an attorney, go to court alone and prosecute their cases separately. As a result, they suffer in isolation and silence judges’ abuse and the anger that it provokes incessantly. They need not be alone. Rather, they can join forces to shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take any abuse
    by anybody, even judges, anymore.

    43. You and I can promote their joining of forces by relying on another current and repeatable precedent: the emergence of the Tea Party. Advocating the single issue of tax reduction, the Tea Party sparked ever more local chapters. They coalesced into a national movement that in less than 10 years rose to dominate national politics.

    44. The Tea Party and the MeToo! movement make it realistic for publishers, lawyers, and me to strive to form local chapters and coalesce them into a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform. This is a realistic and commercially promising proposition since we would be catering to the huge(>OL2:719¶¶6-8) bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

    45. In this context, the article on, and subsequent investigation into, judges who do not read most briefs and have their clerks dump the corresponding cases out of their caseload through dumping forms(supra ¶¶21-22) can provide a potent incentive for the formation of the local chapters. The latter will be constituted of parties before the same judge or in the same court who join forces to demand the refund of their court filing fees, compensation for briefs intentionally rendered wasteful, and punitive damages for fraud.

    46. You and I can promote these local chapters by channeling to them necessary legal assistance directly and indirectly by:

    a. publishing adequate how-to pamphlets(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) and standardized arguments accessible to laypeople(*>jur:123§§a-c) as well as offering webminars(>OL2:957);

    b. calling on law school deans(>OL2:644), professors(>OL2:1045, 973, 932, 773) and student class officers(OL2:747, 641) to offer and enroll in clinics where students supervised by professors assist the chapters(>OL2:571¶24a); and

    c. developing a niche market for recently graduated, the glut of unemployed, and established lawyers to represent victims as they jointly as chapter members or as individual parties file a host of motions for refund of court filing fees and compensation as well as for vacating decisions and remanding for new trial or appeal process.

    47. That is how publishers, lawyers, and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

    H. Facilitating people coming to us through a website enhancement, and going to them on a tour of presentations

    48. To facilitate people coming to us, you can support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(>OL2:445§B, 475§D) of Judicial Discipline Reform.

    49. Articles like this one have been posted to its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They consist only of text with no graphics, pictures, video, or sound. Yet, they have been assessed so positively by countless visitors that 31,067 [as of 15apr20] have become website subscribers as of this writing. You can join them by going to the website and either surfing to <left panel ↓Register    or   clicking  + New   or   Users   >Add New.

    50. Ever more visitors and subscribers can be attracted to the website so that they bring with them their information and investigative leads as well as their business. Indeed, as proposed in the business plan(OL2:1022) of Judicial Discipline Reform, its website can be enhanced to add to it:

    a. a clearinghouse for complaints(>OL2:792, 918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

    b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, which a single complaint cannot provide, namely, patterns(>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. The research tools can include sophisticated software(*>OL:42; >OL2:846) that:

    1) on the one hand, allow anybody to frame queries using natural language; and

    2) on the other hand, enable researchers(*>jur:128§4) to take advantage of artificial intelligence to conduct advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis(jur:131§b) of judges’ decisions as well as all other writings;

    c. the website center can be developed into a multidisciplinary academic(*>OL:60, 255) and business(*>jur:153§§c-g) center that functions as a department or subsidiary of yours or is attached to a top university that sponsors it.

    51. Simultaneously, publishers can go to the public by sponsoring a tour where I present(*>jur: 119§1) the articles and the investigation findings at numerous appropriate venues(*>OL:197§G), such as journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, bar associations, public defender and pro se organizations, etc.

    I. Offer of a presentation to you and your guests

    52. The proposed articles; the investigations that they will spark by journalists and eventually by the authorities; the citizen hearings; and the conference will contribute to inserting the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power in the 2020 campaign. The issue can become a decisive one on Election Day because judges wield power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity. Hence, it matters significantly whether due to their unaccountability, judges abuse their power to grab material gains and increase their convenience at the expense of those who own that power and entrusted it to them through a revocable grant: We the People. At the polls, the People can decide to take their power back.

    53. Your publication of those articles can set in motion that chain of events, which will heighten the interest in the issue of the national public, in general, and your audience and clients, in particular. They will prove once again that ‘scandal sells’. It is in your commercial interest to publish them.

    54. By so doing, you and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People, we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

    55. I offer to present this proposal via video conference to you and your group of peers, colleagues, and other guests. You may use the information in the letterhead above to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling, as well as the terms of the commercial publication of my articles and participation in the proposed investigations.

    56. To decide whether to organize such a presentation watch my video together with its supporting slides(>OL2:958) using the following links:

    a. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

    b. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    57. Meantime, you can support the work of Judicial Discipline Reform:

    Donate

    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or at the Gofundme campaign, https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_Covid_legal_market.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, New York 10472-6506
    USA
    tel. +1(718)827-9521
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    © 2020 Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.  All rights reserved.
    **********************************

    How you can be compensated for judges’ abuse of power upon informing and outraging the public concerning it and forming local chapters of a national movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    To subscribe go to <left panel ↓Register   or   + New   or   Users   >Add New.

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    Abstract: This article describes:

    a. a pattern of abuse of power in which unaccountable judges engage risklessly in coordination with each other to grab material gain and increase their convenience, so that their unaccountability allows them to run their judiciary as the safe haven of a racketeering enterprise;

    b. the connivance between judges and the politicians who in their own interest put them on the bench and hold them there unaccountable, and how you and the rest of voters can expose it during the 2020 campaign; and

    c. how you can contribute to exposing their abuse and connivance by sharing and publishing this information, thereby causing such outrage that you spark a generalized media investigation and a joining of forces that leads to unprecedented citizen hearings and to holding judges and their judiciaries accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

    For you and others to have a chance of being compensated for judges’ abuse of power, help to inform the national public about it and outrage the public at judges by making this article go viral:

    Share and post it to social media, and
    distribute its link as widely as possible:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

    A. Sen. E. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

    1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounce federal judges’ abusive self-enrichment(>OL2:1020): They fail to recuse themselves from cases where they hold shares in one of the parties before them and resolve that conflict of interests in their favor so as to protect or increase the value of their shares. She has identified their unaccountability as the reason why they abuse their power in order to self-enrich: The unaccountable run no risk.

    2. Sen. Warren has “a plan for that too”: She would cause the adoption of legislation to hold judges accountable for their self-enrichment through abuse of power(>OL2:998).

    3. Such abusive self-enrichment by judges involves necessarily their commission of crimes, e.g., concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of trust.

    The materials corresponding to the(* >blue footnote-equivalent references) are found in the professional study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

    a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

    b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

    c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* >blue references) very easy.

    B. The House hearings on sexual harassment by federal judges

    4. The House of Representatives Courts Subcommittee held a hearing on “Protecting Federal Judiciary Employees from Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Other Workplace Misconduct” on February 13, 2020. The articles thereon by National Law Journal reporter Jacqueline Thomsen, jathomsen@alm.com, are quite revealing and disturbing. She wrote:

    Rep. Hank Johnson, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, said in a statement after the hearing that the testimony of Olivia Warren [who clerked in 2017-2018 for, and was sexually harassed by, the late U.S. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] reminded lawmakers “of what we have long known is a problem—that systemic harassment, discrimination, and abuses of power are entrenched in our federal court system”.

    5. Federal judges’ entrenchment in power is indisputable: In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of their peers impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:22fn14) Once a judicial candidate is confirmed, he or she can do whatever they want.

    a. This includes harassing court and law clerks, who work at judges’ pleasure and can be fired without recourse at anytime (jur:30§1) or depend on the recommendation of the judges for whom they clerk to obtain their first job after law school and their clerkship and are muzzled by an abusive ‘confidentiality agreement’(>OL2:745).

    6. The self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren and ‘the entrenched abuse of power’ recognized by Rep. Johnson underlie a pattern of racketeering criminalized under 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).

    C. How an article can set off the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy; and the motivator of compensation for the abused suffered

    7. Judges rely on their unaccountability to engage also in other forms of abuse of power where they do not act separately as individual rogues, but rather operate in coordination(*>jur:88§§a-c) with each other for their gain and convenience(*>OL:173¶93). These forms show that judges run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise(>OL2:1051).

    8. The initial exposure of any of these forms of coordinated abuse –e.g., in an article or news segment appearing nationally– can generate among media outlets competitive, commercial, and reputational pressures to jump on ‘the investigative bandwagon’ aimed to Follow the money!(*>OL:1, 194§E); increase their respective audience and revenue –scandal sells–; and win Pulitzer prizes.

    a. This prospect is supported by reliable and repeatable precedent: The complaint of the whistleblower set off the generalized media investigation into the Ukrainian scandal that led to the impeachment and trial of President Trump(OL2:1048§B).

    9. By informing parties to lawsuits and the rest of the public about judges’ abuse of power, they can be so outraged that those(*>OL:276§C) who had or have a case before the same judge or must file their case in the same court will heed the rallying cry to join forces to demand compensation for the abused suffered.

    10. The prospect of being compensated for the abuse suffered or avoiding suffering it is reasonably calculated to be the most potent motivator for an informed and outraged public to join forces to hold judges accountable and liable for their abuse.

    D. Forms of coordinated abuse of power constituting a pattern of racketeering and revealing a judiciary run as a racketeering enterprise

    11. Judges’ mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), pro forma filed with, and approved by, other judges. These reports are public documents so that they are filed with false and misleading information to conceal judges’ assets and their unlawful origin(jur:105fn213);

    12. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614). It involves annually hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases -776,674 in the 1oct18-30sep19 fiscal year- and $100s of billions in controversy between creditors and debtors(jur:27§2).

    a.This scheme involves not only judges, but also bankruptcy professionals(jur:81fn169), who are insiders of the legal and bankruptcy system, including “attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons”, such as warehousers, bankers, bankruptcy form fillers, etc. They work in coordination to prey easily on bankrupts, most of whom cannot afford an attorney, appear without one, and are wiped out!(jur:43fn65)

    13. Judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(>OL2:608§A) and the analysis of official statistics(OL2:457§D; 847). Judges dump out of their caseloads the corresponding cases and motions by having their clerks fill out dumping forms: unresearched, without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only one blank for one operative word: “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16).

    a. Dumping forms are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else doing research for precedential guidance. They show judges’ contempt for the rule of law and its foundational principle: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44¶83). Justice can only be seen in the doing of the chain:

    1) statement of facts

    2) >legal question in controversy

    3) >applicable law

    4) >reasoned application of law to facts

    5)  >legal conclusion

    6) >decision of what party gets what in controversy.

    b. Dumping forms only make the parties and everybody else hear abusive judges shout arbitrary, fiat-like orders “because we say so!”(*>jur:43§1)

    c. Through the use of dumping forms, judges render wasteful the $1Ks and even $10Ks(>OL2:760§A) that each party must invest in producing the brief required in support of its case or each motion, as well as the effort and time, which have an economic, compensable value, that even parties not represented by lawyers, i.e., pro ses, must invest in producing their brief themselves. This warrants pro ses and represented parties joining forces to demand compensation, such as:

    1) the refund of court filing fees;

    2) compensation for the waste of unread briefs;

    3) punitive damages for the fraud of judges pretending that their decision on the case or motion in question was based “Upon the papers submitted and the applicable law…”, and

    4) guarantees that their briefs will be read and their cases and motions decided in reasoned decisions written by judges –not by clerks lacking judicial power and discretionary leeway– that allow the parties and everybody else ‘to see that justice was done’.

    14. Judges’ abuse of pro ses. From the moment a pro se case is filed -hence before any judge or clerk has bothered to ascertain its nature and gravity-, judges(>OL2:932¶3) apply the official policy of weighting it as only one third of a case(OL2:455§B). This means that judges:

    a. are authorized to spend on a pro se case only one third of the effort and time, and court resources that they spend on the average case, weighted as one, of a represented case(>OL2:420¶6);

    b. are expected not to ‘waste’ more than a third;

    c. nevertheless require pro ses to pay the same fees and produce the same briefs as they require of represented parties; thereby

    d. deny pro ses the equal protection of the law; and

    e. deprive them of due process by not notifying them that their cases will be contemptuously dumped and not giving them opportunity to protest.

    15. Judges’ abuse of their self-disciplining authority granted them by Congress. They dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them(*>jur:21§a), and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:10-14; >OL2:548, 748, 918). Thereby judges abusively self-ensure their unaccountability and breach the trust placed on them by We the People through ‘their representatives in Congress assembled’.

    a. The 2019 Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(AO; *>jur:21fn10) has just been released. Its Tables 10 and S-22 show that although in that fiscal year 1,412 complaints against federal judges were filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364, 51 more than in the previous fiscal year, the judges took remedial action upon only 2 complaints! This represents only 1 more such action than in the previous year. Not a single judge was reported as having been admonished or censured privately, let alone publicly. Every judge complained-against got off scot free.
    https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2019/09/30

    b. Only 10 special committees were appointed to investigate complaints. If for the sake of comparison, they are apportioned to the 1,412 complaints filed that year, this means that only in 7 tenths of 1 percent of complaints was such a committee appointed; or conversely, that the chief judges of the several circuits, who are the first ones to examine complaints filed in their respective circuits, dismissed 99.3% of complaints out of hand without any investigation by a special investigative committee.

    c. By so doing, the chief judges systematically disregarded the injunction issued under §352(a): “The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.” It is beyond reasonable doubt impossible that in 1,402 out of 1,412 complaints there was no “matter reasonably in dispute” that would have required a fair and impartial chief judge to appoint a committee rather than make a biased determination in favor of his or her complained-against peer, colleague, or friend, to justify complaint dismissal. What a complaint-processing sham!

    d. Yet, AO and the pertinent committees on such complaints(>OL2:796) held a public hearing on October 30, 2018, at the instigation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.(OL2:642¶1, 645) precisely for the purpose of amending the rules for processing those complaints so as to render complaining against federal judges more effective(OL2:774-791).

    e. However, the facts show that the judges never intended to hold each other accountable at all(>OL2:791¶3, 694¶12). Instead, they hold fast to their complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement whereby they mutually ensure their survival(OL2:793g).

    f. Just as judges had done before amending those rules in 1986, 2000, 2008, and 2015(OL2:1057¶¶11-12), in 2018, they only held another sham hearing(OL2:1058§C). Their conduct exhibits an undeniable pattern of abuse of power in their favor, with gross disregard of the detriment to complainants, left uncompensated and at the mercy of judges with fearsome power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C; *>OL:267§4).

    16. Judges’ pervasive secrecy. Judges hold all their administrative, policy-making, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and refuse to hold press conferences, never mind take questions from a pool of journalists(*>jur:27§e). Their secrecy enables their coordination of abuse. It betrays Justice Brandeis’s dictum “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”(jur:158¶350b)…because being seen transparently out in the open combats the mold of corruption that secrecy breeds in darkness.

    17. Judges’ interception of the mail and emails of the public in order to detect and suppress those of their critics(>OL2:781, 885, 889-913, 929). The exposure of this form of abuse can provoke the most intense(OL2:996§2) scandal as it affects the largest segment of the public and We the People’s most cherished rights, to wit, those that We guaranteed for ourselves under our Constitution’s 1st Amendment: “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet too], and to petition the Government [of which judges constitute the Third Branch] for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:22fn12b).

    E. Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People

    18. As admitted by Rep. Johnson(supra ¶1), ‘we, the politicians, have long known…that judges are entrenched and abuse their power’. Politicians cannot be reasonably expected to turn in an effective way against their partners in abuse of power(jur:77§§5-6). Their connivance is shown by Chief Justice Roberts’ disregard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” at the impeachment trial in the Senate(OL2:1045, 1049¶8).

    19. Politicians(*>jur:77§§5-6) recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates to justiceships and judgeships and protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ by holding them unaccountable; they too have no regard for the harm to We the People that they leave unprotected.

    20. In their courts, judges exonerate each other from complaints. As a result, their abuse of power has no downside, only the upside of gain and convenience. On their own initiative, they are not going to bring about effective judicial reform.

    a. Allowing an abusive judge to resign and keep his pension without having to compensate his victims, let alone being tried on criminal charges, is not effective accountability. It is only an instance of their reciprocal exoneration from complaints and granting of pardons in effect; and their unequal protection from the law(jur:88§§a-c) by their political appointers: They are Judges Above the Law.

    b. This is shown by former 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who simply resigned after decades of harassing court/law clerks and others(>OL2:645¶1); and by Sen. Warren’s unrealistic proposal for charging with holding judges accountable –only, but no mention of also liable to compensate their victims– the very same politicians and judges who have always held them unaccountable!(OL2:998)

    21. By contrast, the People can assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and masters of all public servants, including judicial public servant. As such, they can force reform that enables them to hold judges and their judiciaries accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how judges hold malpractising doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, police officers and their departments, pedophilic priests and their churches, etc.: accountable and liable(OL2:1048¶4). Judges should be too, for Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

    22. The People are in the strongest position so to hold judges during a presidential campaign, when politicians must appear to be sensitive and responsive to their outrage and demands. To enable them to take advantage of their current position is the objective of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>OL2:1037): To inform the People about, and so outrage them at, judges’ abuse of power that they are stirred up to force politicians to take a stand on the issue and face the consequences at the polls.

    23. This is a reasonably calculated strategy given that the People can be informed(>OL2:1016§1) about abuse committed even by the Supreme Court justices now and when they were lower court judges(*>jur:65§§1-4). As circuit justices of the circuit to which they are allotted(jur:26fn23a), they learn about the abuse of their former peers and other judges and cover for them. The People can be outraged at justices and judges running the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1014).

    a. There is precedent for a justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas withdrew his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship but still resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) had provoked(jur:92§d).

    F. An article that sparks investigation, unprecedented citizen hearings, a conference, and the insertion of the issue in national politics

    24. The publication of one(>OL2:760, 781, 614) or a series(OL2:719§C) of articles can spark a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power(OL2:876). This is realistically based on the precedent of the MeToo! movement(OL2:1032): It was prompted by the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation(OL2:1032).

    25. The article(s) can go viral by being shared with friends, family, and associates, and posted to social media as widely as possible by:

    a. Advocates of Honest Judiciaries;

    b. parties to lawsuits;

    c. judges(>OL2:607, 613, 807) and court/law clerks acting either openly or as confidential informants or whistleblowers(OL2:1014);

    d. lawyers(OL2:841);

    e. professors(OL2:773, 808, 973);

    f. students(OL2:971), such as those at law(OL2:982), journalism(*>Lsch:23), business(OL2:1024§C), and Information Technology(OL2:846) schools;

    g. journalists(OL2:984, 995); etc.

    26. All of them can participate as investigators or their sources. To strengthen their participation, they can call for unprecedented citizen hearings. These hearings can be held at universities and media outlets(OL2:1046¶8, 1056¶4, 1066); conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts; and nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia so that people can inexpensively from wherever they are testify to abuse committed by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.

    27. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented at the first-ever and national conference on judicial abuse of power exposure and compensation of abusees, held at a top university.

    28. The article(s), citizen hearings, and the conference can so inform and outrage the People as to insert the issue of judges’ abuse in our national politics and discourse(>OL2:938). This will pave the way for eventual effective judicial reform by the People:

    a. In the interest of giving themselves ‘government by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6), ‘the People giveth power in trust to judges for them to apply the law; and the People taketh it back from them upon being informed that judges have outrageously breached the trust to ‘embezzle’ that power for their own gain and convenience’. The grant of power is transient.

    29. Through your participation in implementing the inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1047§A), you can cause one or more justices, even the whole Supreme Court, to resign(OL2:1050§D), or expose “the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) of so many justices and judges as to reasonably conclude that they have institutionalized their abuse of power through coordination that has made them members of a racketeering enterprise. The ensuing institutional crisis can far surpass the consequences of the Watergate scandal(jur:4¶10-14), for it can bring down, not just a top officer and ‘All his men’, but rather the Judiciary as a branch.

    30. Unaccountability allows power to “corrupt absolutely”(*>jur27fn28). Only after full exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the racketeering of judges and their judiciaries, can judicial reform that today is deemed inconceivable become unavoidable.

    31. If you Dare!(>OL2:1003) participate, you can earn one or many rewards(*>OL:3§F). Among them are writing a bestseller(jur:4¶13), being played in a blockbuster movie or documentary(OL2:879), winning a Pulitzer that opens the doors to working in a position or for an entity that is more prestigious, and even the loftiest and longest-lasting of all: being recognized by We the People of the World as a historic agent of transformative change, who turned the millennial impossible(OL2:1069§E) of holding judges accountable and liable into a democratic right and a reality here and abroad(OL2:1037§1).

    G. Offer of a presentation

    32. I offer to present via video conference this article to you and your peers, professors and students, and other guests. I will present the following actions(OL2:978§E) in which you all can participate:

    a. sharing this article and posting it to social media widely so that it may go viral and inform the most people about, and outrage them at, the above-described forms of judges’ coordinated abuse of power through which they run their judiciary as a racketeering enterprise;

    b. publishing one or a series of my articles;

    c. investigating with academic researchers and journalists the forms of judges’ abuse of power;

    d. pioneering citizen hearings thereon held at, and by the staff of, universities and media outlets;

    e. holding the first-ever and international conference on judges’ abuse of power to present the findings of the citizen hearings and the investigations;

    f. sponsoring a tour of presentations nationwide to inform, outrage, and promote the formation of the single issue civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform;

    g. forming the movement’s local chapters of parties joining forces to demand compensation;

    h. promoting the offering by law school clinics, lawyers, and law firms of assistance to local chapters and individuals seeking compensation for the harm that judges have caused them;

    i. establishing a multidisciplinary academic and business center(jur:119§§1, 5) attached to, and sponsored by, a university, media outlet, think tank, or public interest entity, and dedicated to “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”.

    33. To decide whether to organize(OL2:945) such presentation you may watch my video together with its supporting slides(>OL2:958) by means of these links:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    34. Thereafter you can share this article and use the contact information below to discuss with me the terms and conditions of the presentation and its scheduling.

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

    H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

    35. There is easy-to-follow advice for forming(*>OL:276§C) a local chapter of parties with cases before the same judge or in the same court(>OL2:1071§H). By putting it into practice, you can participate in not only the implementation of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1037), but also the formation of a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and reform(OL2:1032).

    36. Forming that movement is a key objective of Judicial Discipline Reform(>OL2:1061§A). It:

    a. conducts professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(>OL2:924, 941, 953);

    b. produced the study* of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3);

    c. made a video with supporting slides(supra ¶33);

    d. has sent hundreds of thousands of emails, including to hundreds of yahoo- and google- groups, to share its articles on judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform;

    e. runs the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted so many visitors and impressed them so positively that 31,062 and counting have become subscribers as of April 15, 2020(>OL2:Appendix 3). You can subscribe to the website by going to it and then to <left panel ↓Register or + New   or   Users   >Add New; etc.

    37. To implement its strategy(OL2:1001) Judicial Discipline Reform has a program of actions for supporters to participate in(>OL2:978§E) as well as a business plan to finance them(OL2:1022), which is guided by the principle: Making Money While Doing Justice.

    38. The plan envisages the enhancement(*>OL:42) of the website from an informational outlet into:

    a. a clearinghouse for complaints(supra ¶15; >OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload;

    b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many decisions, complaints, and other writings in search of(*>jur:131§b; OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power.

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    passion for justice are.

    DONATE
    through

    PayPal
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or at

    the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    1. I look forward to hearing from you. Meanwhile, you may share this article with your peers, associates, and guests to the presentation; post it to social media; and distribute its link as widely as possible:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6505
             http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    tel. +1(718)827-9521

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    © 2020 Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.  All rights reserved.
    **********************************

    The rewards of exposing unaccountable judges’ abusive self-enrichment, denounced by Sen. E. Warren in her “plan for the Judiciary”, and other forms of their abuse of power, by the media and academics publishing, investigating, and holding unprecedented citizen hearings

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media.pdf

    Dear Journalists, professors and students, politicians, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    I would like to submit to your and your colleagues’ consideration this proposal for:

    A. The publication of one(e.g., >OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

    1. analyzing Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “plan for that too”, namely, to hold judges accountable for self-enrichment by failing to recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interests due to their holding shares in one of the parties before them and instead resolving the conflicts in that party’s and their own favor. If elected, Sen. Warren plans to have legislation adopted to hold judges accountable for abusively enriching themselves(>OL2:998). Self-enrichment through abuse of power entails concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering(>OL2:949);

    * The materials corresponding to the(* >blue footnote-like references) are found in my professional two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

    a. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

    b. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* >blue footnote-like references) very easy.

    2. showing through “the math of abuse”(>OL2:608§A) and official statistics(OL2:457§§B, D) that judges do not read the vast majority of briefs that they require parties to file in support of any case or motion.

    a. A brief costs each party $1Ks and even $10Ks to research, discover evidence, write, compile the record of evidentiary documents, print, file, and serve.

    b. Yet, judges have their clerks(>OL2:1025¶15) dump the corresponding case or motion out of their caseload by applying categories of dumpable cases and motions(OL2:762¶¶14-15, 981¶18d) and rubberstamping in the clerk of court’s name a 5¢ dumping form. The latter contains an unresearched, arbitrary, fiat-like order without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only a blank to be filled in with “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16). Hence, they are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else.

    c. Moreover, those orders are fraudulent, for they take no notice of the only section of the brief that matters to the party filing it and for which the court asks for and receives filing fees: the “Relief Requested”. Through the items therein the party asks the court to solve the controversy with the opposing party and for which it pays the court’s filing fees. But the clerks could not care less, for the only task that they received from the judges is to dump as many cases and motions as possible. They will dump any appeal. “Next!” (>OL2:546¶¶4-6)

    d. By contrast, a tiny minority of briefs of interest(OL2:1006¶2b.ii) to the judges benefit from their unequal protection: They are read and discussed in opinions with precedential value and reasoned decisions issued in the judges’ names and published for parties, judges, and journalists to cite and comment(OL2:760).

    e. To verify the above statements, go to the websites of courts, particularly appellate ones, download a random sample of posted decisions, and analyze and compare them.

    3. exposing judges’ dismissal of 100% of complaints against them and denial of 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; >OL2:548, 748), whereby judges self-exonerate from all accountability.

    a. Congress granted judges self-disciplining authority under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(*>jur:24fn18a), which it passed for the protection of anybody with a complaint against them.

    b. But judges have in effect abrogated the Act for the gain and convenience that they grab through their riskless abuse of power.

    c. Congress is informed of judges’ handling of complaints in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(OL2:1037¶6), who is an appointee of the Chief Justice.

    d. Congress ‘saw something, but said nothing’. Its culpable indifference has been self-interested: to avoid retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) by judges, who have a gang mentality(OL2:546¶¶1-3) and the power to hold executive orders(OL2:1028¶4), laws, and a legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17; *>OL:267§4).

    e. Congress allows judges to hold themselves unaccountable and become Judges Above the Law, the harm to the public and the rule of law notwithstanding;

    4. asserting the equal protection right of victims of judges and their judiciaries to be compensated by them, just as are the victims of malpracticing doctors and their hospitals; lawyers and their law firms; pedophilic priests and their churches; police officers and their police departments; etc.

    a. The formation is underway of local chapters of parties to cases before the same judge or in the same court to demand(>OL2:729) the refund of filing fees; compensation for wasteful briefs; and damages for the fraud of cashing in filing fees and alleging that cases and motions were decided based on the briefs even though they were not even read(OL2:953).

    B. Joint investigations of timely stories in the context of the presidential campaign

    5. The objective of the investigations is, not to pass judgment on the abuse of discretion by one or more judges(OL:193§D), but rather to expose to voters how unaccountable judges in connivance with politicians have coordinated their abuse into their judiciaries’ institutionalized modus operandi. The investigations can follow the abundant leads already gathered(*>OL:194§E). Their findings will inform voters as well as the rest of the public about, and outrage them at, judge’ criminal activities, such as:

    6. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail(>OL2:995§B, 899) to detect and suppress those critical of their abuse(OL2:974§B, 930§C) will be the subject of the Follow the wire! investigation(jur:105§b).

    a. This is potentially their most outrageous abuse of power, for it deprives We the People of our most cherished rights, namely, those guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(OL2:792¶1). Its exposure can provoke graver outrage than did the revelation of NSA’s warrantless collection of scores of millions of calls’ metadata(OL2:996§2).

    7. The Follow the Money! investigation(*>jur:102§a)can be patterned on the one conducted during the Watergate scandal(*>jur:4¶11; >OL2: 522¶d); and those revealed in the Offshore Leaks(*>OL:1) and the Panama Papers, and lead to the discovery of:

    a. the money involved in judges’ self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1a); and

    b. the hundreds of billions of dollars(*>jur:27§2) involved in the bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614).

    1) Judges, their cronies(*>jur:32§§2, 3), and other insiders(*>jur:81fn169) take advantage of millions of people facing the most disruptive and stressful financial situation: bankruptcy.

    2) Bankrupts have hardly any money to pay a lawyer, the immense majority appear pro se to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as they supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the rules of the local bankruptcy court, and as a result are wiped out!(*>jur:28fn35, 43fn65a);

    8. How the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his approval or condonation of the conduct of senators during the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate can be:

    a. invoked by defendants in federal and state cases on grounds of equal protection and due process of law to refuse the production of any witness and document, and assert an absolute privilege of CEOs and other principals to prevent their aides from being interrogated on their advice to them(>OL2:1040).

    1) Defendants can argue that the President’s attorneys compared the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

    2) They argued that the House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

    3) They contended that the House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were entitled only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, could vote on whether to convict and remove the President.

    4) Equally, a criminal defendant would claim that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict(>OL2:1044¶25);

    b. traced back to a quid pro quo: the Chief Justice disregarded “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(>OL2:1041¶8), which commanded the production of witnesses and documents, and allowed the senators to do whatever they wanted in exchange for the senators continuing to hold judges unaccountable and allowing them 100% self-exoneration from complaints(supra ¶1c).

    9. How the justices of the Supreme Court have engaged in abuse of power as principals and cover it as accessories(>OL2:950¶6b) and as circuit justices allotted to the several circuits(*>jur:26fn23a).

    a. Justices and judges are well aware of the dire warning that all of them have written on their foreheads: “I know about your own abuse of power. So if you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!” That is how judges extort from each other complicit survival assistance.

    b. You can contribute to launching these investigations by sharing this article with all your friends and family, posting it to social media, and emailing it repeatedly to the following blocs of journalists, presidential candidates, and professors, under the stated subject line. Copy one bloc at a time, paste it in the To: line of your email, and send it:

    1) To: [journalists]

    editors@time.com, NTotenberg@npr.org, MCoyle@alm.com, Sandra.Peddie@newsday.com, aturturro@alm.com, sarah.mimms@buzzfeed.com, newsthirteen@thirteen.org, matt.zapotosky@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, expertanalysis@law360.com, frontline@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, editor@newsday.com, dailybrief@huffpost.com, washingtonweek@pbs.org, tips@nypost.com, tips@theappeal.org, vaughan.smith@frontlineclub.com, jeanette.wells@thomsonreuters.com, jon.swaine@theguardian.com, joshua_benton@harvard.edu, amanda.arnold@nymag.com, amiller@newshour.org, benjamin.weller@newsday.com,

    2) To: [presidential candidates]

    “Donald J. Trump” <contact@action.gop.com> , Keepamericagreat@groups.io, Keepamericagreat+owner@groups.io, contact@action.gop.com,info@elizabethwarren.com,  info@joebiden.com, reply@workingfamilies.org, info@ourrevolution.com, us@ocasio2018.com, info@peteforamerica.com, mymanmert@gmail.com, Kucinich4President@yahoogroups.com,  Fernwoods@aol.com, hello@corybooker.com, info@kamalaharris.org,

    3) To: [professors]

    katyaln@law.georgetown.edu, mjh335@law.georgetown.edu, jg1861@law.georgetown.edu, gucomm@georgetown.edu, jturley@law.gwu.edu, lessig@law.harvard.edu, vdeportu@law.harvard.edu, dersh@law.harvard.edu, susan.rose-ackerman@yale.edu, judith.resnik@yale.edu, kelly.hernandez@yale.edu, jsnyder@gov.harvard.edu, bonnie.posick@yale.edu, ejanger@jd20.law.harvard.edu, RWHEELER@brookings.edu, cgeyh@indiana.edu, hello@lawyersdefendingdemocracy.org, jaimeestades@yahoo.com, rposner@uchicago.edu, eposner@uchicago.edu, bjwalker@uchicago.edu, alisonsiegler@uchicago.edu, knorcross@uchicago.edu, tmiles@law.uchicago.edu, javratin@uchicago.edu, dzarfes@uchicago.edu, wlandes@uclaw.uchicago.edu, kathryn.mammel@yale.edu, lise.cavallaro@yale.edu, abbe.gluck@yale.edu, Rebecca.stone@law.ucla.edu, james.geiser@troutman.com, srh90@georgetown.edu, cogolla@savannahlawschool.org,

    4) Subject line:

    Re: The rewards of exposing judges’ self-enrichment, denounced by Sen. Warren in her “plan”, and other forms of their abuse of power, by publishing, investigating, and holding unprecedented citizen hearings

    C. Investing in Judicial Discipline Reform to enable its continued pursuit of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

    10. The website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org has attracted numberless visitors and has exerted such strong appeal that it has turned 30,918 and counting(OL2:Appendix 3) into subscribers. This proof of public appeal makes it a sound business proposition:

    a. to develop this free informational outlet into a for-profit interactive business that sells ads, services, and goods, as set forth in its business plan(OL2:1022); and

    b. to finance the programmatic activities(>OL2:916§C, 978§E) to implement the out-of-court(OL2:1008§B) inform and outrage strategy for forming a national civic single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform(>OL2:1037).

    D. Unprecedented citizens hearings and the electoral, commercial, and reputational rewards from exposing judges’ abuse

    11. More than 50 million cases are filed in the state and federal courts annually(*>jur:8fn4,5), to which must be added the scores of millions of cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully. Parties sue and are sued separately and suffer abuse alone. They constitute the huge national untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

    12. The Dissatisfied can significantly increase the audience of a journalist and/or media outlet that recognize their existence and give them a voice. This is particularly so if the journalist and the outlet together with professors(>OL2:1045, 982, 971) and universities contribute to organizing the proposed unprecedented citizen hearings on judges’ abuse of power. Their findings can be discussed at a conference on judicial reform.

    13. These citizen hearings are to be held by universities and media stations; moderated by professors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and other fraud and forensic experts; and broadcast on an interactive multimedia basis. The hearings will give the organizers access to a national audience that will hear or give testimony about judges’ abuse of power that witnesses have experienced or witnessed. Thus informed and outraged, the audience, in general, and voters, in particular, will demand that politicians call and hold official hearings and reform judicial accountability and liability meaningfully(*>jur:158§§6-8; cf. OL2:933¶6).

    14. A principled or opportunistic but savvy presidential candidate(OL2:1011, 937) can attract The Dissatisfied by denouncing judges’ abuse, as did Sen. Warren(supra ¶1) at rallies, townhall meetings and interviews; seeking compensation for them through local chapters of abusees; and calling for congressional hearings. So can the candidate become their Champion of Justice(OL2:991, 1027).

    15. Scandal sells copy. A scandal will be provoked by exposing how the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and thereafter hold them unaccountable as ‘our men and women on the bench’ and allowed judges and their judiciaries to become a racketeering branch(OL2:999¶13).

    16. The journalist and media outlet that scoop this scandal will be rewarded commercially and can reasonably expect to enhance their personal and professional names and even win a Pulitzer Prize(*>OL:3§F8).

    17. A journalist and a media outlet can seek to turn one or more judges and their clerks into Whistleblower in the Judiciary, the equivalent of the whistleblowing officer in the Executive who launched the process of impeachment of President Trump(>OL2:1008). They and waiters, drivers, receptionists, etc., can become confidential informants(jur:106§c).

    18. There is precedent for a Supreme Court justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that he caused as a result of his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:92§d). Could you end up writing a bestseller or portrayed in a blockbuster movie if you caused one or several justices, or even the whole Supreme Court to resign? You can become a transformative historic figure here and abroad.(>OL2:1008)

    E. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

    19. If you are interested in accountable and liable judges and their judiciaries, you may want to support Judicial Discipline Reform in its:

    a. professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(>OL2:445§B, 475§D); and

    b. enhancement of this website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org into:

    1) a clearinghouse for complaints(>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

    2) a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, *>OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power, including judges’ filing of misleading mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a and fn. 213b) and the self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1).

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    passion for justice are.

    DONATE
    through

    PayPal

    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign at

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    F. Offer of a presentation

    20. I offer to present via video conference or in person this article to you and your colleagues. You may use the contact information below to reach me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

    21. To decide whether to organize such presentation watch my video together with the slides(>OL2:958) using the following links:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Tel. (718)827-9521

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    *************************************

    Invoking in your own case as precedent the Chief Justice’s conduct at the impeachment trial and his determination of motions by applying “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” rather than Senate rules

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

    A. What is here not advocated; advocated; and the advocacy’s basis.

    1. This article does not advocate the position of either party to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the Senate, i.e., the House of Representatives’ managers prosecuting the impeachment articles or the President’s legal team that seeks to exonerate him from all charges therein.

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

    2. This article advocates “Equal Justice Under Law”. That is the principle inscribed on the frieze of the Supreme Court building. Its inscription there signifies that it is the principle that guides the justices’ administration of justice by applying the law equally to all persons. It is the corollary of another principle that expresses the essence of ‘a government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6), which has been heard so frequently of late: Nobody is Above the Law.

    3. The article advocates such equality in practical terms:

    a. It shows how parties, whether represented by lawyers or appearing pro se, can argue that what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has done, approved, or condoned while presiding over the impeachment trial illustrates the conduct that his associate justices and the other federal and state judges whom they supervise can engage in when presiding over all other cases.

    b. This is similar to relying on the federal rules of procedure and evidence, which have been incorporated almost word by word into all state laws. Their application by federal judges, in general, and the Supreme Court, in particular, establishes how due process ensures trial by the rule of law; and equal protection guarantees that Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

    * This article is supported by the two-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows. That study contains the materials corresponding to the(* >footnote-like blue text references) herein:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

    a. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

    b. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* >blue footnote-like references) very easy.

    B. The Chief’s conduct establishes what is fair and just for all other trials

    4. If parties cannot invoke as precedent the conduct of the Chief Justice at the impeachment trial, then he has failed to “do impartial justice” to the President, which is what he swore the senators to do in the oath that he administered to them at the start of the trial.

    5. If the Chief has treated him as being either above or ‘beneath’ the law, he has violated his own oath of office at 28 U.S. Code §453 [the Code of federal laws only](*>jur:53fn90), whereby he swore, as judicial officers must do, “to administer equal right to the poor [in knowledge, intelligence, and money] and to the rich [in prominence, judicial colleagues, and connections to VIPs outside the court]”.

    6. The Chief has the duty to apply that oath, for the Constitution, Section 3, 5th Clause, provides thus:

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    7. This Clause identifies the proceeding over which the Chief is presiding as a trial. The fact that the entity empowered to conduct it is the Senate does not defeat the principle that was intended to be safeguarded by the adoption of the Constitution, namely, the rule of law and its equal application to all, by contrast to the will of the King of England expressed arbitrarily by fiat on a case by case basis even after the fact, except as curbed by the Magna Carta and British legal tradition.

    8. The provision that “when the President…is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” introduces the head of another ‘Power’, i.e., the Judiciary. The Constitution does not subject the Chief to the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate. The latter can adopt binding rules when it tries impeached officers other than the president, in which case the Constitution does not provide for any judge to be brought in to preside over the trial; yet, even those rules must comport with the rule of law.

    9. When the Chief Justice is brought in to preside over the trial of an impeached President, he does not come in empty-handed to sit and watch the trial as merely a symbolic figure. Far from it, he comes in with something pertaining to the ‘Power’ that he represents, the Judiciary, and that he must apply to ensure the institutional protection of all courts as well as the equal treatment of all parties: “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”; cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

    10. Those notions extend far beyond the single issue of the exercise by a court of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation. Rather, they reach all aspects of a trial that affect the trial’s very purpose: to apply due process to ensure equal justice under law.

    C. Raising motions for the Chief Justice to decide unbound by Senate rules

    11. In any court, a party can raise a motion of any nature requesting any relief; no rule requires that it first obtain the opposing party’s permission to do so. The opposing party’s remedy is to object to the motion and move for its dismissal; or object to the relief requested and move for its denial.

    12. Likewise, during the impeachment trial, either party can submit to the Chief Justice any motion. In determining it, he is not bound by the rules adopted by the Senate for this trial. This accords with the principle that agreements between the parties to a trial are not binding on the court.

    13. The justification for this is that an agreement may have been extracted from the weaker party by the party with stronger bargaining power or superior knowledge. The court must not allow itself to be turned into the stronger party’s enforcer.

    14. A plea agreement reached by the prosecutor and the defendant or a settlement between civil parties does not bind the judge, who can reject or modify it in order to ensure that it comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.

    15. In the Senate, there is always a party with superior power either because of its greater number of senators or because it can count with the tie-breaking vote of the vice-president of the U.S. in his capacity as president of the Senate.

    16. As a result, it falls to the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment trial to ensure that the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate are fair and just, rather than the result of unequal bargaining power and partisanship; and that the rules do not offend against those “traditional notions” developed by the Judiciary and applied to all its proceedings to ensure due process and guarantee equal protection of the law. The Chief must ensure this not only on motions raised by a party, but also on his own motion.

    17. Since he is presiding at a trial, as a justice of the Supreme Court, and before a national audience, what he does and how he does it establishes a precedent for any party to invoke and for any court to take into consideration in its rulings.

    18. Even if any Senate rule or voting provided that no subpoenas calling for witnesses or documents would issue, the Chief could apply those “traditional notions” to order their appearance or production so as to enable “equal justice to be done” not only by the senators, but also to the parties so as to enable each to present its case fairly and unhampered by overpowering partisanship.

    19. The Senate majority could not afford to overturn every motion decision by the Chief, lest it appear ensuring a predetermined trial result. If a party made an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court, it would be for the Chief to decide whether the appeal lay, and if so, whether it would be interlocutory, with or without suspensive effect on the trial, or at the end of it. While these are uncharted waters, those “notions” provide the compass to arrive at answers to questions of first impression.

    D. Claims of executive privilege made by the President

    20. A claim of executive privilege issued by the head of the Executive branch will be incapable of preventing the production of witnesses or documents ordered by the Chief Justice, the head of a co-equal branch, the Judiciary, which has inherent powers for the conduct of its business.

    21. The power of judges is so much stronger that one single district judge can hold unconstitutional a law that was researched, debated, and adopted by 535 members of Congress and enacted by the President. One district judge, J. James Robart, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of the President, though he had campaigned on issuing it and received the votes of over 62.5 million people. Three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide.

    22. If one judge can do so, the Chief can order witnesses and documents to be produced; and order federal marshals to take custody of that person or documents and bring them to the Senate, for “he who can do the most can do the lesser”.

    23. If the President instructed the Executive not to comply with any Senate subpoena or any order of the Chief, he would lend credence to the impeachment article of obstruction of Congress and even render himself liable to the charge of contempt of court, cf. ‘obstruction of the Judiciary’. Such wholesale non-compliance would be fraught with dire consequences.

    24. Not even President Nixon dare do that after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered him on July 24, 1974, to turn over the tapes that he had secretly recorded in the White House, which turned out to hold information incriminating him in the Watergate scandal. Nixon complied. The House began drafting articles of impeachment. The Senate was likely to convict and remove him. So Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

    1. Judges’ closing ranks and retaliating out of their gang mentality

    25. Defiance of all Chief Justice’s orders would be even more offensive than simply berating a federal judge: President Trump berated not only Judge Robart, but also U.S.D.J. Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University case.

    26. That prompted a most revealing comment by Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch as he made courtesy visits with the senators who had to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court, even though thereupon the President could have withdrawn his nomination. Judge Gorsuch reportedly said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:546¶1).

    27. That comment reveals the gang mentality that drives judges to defend each other rather than a concern for determining impartially and objectively whether the judge’s conduct in question was legally or ethically right or respectful of the injunction in Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a). No judge is going to defy the gang, which can ostracize him or her as a treacherous pariah.

    28. If the President defied or berated the Chief Justice, judges would certainly close ranks behind their Chief and retaliate against the President in the pending cases that are very important to his administration or him personally.

    29. Their retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) may provoke(>OL2:1029¶1, §§C,D) the President to escalate his berating and even launch directly or indirectly an investigation of their self-enrichment through abuse of their power and unaccountability that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounced(OL2:998) and other forms of abuse(OL2:1039¶19).

    30. An institutional crisis between the Judiciary and the Executive would ensue and aggravate the ongoing one between the Executive and Congress.

    2. The Rules allow a witch hunt subject to admissibility of the witch

    31. Since the President is the defendant at the trial for his removal from office, he faces a conflict of interests if he claims to issue the order of non-compliance as president. To allow him as party to decide what can be produced at his trial would set a precedent that any other party could invoke:

    32. To begin with, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b) on “Discovery Scope and Limits” provides under “(1) Scope in General…Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable”. This provision authorizes an evidentiary hunt which is known to have no courtroom accessible to its evidentiary catch.

    33. In the same vein, a representation to the court is proper under FRCP 11 if “(b)(3) the factual contentions…will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

    34. In principle, everything is huntable, including the witch. The rules of procedure allow a disclosure and discovery fishing expedition; whether the catch of information becomes admissible evidence is determined subsequently, e.g., on a motion in limine before or during trial.

    35. Compliance with the rules will become optional if the Chief Justice and the Senate uphold the President’s refusal to produce any witness or document.

    E. How to invoke the impeachment trial in your own case

    36. Up to now, the President has only issued a blanket order instructing all members of the Executive not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry by appearing to testify or producing requested documents. However, he has not formally invoked executive privilege.

    37. But after the start of the impeachment trial, he tweeted that if the Senate issued subpoenas for witnesses and documents, he would claim executive privilege to prevent their appearance or production.

    38. The Constitution does not expressly provide any executive privilege. Rather, it provides for three branches that exercise checks and balances on each other to prevent anyone from overpowering another, for instance, by frustrating Congress’s duty of oversight of the Executive. Its provision for impeaching and trying officers implies ‘all means’ “necessary and proper for its Execution” (Art 1, Sec. 8), e.g., finding facts through the issuance of subpoenas and orders of production.

    39. If in spite of these features, the Chief Justice allows a Senate subpoena or his order of production to be defied by the President just as if the Chief denies a motion for such order, the Chief will establish a damaging precedent that any party will be entitled on equal protection grounds to invoke in its own case.

    40. Any party will attempt to defeat any subpoena by asserting a boundless spousal, attorney/client, and priest/penitent privilege; and even craft its own privilege: A corporate chief executive could claim that her communications with her aides were privileged to ensure that they gave her candid advice without the chilling effect of the possibility of being compelled to disclose it.

    41. Even more broadly, it would suffice to defeat a subpoena that its target self-servingly characterized the investigation underlying it as “a hoax”, “a witch hunt”, or “abuse of process”.

    42. In the same vein, a criminal defendant could invoke the arguments made and conduct engaged in at the impeachment trial in the Senate with the approval or condonation of its presiding officer, the Chief Justice. Underpinning those arguments and conduct was the comparison by the President’s attorneys of the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

    a. The House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

    b. The House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were allowed only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, voted on whether to convict and remove the President.

    c. Likewise, a criminal defendant would claim on equal protection grounds that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict.

    43. A party that moves to have a privilege so extended; such a characterization of an investigation upheld; and such an indictment process and trial applied to her case, can claim to be proceeding in good faith and to be shielded from sanctions under FRCP 11 –or state law, e.g., 22 NYCRR 130-1.1–: Its “(2) claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law”.

    44. The party’s motion will be “reasonable under the circumstances” since it will be based on what the Chief Justice did, approved, or condoned over the objections of the majority of members of Congress.

    45. The fact that the trial was nationally televised warrants the reasonable expectation that his conduct would set a precedent for every party to invoke and every judge to follow on equal protection grounds.

    46. A judge confronted with such a motion would either have to grant it; allow an interlocutory appeal; or certify a question to an appellate court, including the Supreme Court.

    F. Presentation on judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

    47. I offer to present this article via video conference or in person to you and your group of guests. You may use the contact information below to reach me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

    48. To decide whether to organize such presentation, you can review the following files, which you may share and post together with this article as widely and repeatedly as possible:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

    G. Judicial Discipline Reform’s pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

    49. The judges of the Federal Judiciary, the only ones with a life appointment and national jurisdiction, as well as state judges, in general, have enormous power over We the People’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

    50. They are held unaccountable by themselves(>OL2:918, 792) and the politicians that put them on the bench. So they risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience(OL2:1039§E).

    a. This contention has been unwittingly validated by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She has dare denounce their self-enrichment through abuse of power. According to her, it is the result of their unaccountability. She “has a plan for that too: If elected, she will cause legislation to be passed to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves by abusing their power.”(OL2:998).

    51. Judicial Discipline Reform pursues “Equal Justice Under Law” through the exposure of abuse of power by unaccountable judges who hold themselves to be Judges Above the Law. Its main means are:

    a. its study* of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3.a);

    b. its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted numberless visitors and motivated 30,912 and counting(>OL2:Appendix 3) to subscribe to it –on its homepage, go <left panel ↓Register
    or  + New   or   Users   >Add New–;

    c. its presentations(supra §F); and

    d. the promotion of the publication of one (e.g., >OL2:998, 760, 781, 1040) and the syndication of a series(OL2:719§C) of articles in print or digital outlets.

    52. To advance its pursuit it has developed its out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>OL2:1037) to inform the public about, and so outrage it at, judges’ abuse as to stir it up to demand that politicians hold judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

    53. The strategy is implemented through concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions(>OL2:978§E).

    54. Relying on the precedents of the Tea Party, the MeToo!(OL2:1033§B) movement, and the global ecological movement led by Greta Thunberg, it promotes the formation of a national civic single-issue movement for judicial abuse exposure(*>OL:194§E; >OL2:1015¶12), compensation of abusees(OL2:952¶5), and reform(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    55. The movement’s core is formed by the huge(OL2:937¶1) untapped national voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System(OL2:952¶5).

    H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    passion for justice are.

    DONATE
    through

    PayPal

    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign at

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd
    Bronx, New York 10472
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Tel. (718)827-9521

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    ****************************

    Dare! follow the lead in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “plan” for holding judges accountable for abusing their power to enrich themselves; and thereby make a historic scoop: the exposure of the Judiciary as a racketeering branch that voters bring down

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    A. From Sen. Warren’s denunciation to the Judiciary as a racketeering branch

    1. Senator Elizabeth Warren has just released her “plan” for holding federal judges accountable for failing to recuse themselves from cases in which they own shares in one of the parties and even resolving such conflict of interests in favor of that party and to the benefit of themselves, even if at the expense of the opposing party and the rule of law.

    2. Her “plan” provides for judges’ accountability to be ensured by the Judicial Conference of the U.S., an entity formed by judges who themselves may have engaged and still engage in the self-serving resolution of such conflict; and by Congress, the entity that confirms judicial nominees and thereafter protects them as ‘our men and women on the bench’.

    3. Those entities are interested in preserving judges’ unaccountability. Expecting them to work against their interest is unrealistic and dooms her “plan” to failure(>OL2:998).

    4. Yet, Sen. Warren is the only member of Congress and the first presidential candidate who has dare criticize federal judges.

    5. Given her example of courage, will journalists, editors, and publishers, i.e., the media, dare investigate her denunciation of judges’ self-serving resolution of conflicts of interests to determine whether it exposes their claim to integrity as a pretense?

    6. Their investigation (*>OL:194§E) can be guided by the axiom ‘power is ever expanding’, and its corollary ‘the more blatantly one breaks the rules, the more likely it is that one broke them in the past and is ready to do so in future’? How far have judges individually and collectively gone in abusing their power?

    7. If the media dare follow Sen. Warren’s lead, they can make a scoop that provokes the scandal with the farthest-reaching impact ever:

    a. Federal judges are the only judges whose decisions affect the whole country.

    b. They are the only officers appointed for life; so they need not restrain their conduct to avoid alienating voters or reappointers.

    c. Only they have self-disciplining authority, which they have abused by dismissing 100% of complaints and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; OL2:548, 748), both required by law to be filed with them(>OL2:918).

    d. Judges wield power to decide the controversies between the other two branches, e.g.,

    1) whether Congress can issue subpoenas that override the President’s claims to executive privilege;

    2) a single district judge suspended nationwide the President’s Muslim travel ban order;

    3) judges have determined that the President cannot invalidate Congress’s constitutional ‘power of the purse’ by reallocating to the construction of the U.S.-Mexican wall funds appropriated for other purposes.

    e. Judges have abusively turned their arbitral power into power to retaliate. The risk of its application has frightened the other branches into abstaining from subjecting them to constitutional checks and balances.

    8. Unencumbered by fear of job loss and punishment, and unchecked by the other branches, judges advance their interests by”

    a. abusing their power over the property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame the lives and shape the identity of parties and the rest of We the People; while

    b. protecting themselves by intercepting people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress critical ones(>OL2:929).

    9. Judges have the motive, means, and opportunity to turn riskless abuse into their coordinated, and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized, modus operandi(OL2:760). They are the officers(*>jur:88§§a-c) of a racketeering branch.

    10. This is shown in my two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from page OL2:394

    a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

    b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

    c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* >blue references) very easy.

    B. Dare rely on the precedent for exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse of power

    11. The Washington Post dare pursue the story about “a garden variety burglary” by burglars, disparagingly dubbed “the Five Plumbers”, who broke into the Watergate complex in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972. The Post continued daring until the story, shunned by its peers, became the Watergate scandal. On its bandwagon, every media outlet had to climb. They rode it to the point of driving President Nixon to resign on August 8, 1974, and causing “All the President’s Men”, his aides, to be convicted of abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. During those 2+ years, The Post became a household name and established its reputation as a preeminent newspaper.

    12. Dare go beyond The Post by setting off a generalized media investigation that exposes how Supreme Court justices engaged in self-enrichment and abuse of power as lower court judges, continue to do so(*>jur:65§§1-4), and as “circuit justices” for the circuits to which they have been allotted under 28 U.S.C. §42, cover for those judges(>OL2:918); and topple, not only “Men”, but a branch.

    13. After The New York Times dare publish its exposé of sexual predator Harvey Weinstein on October 5, 2017, The New Yorker scrambled to publish its own exposé only five days later. The MeToo! movement erupted worldwide overnight and brought about transformative change. These publishers won Pulitzer prizes. TIME made its Persons of the Year those who dare be “Silence Breakers”.

    14. The New York Times dare denounce the mistreatment of civil right protesters to suppress their criticism, which led to NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its actual malice standard in defense of freedom of speech and the press. It dare publish the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the lies underlying the Vietnam War.

    15. Dare become today’s L’Aurore (First Light of Day), which published French writer Emile Zola’s I accuse! letter on January 13, 1898, and made journalistic history in the publishing of public misconduct exposés(*>jur:98§2). Dare write openly or be a discreet in print Deep Throat –the confidential informant during the Watergate investigation(jur:106§c)- like…

    16. Anonymous Whistleblower dare file his/her few pages of public misconduct complaint and thereby launched the Ukrainian scandal generalized media investigation. In two weeks, the media accomplished what Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to do in his almost two-year probe and nearly 400-page report: cause the opening of first an informal, now a formal, impeachment inquiry.

    17. We the People, emboldened by the MeToo! attitude, dare shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

    18. You, emboldened by Sen. Warren, can request each of the other presidential candidates to take a stand on her denunciation of self-enriching, abusive judges. This can substantially impact the campaign by inserting the issue in it.

    19. Thereby you can pioneer an event that has never occurred in the thousands of years during which kings and governments have appointed ‘their men and women to the bench’:

    a. You can thus enable the People to assert -during a presidential campaign, when politicians are most responsive to public outrage- their status as the source of all political power and masters of all public servants, entitled to hold also their judicial public servants accountable AND liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

    20. That will be transformative change in the judiciary and the rest of government.

    21. To foster that change, dare invest in the research and writing, and strategic thinking of Judicial Discipline Reform, as set forth in its business plan(>OL2:914), e.g., to develop http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, whose appeal is proven by its 28,479+ subscribers(OL2:Appendix 3).

    22. Dare publish one(OL2:998) or a series(OL2:719§C) of my articles to inform the People about how judges prove that “power corrupts and absolute [unaccountable] power corrupts absolutely”(*>jur27fn28).

    23. If you dare seize this opportunity to bring about such transformative change, you can become nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champion of Justice.

    24. Time is of the essence.

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    C. Put your money where your outrage at abuse and passion for justice are

    because

    Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
    none can be advanced without money

    25. So I have written a prospectus(>OL2:914) to apply to venture capitalists for venture capital –not a loan– to run Judicial Discipline Reform as a for-profit business guided by the motto:

    Making money while doing justice.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Venture_Capitalists.pdf

    26. The capital will help Judicial Discipline Reform to continue its professional and original law research and writing, and strategic thinking.

    27. It will also enhance its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Its public appeal is so extensive that out of its many visitors it has turned into subscribers 28,554 and counting(OL2:Appendix 3). That proven appeal can be fostered and monetized by enhancing the site from an informational one into:

    a. a clearinghouse for complaints(OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

    b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of (*>jur:131§b, *>OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(OL2:792§A), trends, and schemes(OL2:614) of abuse of power.

    28. Capital is also needed to undertake the concrete, realistic, and feasible Programmatic Activities (OL2:916§C, 978§E) aimed to form a national movement and attain its objectives of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform. The Program shows that there is a thought-out business plan reasonably calculated to turn a profit.

    29. I offer to present this article and the application for venture capital to you and your colleagues at a video conference or in person; cf.:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    30. You may use the information below to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

    31. Meantime,

    Support
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    and its professional law research and writing
    and strategic thinking.

    Donate
    through

    PayPal
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, NY 10472-6506
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Tel. (718)827-9521

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    CorderoRic@yahoo.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to increase the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    The enabling circumstances of judges’ abuse of power: unaccountability, risklessness, coordination, and secrecy; how the presidential candidates can in their electoral interest denounce judges’ abuse and support compensation for their victims; and a program of realistic abuse-exposing actions in which you can participate. An introduction to the VIDEO and SLIDES presentation

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    This article can be posted on social media and shared through this link: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_introduction_video_slides_judges_abuse.pdf

    These are the links to the presentation components:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf

    Dear Visitors and Subscribers to this site,

    I take pleasure in submitting to your review my presentation video and slides on how you, your friends and family, and the rest of We the People can contribute to exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, which harms you and all of us.
    ‡ To subscribe to this site go <left panel ↓Register   or   + New or Users >Add New.

    You can thus have a transformative impact on the administration of justice and the presidential campaign while pioneering law practice, reporting/publishing, and academic fields.*
    * This article is based on the two-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf†  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    A. Judges’ statistics show their unaccountability and riskless abuse of power

    1. The presentation has its reliable foundation in the federal judges’ official statistics, which they must under 28 U.S.C. §604 [Title 28 of the U.S. Code of federal laws, section 604] submit to Congress annually. Their statistics show that federal judges:

    a. have had only 8 of their peers impeached and removed in the last 230 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789! Their decisional independence has become personal untouchability, which eliminates the deterrence to abuse entailed by the fear of losing one’s job;

    b. dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them(§351), a dismissal rate that allows and even encourages them to grab benefits through abuse of power in reliance on the farce of self-ensured accountability and the reality of self-granted impunity;

    c. do not read the vast majority of briefs, required by the courts, depriving parties of the honest service which they reasonably expected and contracted for when they paid filing fees, of which the parties were defrauded under the false pretense of judges’ brief-based decisions;

    d. officially weight the case of a pro se party as ⅓ of a case from its filing and before judges consider its merits, denying it the equal protection of the law afforded a party who pays the same filing fee but whose case is weighted as one or more cases and treated accordingly;

    e. dispose of 93% of appeals to the federal circuit courts in meaningless summary orders contained in ‘dumping forms’, i.e., unresearched, reasonless, fiat-like orders in forms rubberstamped by their clerks to dump appeals of no interest to the judges out of the latter’s caseloads;

    f. deny systematically any en banc motion for all the judges of a court to review an order of any panel of its judges, so that by either tacit or explicit agreement the judges mutually assure the survival of their orders however abusive, wrong, or perfunctory they are, thus fostering their unprincipled and self-interested attitude of “Our power stands unreviewable!”…as such “it is absolute and corrupts absolutely”.

    2. Statistical analysis shows that federal judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress critical ones, maintaining through coordinated abuse their pretense of honesty to ward off external supervision and protect their unaccountability and benefits already and yet to be grabbed. This article in the format of a professional letter proposing joint action was mailed in hardcopy to over 120 addressees. Will the letters and any reply be delivered or intercepted?

    3. The judges have abused their power to prevent the exercise on them and their branch of constitutional checks and balances by the other two branches for fear of retaliation, such as by suspending nationwide their executive orders or holding their laws unconstitutional.

    4. Likewise, they escape the power of control of the masters of even judicial public servants in “government of, by, and for the people”: We the People.

    5. As a result, they have turned their Judiciary into Judges’ State Above the state.

    6. They have extended their State to their state counterparts, for whom federal judges provide the federal rules of procedure and evidence as the model for the state ones, and illustrate their application with riskless disregard for due process, equal protection, justifying reasons, reasonable expectations, and foreseeable harm.

    B. Precedent for expecting exposure of abuse to have a transformative impact

    7. I propose analyzing judicial independence based on the circumstances enabling abuse of power: unaccountability, risklessness, coordination, and secrecy –clerks bound by confidentiality agreements and all meetings held behind closed doors, where the most insidious corruptor festers hidden from ‘disinfecting sunshine’, Money!, lots of money in controversy.

    8. Yet, you can bring about a transformative change in judges’ accountability for the first time in history and everywhere in the world:

    a. Indeed, the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse gave rise overnight to the MeToo! movement, which here and abroad has had the first-ever transformative impact on the social and judicial handling of sexual abusers. It has given rise in the public to a self-assertive attitude, expressed in the rallying cry:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

    9. A similar eruption of an international civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform can result from your exposing judges’ abuse as their institutionalized modus operandi and their Judiciary as their private arm for coordinating the planning and execution of their abuse.

    C. The presidential campaign as the most opportune time to expose the abuse

    10. There is an overcrowded field of 20+ presidential candidates desperately in need of voters’ support to qualify for the nationally televised presidential debate scheduled for October, lest missing such publicity event dries up the stream of donations and volunteers needed to run their campaigns until the Iowa caucus in late February.

    11. Desperate people do desperate things, like denouncing judges’ abuse, if the expected reward outweighs the risk of retaliation. The candidates can vie for a reward that can make their campaign’ survival possible: recognition as the leader of the huge untapped leaderless voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System, unjust for many and too expensive for all.

    12. As the MeToo! public, The Dissatisfied, and the media are informed of judges’ abuse, they will reciprocally reinforce their outrage and competitive and commercial need to investigate the issue. They will demand that:

    a. the candidates at a press conference, an op-ed article, their rallies, townhall meetings, and interviews denounce judges’ abuse; and

    b. call for traditional congressional hearings as well as unprecedented hearings held by universities and the media to take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse. At those hearings, unlike in your brief or complaint against a judge, you and others will have the opportunity to be heard on your experience at the hands of unaccountable, abusive judges.

    13. Their demand can attain, in the U.S. to begin with, a key exposure objective: to insert the issue into the presidential campaign.

    14. But time is of the essence: The more candidates are still in the race, the stronger the pressure to be the first to denounce the abuse rather than drop out of the race.

    D. Why exposing judges’ abuse should matter to you

    15. We all can work together on something of historic transcendence: the transfer of the administration of justice from the State of Judges to the government of We the People.

    16. That is ‘government, not of powerful, abusive men and women, but by the rule of law’.

    17. You can contribute to exposing judges’ abuse of power whether you have or had a case in court; and have been represented by a lawyer or had to appear in court pro se to be treated as only ⅓ of a party.

    18. Even if you have not had a case in court and are not a victim of, or a witness to, judges’ abuse, their abuse deprives you and those that you care about of your effective membership in the People, the sovereign of all public power, entitled to hire, fire, and hold judges accountable for their conduct and liable to compensate their victims as they do everybody else.

    E. Realistic actions to expose judges’ abuse and carve a business niche

    19. You can carve a law practice, reporting/publishing, and academic niche suing for compensation, investigating, and writing on, judges’ abuse.

    20. You can begin with the abuse committed at the very top, by the justices, who committed it as judges, still do from the Supreme Court, and cover it up to protect their former lower court colleagues and all the judges who belong to the circuit to which each justice is respectively assigned as its circuit justice, lest the judges trade up in plea bargaining their incriminating testimony against ‘a bigger fish’ for a lesser charge for themselves.

    21. Multidisciplinary teams, e.g., of lawyers, journalists, documentarists, talkshow hosts; experts in business practices, Information Technology, and public relations; advertisers, professors and students, can form to execute any element of this program of actions. They can:

    a. handle the flood of motions to void dumping orders and remand for new process;

    b. investigate the interception of emails and mail;

    c. hold a tour of presentations on judges’ abuse at universities, public interest and defenders organizations, bar associations, press clubs, chambers of commerce, digital technology and artificial intelligence meetings, home owners associations, children and family conferences, probate groups, shareholders associations, etc.;

    d. gather the parties before the same judge or the same court into a group that jointly claims from that judge and court the refund of filing fees and compensation for unread briefs;

    e. organize those groups into the local chapters of the national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform;

    f. conduct public interest law clinics for victims of, and witnesses to, the abuse, and offer other courses analyzing the causes and effects of judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power;

    g. pursue the abuse as the subject of the teamwork class of journalism students;

    h. propose judges’ abuse as the subject of students’ term project, master’s thesis, and doctoral dissertation;

    i. interview, if need be on promise of anonymity, current law clerks to the justices and other top judges as well as former clerks, who today may be law professors and deans, to detect from their valuable accounts as insiders patterns of conduct among judges; and turn into confidential informants sitting and former judges disgusted by judges’ abuse of power that they witnessed, condoned, and even participated in;

    j. investigate judges’ relation to organizers of and participants in, and conduct at, conferences, whether held by judiciaries or corporate entities that have or are bound to have cases in court; in effect pay for all the judges’ expenses; and can afford to do all that while the individuals who are most frequently their opposing parties cannot;

    k. call for nationally televises hearings on judges’ abuse held by Congress as well as unprecedented ones held by universities and the media so that their findings of the nature, extent, and gravity of the abuse provoke such national media and public outrage that judicial reforms that today appear inconceivable become unavoidable under public pressure;

    l. produce the documentary Black Robed Predators Perched on Benches for commercial distribution, so that it can be like 9/11 Fahrenheit, which at the time was the largest grossing documentary ever;

    m. develop search engines and algorithms to audit judges’ writings and detect patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse;

    n. apply Forensic and Fraud Accounting techniques to judges’ annual mandatory public financial disclosure reports;

    o. use Follow the money! techniques and the Al Capone strategy to search for judges’ concealed assets, tax evasion, and money laundering;

    p. publish editorial comments, articles, syndicated columns, and journals on judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power;

    q. apply Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations techniques jurisprudence, and scholarship to design the sociogram and operational diagram of unaccountable judges and their cronies protected by their riskless abuse, such as complicit lawyers, bankruptcy trustees, appraisers, warehousers, auctioneers, accountants, house renovation contractors, bankers, managers of private clubs that serve as conspiracy dens;

    r. develop this website http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has 27,125 subscribers and counting, into a clearinghouse for complaints against judges and a center for research on judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse;

    s. develop and make widely available templates for people to detect and describe in a uniform and comparable way judges’ abuse of power;

    t. collect, verify, and edit accounts of judges’ abuse and comment on its nature, extent, and gravity in the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Abuse in America;

    u. hold a series of regular talkshows on judges’ abuse that gives rise to a Coalition of Hosts to Justice that develop their shows collectively into a powerhouse of American politics and a rival to the national TV networks;

    v. hold the first-ever, and national, multimedia, and interactive conference on judges’ abuse of power, sponsored by a nationally respected university or think tank and media outlets;

    w. create the Institute for Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy attached to a top university;

    x. facilitate the formation a single-issue Tea Party-like movement for a new crop of politicians willing to act as the representatives of the People by taking on an unaccountable judiciary and its judges;

    y. promote internationally the exposure of judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse just as America has exported other trend-setting ideas in society, politics, and the arts that have changed the world;

    w. advocate the grant of the petition to Congress by 34 states –thus satisfying the requirement of Article V of the Constitution– since April 2, 2014, for a constitutional convention, which can transform the American governance system by the People abolishing Judges’ State Above the state and for the first time in history inscribing in their constitution, a new one, their right to hold their judicial public servants accountable and liable; etc.

    F. Money can be made doing justice

    22. The arguments that judges have developed to hold the executive branch, the President, and the Catholic Church accountable for their abuse of power can be used against them:

    a. Former CBS Reporter Sharryl Attkisson and CBS noted strange behaviors of her office and home computers. They hired three independent IT experts to examine them. They determined that her computers had been roamed by the target of her journalistic investigation: the Department of Justice, which wanted to find out the state of her research into both:

    1) the killing of the American ambassador and his aides in Benghazi, Libya; and

    2) its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ disastrous Fast and Furious gunrunning operation that led to the killing of an American border patrol with a gun that it had sold to Mexican druglords. Reporter Attkisson is now suing the Department of Justice for $35 million.

    b.i. Judges have allowed the suit against President Donald Trump under the emoluments clause of the Constitution to go forward to determine whether he has abused his power to enrich himself through his Trump hotel in Washington, DC.

    b.ii. While that case is still being litigated, a Florida judge found that Donald Trump had unjustifiably refused to pay The Paint Spot, a provider of paint for Trump National Doral Miami resort, and imposed damages and attorney’s fees of more than $300,000, or over 10 times the amount in controversy.

    b.iii. Another judge found Trump liable to pay $25 million in compensation for fraud to the students of Trump University.

    c. Despite the state/church separation clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the judges have held the Catholic Church liable to pay more than $2 billion to the victims of its pedophilic priests and its policy of protecting them from exposure.

    d. How many clients would like to sue their lawyers for charging them $10Ks for appealing to a court of appeals although the lawyers knew or should have known had they done their due diligence of checking the judges’ own statistics made available to the public annually and the orders posted on their courts’ websites that the judges would not read their appellate briefs and instead would have their clerks dispose of their appeals by rubberstamping 5¢ dumping forms that did not discuss either the facts or the law of their cases, and did the only thing that clerks who have no judicial power, were not vetted to exercise it, and cannot receive it by delegation can do: maintain the status quo with a single operative word, “Affirmed” or “Denied”?

    G. Concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions that you can take now

    23. Therefore, I respectfully propose that you:

    a. review my video and slides;

    b. share and post them and this letter as widely as possible so that they go viral and reach the national public and the presidential candidates; and

    c. invite me to make via video conference and in person a presentation followed by Q&A to you and your guests.

    24. Let’s join forces at this most opportune time to make an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation that earns us the recognition by a grateful People as their transformative Champions of Justice.

    25. So, I look forward to hearing from you.

    H. Put your money where your outrage at abuse and passion for justice are

    26. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be advanced without money.

    Support
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    and its professional law research and writing
    and strategic thinking.

    Donate
    through PayPal
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(>OL2:953)…and you may enter it.
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

     Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses; if you do not receive even an acknowledgment of receipt, call him at 1(718)827-9521.

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    ************************************

    Turning your invitations to speak at your events into the linked events of a national campaign to advance our common cause and form a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris

    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    This article can be shared and posted to social media
    provide it is done non-commercially
    without deletions or additions,
    proper attribution is made to its author,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the links to this website, namely,
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    and to his study of judges and their judiciaries(see infra)
    are provided.

    Subscribe for free to these articles
    by going to the left panel and down to the Register bottom.

    Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at your respective event on the issues of:

    a. the riskless abuse of power(*>jur:5§3; OL:265) including the denial of due process and equal protection of the law, by unaccountable judges at courts of general and limited jurisdiction, such as family, probate, and bankruptcy courts(>OL2:614);

    b. my out-of-court inform and outrage strategy for the public to join forces and take concrete, realistic, and feasible steps in order to form a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform; and

    c. the insertion in the presidential campaign of the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse so that candidates are forced to address it in their political platforms, press conferences, rallies, townhall meetings, and the presidential debates.

    A. Balancing the benefit of my speech with the charge of my speaking fee

    1. I receive many invitations to speak. I cannot accept all, much less agree to speak pro bono at events that I am in addition expected to attend by paying for my transportation, room and board, and all other expenses.

    2. Here applies the axiom, “What one receives at no charge and can drop at no cost is not appreciated”…and I am left out on the cold sidewalk holding the bag of unpaid bills after investing scores of hours doing my homework to learn about the event, tailor my message to its audience, and prepare handouts, as well as closing my office for one or two days.

    3. Hence, to speak at events I charge a fee based on expected attendees and additional ones who show up, paid on a retainer basis, just as clients pay lawyers in advance, and the flight ticket and hotel room and board paid also in advance, with other expenses paid upon presentation of the bill. A flat fee can be arranged for events held by national organizations.

    4. The investment in having audiences hear my well-researched and reasoned message with a concrete, reasonable, and feasible plan of action, and experience my lively and uplifting delivery warrants the fee.

    5. Indeed, the quality, tenor, and originality of content and format of the articles posted on this website – http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org – illustrate what I actually do in terms of professional law research and writing and strategic thinking, and point to what I am capable of doing when I am in front of a life audience. The currently more than 25,495 subscribers and many more visitors to my website prove that my message and presentation are highly appealing.

    6. My capacity to imagine an audience being addressed with sidesplitting and good taste humor is shown in my skits(>OL2:491, 530, and 724¶4) in my otherwise very serious study of judges and their judiciaries. The study is titled and downloadable for free thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from page OL2:394

    a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

    b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.

    c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* >prefix:page# references) very easy.

    7. The study describes at *>OL:359§F a half or one day seminar that includes a role-playing exercise for learning the workings of a complex judicial and legal system by the seminary participants playing the several types of system members as they advance or protect their respective harmonious and conflicting interests. Invaluable benefits can be reaped by putting oneself in the position of a different system member while interacting and, what is more, competing with them in the midst of an audience.

    B. Holding the same type of meeting while wishfully thinking that it will accomplish something different in court

    8. In our country, even the executive orders of a president elected by 62.5 million voters can be suspended nationwide by one single district judge and the suspension can be confirmed by two or three circuit judges. It follows that a host of orders, decisions, and controversies emanating from lower parties end up in court too and at the mercy of one judge and his or her peers and colleagues, for “he who can do the most, can do the lesser”.

    9. Whatever you and your group advocate and decide at an event, such as a meeting or convention, it can be suspended or prohibited by one or several judges for any reason and even for no reason at all!(>OL2:457§D). They need not fear any adverse consequence for themselves therefrom, for they are held unaccountable by each other(>OL2:903§E) and the politicians who recommended, sponsored, nominated, and confirmed or appointed judicial candidates, and thereafter protect them as “our men and women on the bench”(OL2:610§3).

    10. If we ‘keep holding separate events as up to now while expecting to have a different effect’ when we end up in court again, then as Einstein put it, ‘we engage in the conduct of irrational people’. We take the wishful thinking in our heads for what we will accomplish out there in the real world.

    11. By holding a separate annual event, we will merely commiserate ineffectively in the same place at the same time with other victims of abusive judges.

    12. The judges will keep picking each of us apart one after the other, denying us not only the services that we are entitled to, but also that they require us to pay for:

    a. Judges do not even read the vast majority of briefs that they require parties to file, although producing and filing them costs each party $1Ks and even $10Ks(>OL2:760).

    b. Judges intercept our email and mail communications to prevent us from ‘assembling’, including on the Internet, and exercising our constitutional ‘right to freedom of speech and the press’ to expose them(>OL2:885).

    c. Judges hold priests, pilots, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and pharmacists, lawyers, police officers, and everybody else accountable and liable for the injury that they cause. Yet, they hold themselves unaccountable by dismissing 100% of complaints against them and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(>OL2:881). If you want to know how Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was informed officially about it but failed to take action reasonably calculated to end such self-interested abuse of power, read the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit.pdf.

    C. Thinking strategically to link our separate events so as to make them the series over time and place of a national campaign

    13. By contrast, we can join forces so that each of our events and those of other people whom we and our fellow members may persuade to come on board become peak occasions in a continuous joint effort: a virtual national campaign of events linked over time and place.

    14. Thereby we can turn each event of our virtual national campaign into another occasion to advance our common cause:

    a. We the People are the sovereign source of power in a democracy, that is, “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172). We are the masters of all public servants. We hire them to deliver to us the services that we need.

    b. For the judicial services that we need, we hire judicial public servants to serve us as judges. We are entitled, and retain the right, to hold them accountable for their failure to perform their duties, their ‘mal-performance’, and their abuse of power, and liable to compensate those whom they have injured.

    c. Our common cause aims to exercise the right to hold judges accountable, expose their unaccountability, obtain redress, and force judicial reform.

    15. We can link our events to advance our common cause by us and the members of our groups:

    a. informing the national public before, at, and after our events about judges’ failure to deliver the services(>OL2:760) for which they were hired and their abuse of power(>OL2:885); and

    b. outraging the public with that information so as to stir it up to demand that all 2020 presidential and other candidates take a stand on that issue on their political platform and at every press conference, rally, townhall meeting, and presidential debate (set to start this coming June).

    1. Benefits of linking our events into a national campaign

    16. That is how we can insert the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent abuse of power in this campaign and for the first time in our national discourse.

    17. Thereby we advance the formation of a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform. To that movement we lead the only entity strong enough to hold judges accountable and liable: We the People.

    18. Imagine the boost that our respective efforts to assert constitutional rights; reform family, probate, and bankruptcy courts; establish an effective means of judicial accountability; etc., would receive if we could discuss them at each of our events conceived of as episodes of a single series held over time all over the country so that attendance is made possible and affordable for the largest number of people. Of course, at every event there can also be discussion of the issues of especial interest to the main segments of the audience and their particular organization.

    19. That is how each presidential candidate conducts his or her national presidential campaign: not by holding one annual convention in one place, but rather by holding a rally, a townhall meeting, or a press conference in a different place every other day or every week. Although they run national campaigns, candidates also discuss the issues that are most important to the largest segments of the audience at hand.

    20. By joining forces to link our events, we can have the practical effect of a national campaign where we repeat and mutually reinforce our message so that together we advance our common cause.

    D. The actions that we can take and encourage our fellow members to take

    21. Leaders lead to where followers would not naturally go; otherwise, they are merely following at the front those behind them, who by the force of habit push them to go to the same place as ever.

    22. If we think strategically and show leadership by adopting this strategy and having our groups understand and help implement it, we can attain synergism: The public impact of our linked events will be greater than the sum of our individual events held separately.

    23. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to:

    a. book me as a speaker;

    b. share this email and its strategy with the members of your groups and ask them to read it because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER;

    c. ask that they share and post this and my similar emails widely so that we can attract the attention of the national public and the presidential candidates and convince the latter that we represent something of immense value to them: the huge(>OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System; and

    d. comment on implementing this strategy with a view to holding a video conference to discuss it.

    E. No meaningful cause can be advanced without money

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > left panel ↓Register

    or   + New or Users >Add New.

    24. My website can be enhanced as laid out in my business plan(>OL2:563) into a for-profit venture intended to lead up to the creation of an institute for judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5).

    25. To that end, you and your peers and colleagues can organize a meeting where I can present to potential investors how my website can be turned into:

    a. a clearinghouse for complaints about judges that anybody can upload(>OL2:881); and

    b.a research center(*>jur:131§b) for searching(*>OL:277§§D-E) many complaints for the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns, trends, and schemes schemes(OL2:657§4, 682¶d) of abuse of power; e.g. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit.pdf >OL2:792.

    Put your money where
    your outrage at abuse
    and passion for justice are.

    DONATE TO
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    and its professional law research and writing, and
    strategic thinking

    here

    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    26. Time is of the essence and this is the most opportune time: during a presidential campaign, when politicians must out of principle or opportunism pay attention to popular dissatisfaction. We the People are at our strongest now. Let’s join forces to use our strength effectively.

    27. Consequently, I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    28. To retain my legal services, see my model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    Bronx, NY 10472-6505
           http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
          Tel. (718)827-9521

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and€ paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ****************************

    Introduction to the Programmatic Presentation on forming a national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris

    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article
    in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This article is also found at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:821

    A. Judges’ abuse in their courts and the strategy for their exposure outside them

    1. The Programmatic Presentation discusses forming a national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform.

    2. It welcomes victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse, and all advocates of honest judiciaries. They recognize that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:56)[1] it is vital for We the People, the masters of all public servants, to hold our judicial public servants accountable for performing the work for which we hire them, to wit, administer justice according to law, and liable to compensate those whom they harm.

    3. The materials corresponding to the(* >references) are found in my professionally researched and written, 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting

    Volume 1: * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:# up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    Use the above links to download the files in MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; open the downloaded files in Adobe Reader, https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html, so that you can open the Bookmarks panel and use the bookmarks that make navigating to the numerous(* >parenthetical references) very easy.

    A smaller file with this article and the Programmatic Presentation outline infra can be downloaded through this link: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero-national_movement_v_judicial_abuse.pdf.

    4. Judges wield enormous power(OL:267§4) over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives. They abuse it for their benefit(OL:173¶93) when they, among other things:

    a. deny parties their due process and equal protection rights(*>jur:5§3);

    b. do not read their briefs and have their clerks dispose of cases and motions by rubberstamping dumping forms(>OL2:760), i.e., unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders;

    c. intercept their critics’ communications(OL2:781) thus abridging their right of free speech;

    d. complicitly exonerate each other from all(OL2:792) complaints to escape any adverse consequence of their abuse, a catchall term for any form of their harmful conduct. Yet, judges hold malpracticing doctors and lawyers, brutal police officers, pedophilic priests, and pilots liable for the harm that they cause whether intentionally, negligently, or accidentally and even if they too are among the casualties.

    5. The People, as the source of all governmental power, are entitled to bring Judges Self-elevated Above the Law down to where Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

    6. This objective can only be achieved by informing the national public of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse and so outraging it as to cause it to demand further exposure, redress, and reform. This is our out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:713).

    7. To implement it, we need to reach out to the national public and attract the largest number of people to a national civic movement. The Programmatic Presentation shows why attaining that objective is realistic, feasible, and opportune given:

    a. the public’s MeToo! attitude of intolerance of any form of abuse; and

    b. its current strongest position to force consideration of its demands: during a presidential campaign when poli-ticians depend the most on voters and must be seen listening and willing to satisfy their demands.

    B. Share, post, and organize the holding of the Programmatic Presentation

    8. You can be part of forming a national civic movement that enables the People to exercise on the judiciary the ‘checks and balances’ that the other two branches have failed to. In brief, you can:

    9. SHARE this introduction to the Presentation(OL2:821) and its outline(OL2:823) with your friends, family, and other people who have or had cases in the same court as you do or did. Just go to the court’s website, download its decisions, and find there their or their lawyers’ contact information.

    10. POST them to websites, social media, and yahoogroups(see a list of them at OL2:433) as widely as possible so that it may go viral(*>jur:164§9). Your posting will reach many who have experienced or witnessed judges’ abuse and many others who can become an invaluable source of information:

    11. Whether out of principle or opportunism, journalists and politicians may join forces with us to advance their own personal, professional, commercial and/or our common interest. They can become effective allies of result, for they have superb means of nationally disseminating news and issues. We want journalists to report on us; and politicians to insert our cause in their platforms and every stump speech as a way to stand out from the pack of candidates competing against them.

    12. ORGANIZE a group to whom I can make the Presentation in person, if they pay my expenses; otherwise, via video conference. To identify other parties with cases before the same judge as in your case, search for the decisions of that judge and/or apply the method for searching with other parties for patterns and trends of abuse(*>OL:274-280, 304-307).

      1. You are no longer alone

    13. Let it be a source of comfort for all of you that none must any longer suffer abuse in silence or protest it alone in separate, futile efforts(>OL2:815). You are among people who have experienced the same abuse by judges as you have. Now all of you have the opportunity to take joint action to expose them(*>jur:92§d), obtain redress, and compel reform.

    2. From a Presentation group to a local chapter

    14. A group at a Presentation can give rise to a local chapter of the national movement. All groups will join forces to lend weight to the nationwide demand for courts to refund the fees collected in cases where judges abused parties and compensate them for the harm that they caused.

    3. A Presentation for parties and non-parties

    15. None of you must have or have had a case before a judge to benefit from the Presentation. Judges abuse their power just as VIPs sexually abuse theirs: because they can. But while a sexual abuser harms only one person sometimes, judges abuse many parties daily, harming their families, neighbors, employees, patrons, etc., and the rest of the People through the precedential value of their decisions.

    16. Therefore, to whom do you run for protection from abuse by others, including the other branches of government, when judges are the most powerful abusers…and unaccountable(*>jur:21§§1-3)?

    4. Big and little can become Workers of Justice

    17. You may invite judges, law clerks, and lawyers disgusted by being executioners of abuse(*>OL:180). Outside the Presentation, they may share with us information as confidential informants(>OL2:788 ¶37).

    18. ‘Little people’ may also want to make confidences: court clerical staff, marshals, janitors, food delivery boys, and similarly situated people are ‘invisible’ to the judges, as are the drivers, waiters, waitresses, key counter and room service personnel, and their peers at hotels, seminars, restaurants, country clubs, banks, etc., patronized by judges(*>jur:106§c). Their presence, much less their ears and common sense, is not even noticed by judges as they coordinate their abuse and engage in competitive boasting about who has outsmarted the system the most.

    19. The more representative local chapters are of all members of the public, the stronger they and the national movement will be in their demand for exposure, redress, and reform. All can become Workers of Justice.

    C. Take knowledge for free for its power and give money for our common cause

    20. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: Empower yourself by gaining knowledge from the study* and the articles posted here.

    Subscribe to this website
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org  
    for free thus:

    +New or Users >Add New.

    21. No meaningful endeavor can be advanced without money. Donate to support Judicial Discipline Reform’s:

    a. professional law research and writing; and

    b. the implementation of its business plan(OL2:563) for turning its website into both a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center for the public to search for patterns, trends, and schemes(OL2:614)revealing judges’ coordinated abuse.

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse
    and your quest for justice are.

    Donate here

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    **********************************

    OUTLINE
    of
    the Programmatic Presentation
    on forming a national civic movement
    to expose judges’ abuse of their enormous power
    over people’s property, liberty and
    the rights and duties that frame their lives;
    obtain redress; and
    lead to reform

    D. Purpose of the movement; basis of the Program; and audience of the Presentation

    1. Purpose of the movement

    22. A national civic movement(>OL2:821; *>jur:164§9) is being formed to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse(jur:5§3, *>OL:154¶3) for their own benefit(OL:173¶93) and to the detriment of We the People of their enormous power(OL:267§4) over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

    23. The movement seeks redress for its members through, e.g., the refund of their court filing fees and compensation for the damages(>OL2:760) that judges’ abuse has caused parties and others.

    24. A series of Presentations will launch the process of both informing the public of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse and so outraging it(OL2:741) as to stir it up to compel the adoption of measures that today appear inconceivable into reforms(*>jur:158§§6-8) that are accepted as unavoidable to ensure that judges apply the law and are as equally subject to it as everybody else.

    2. Basis of the Program

    25. The basis of the Program is the professionally researched and written, 2-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    3. Audience of the Presentation

    26. The audience of the Presentation includes victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse; current, past, and potential parties to lawsuits; advocates of judiciaries that honestly apply the rule of law; academics; students; newscast anchors, investigative journalists, and reporters; politicians; lawyers; law clerks; voters; etc.

    E. Presentation topics: movement’s precedents; opportuneness; interests; and actions

    1. Precedents for the national civic movement

    27. The precedents for the national movement are current and the conditions for their repeat obtain:

    a. Groups of people with a common view on a single issue, taxes, gathered in local chapters that merged into the Tea Party and in less than 10 years dominated local and national politics;

    b. After the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, the MeToo! movement erupted into being to expose the millenarian impunity of sexual abusers(>OL2:812§D).

    2. Opportuneness of forming the movement now

    28. The public’s MeToo! attitude of personal involvement in exposing abuse, and intolerance of any form of it makes this the right time for the national public to rally to a national movement to shout(OL2:635):

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse anymore.

    29. The social and political circumstances are propitious for forming the movement:

    a. A sympathetic attitude can be expected from most of the new members of the House, who be-long to minorities that have experienced abuse, are anti-establishment, and want change now.

    b. The 2020 election campaign is underway and during it politicians will be most receptive and vulnerable to the demands of voters, particularly those organized in movements(>OL2:648) that have many voting members. Politicians are likely to deem supporting the movement a means of reaching out to, and becoming the sought-after leader of, the huge(OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System.

    3. Interests driving the movements’ formation

    30. The audience will be interested to learn that judges count pro se cases as a third of a case(>OL2:455§B); do not read the vast majority of briefs(OL2:760); dispose of 93% of appeals in “procedural, unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation decisions”( OL2:457§D); dismiss 100% of complaints against them and of petitions for review of such dismissals(OL2:792); etc.

    31. The personal, professional, and commercial interests of principled and opportunistic people, and the interest in justice of the most passionate people, the abused by judges, will drive the movement.

    32. The movement will be energized by a powerful motivator: the recovery of money lost to abusers: the joint demand by parties all over the country for courts and judges to refund court filing fees and pay compensation for the $1,000s and even $10,000s that judges made parties waste when they required parties to produce briefs that the judges willfully failed to read, even knew in advance that they would not read(OL2:760), but fraudulently pretended that they had read(OL2:729).

    33. Enlightened self-interest, “Everyone can advance his or her own interest by pursuing the common interest first”(OL2:815), should lead people to join the movement and think strategically(OL2:445§B).

    4. Actions that you can take

    34. To help form the national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform, you, the reader, can share and post the introduction(>OL2:821) to, and this outline(OL2:823) of, the Programmatic Presentation, which I offer to make to a group of your colleagues, friends, and family, in person with all expenses paid, or via video conference. See also a series of articles(OL2:719§C) that can inform the public about, and outrage it at, judges’ abuse.

    35. Help spark a generalized investigation by professional and citizen journalists into two unique national stories of the potentially most outrageous forms of judges’ abuse of power:

    a. Follow the Money!(*>OL:194§E), the investigation into how judges rely on their unaccountability to risklessly profit from case-related information, engage in money laundering, and evade taxes, particularly through a bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614) driven by the most insidious corruptor: Money!(*>jur:27§2);

    b. Judges’ unlawful interception of their critics’ communications(OL2:781), a violation of the 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(OL2:792¶1), committed in the self-interest of preventing their critics from joining forces to expose judges’ abuse.

    36. Help “assemble” We the People at unprecedented citizen hearings(>OL2:812§E) where victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse, and advocates of honest judiciaries will offer testimony to panels of newscast anchors, investigative journalists, journalism professors, and IT experts. The hearings can be locally organized by, and held at, a talkshow hosts coalition(*>OL:146, 144§D), universities, media outlets, and civic entities; and attended by a live and a broadcast audience.

    37. Help organize with university professors and students the first-ever conference(*>dcc:11) on judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform, one multi-disciplinary, nationally multimedia broadcast, and interactive(jur:97§1), to hear investigative reporters, public interest leaders, politicians, etc.

    38. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: Empower yourself by gaining knowledge from the study*and the articles posted here.

    Subscribe to this website
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org  
    for free thus:

    +New or Users >Add New.

    39. No meaningful endeavor can be advanced without money. Donate to support Judicial Discipline Reform’s:

    a. professional law research and writing; and

    b. the implementation of its business plan(OL2:563) for turning its website into both a clearinghouse for complaints against judges uploaded by the public and a research center for the public to search for patterns, trends, and schemes(OL2:614)revealing judges’ coordinated abuse.

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse
    and your quest for justice are.

    Donate here

    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, New York 10472-6505
        tel. 1(718)827-9521

    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,  DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,  Corderoric@yahoo.com

    To retain Dr. Cordero’s legal services, see his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses. If you do not receive at least an acknowledgment of receipt credibly from him within a week, resend your email until you do, or contact him otherwise

    ****************************************

    [

    TEST COMPLAINT that you can support by filing it too to expose how judges intentionally deceive the public by pretending that it can complain about them although the judges know that they will dismiss 100% of its complaints so that the proposal to change the complaint Rules is a sham that confirms unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris

    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this test complaint
    in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This test complaint is also found at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:792

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
    Supreme Court of the U.S.
    One First Street, NE
    Washington, D.C. 20543

    Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

    1. I and the people assembled with me, exercising our 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:111§3), which no statute or self-interested required ‘confidentiality’ can abrogate, file publicly this complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(jur:2418a) about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Merrick Gar-land, and their peers and colleagues in the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (the complained-about judges or the judges; DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct 06-30sep17 11-year period.

    The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical references in blue) are contained in my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable for free thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    1. That is a fact established by the statistics(infra §C) that they were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:2623a) to submit and did submit to Congress and the public.
    2. The Act is to be construed broadly: It does not require complainants to show standing to file a complaint about a judge, whether by having suffered injury in fact as a result of the judge’s misconduct or disability complained about; meeting any residence requirement relative to the judge’s workplace or residence; or otherwise. Rather, it provides under §351(a) thus:

    Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.

    1. The 15 complaints filed with DCC about J. Kavanaugh following his confirmation hearings in Sep. 2018 were transferred under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings(Rules; jur:125264; >OL2:778) by C.J. Garland, who disqualified himself, to DCC Judge Karen Henderson, who in turn transferred them to you. You assigned them on October 10 to Ten Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich. In the third paragraph of the letter to him, you wrote thus:

    I have selected the Judicial Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaints and any pending or new[1] complaints relating to same subject matter.

    [1] Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
    Byron White U.S. Courthouse
    1823 Stout Street, Room 102G
    Denver, CO 80257-1823

    1. Therefore, we respectfully petition you and all other officers to likewise transfer and process this complaint with the other 15 so that their processing may be informed by each other; all be used to detect judges’ patterns and trends of misconduct and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi; and their processing may lead to the independent investigation of the Judiciary’s unlawful interception of its critics’ communications.

    A. The facts of the complained-about judges’ prejudicial conduct

    1. Through their 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them and 100% denial of the petitions for review, the judges have “engaged in §351(a) prejudicial conduct”. Indeed, they have:a. arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect that Act of Congress, which it is “the business of the courts” and its judges(infra ¶c) to enforce together with its other acts;

    b. abused the self-disciplining power entrusted to them under the Act by exonerating them-selves from all complaints so as to evade any disciplinary action, thereby resolving in their favor the conflict of interests arising from being the target and the judges of the complaints;

    c. breached their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453 whereby “[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers, colleagues, and friends as opposed to other parties to complaints], and do equal right to the poor [in connections to us] and to the rich [in IOUs on us that we gave the peers, colleagues, and friends who dismissed complaints about us], and that [we] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [us] as judges under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. [e.g., the Act]”. Instead, they administered ‘unequal protection from the law’ with respect to relationship to them by being 100% partial toward their peers, col-leagues, and friends when they became the target of complaints, all of which they dismissed;

    d. disregarded their duty under the Code of Conduct, Canon 1, which requires them to “uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary”. They have shown that how they “discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] as judges under the…laws [such as the Act]” depends upon whether the person whose conduct they are judging is their peer, col-league, or friend, on whom they dependent for cover-up of their misconduct and disability;

    e. prejudiced through interdependent partiality “the integrity of the judiciary”, of whose essential character for the “effective…administration of the business of the courts” they have imputed knowledge because the Commentary to Canon 1 provides thus: “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law”;

    f. failed to maintain the “good Behaviour” required of them under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution “to hold their Offices”; defined by what their oath singles out, i.e., their pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [under the] laws”, such as the Act; and reiterated by Canon 1 in its Commentary “they must comply with the law”;

    g. committed “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” prohibited by Canon 2, for under Canon 2A “reasonable minds with knowledge of the relevant circumstances after reasonable inquiry would conclude” that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ impossible for all the judges to independently deem that 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed over 11 years were properly dismissible but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement;

    h. denied complainants the benefit intended for them under the Act of redress for the prejudice that they had suffered or witnessed relating to the judges’ misconduct or disability;

    i. deprived complainants and the rest of the public of the working mechanism for complaining that the Act had provided for their protection from misconducting and disable judges;

    j. showed reckless disregard for 100% of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability complained about in the 478 complaints filed about, and dismissed by, them, whose recklessness was aggravated by their systematic failure to investigate the complaints through the appointment of special committees, provided for under §353;

    k. showed reckless indifference to the rights and well-being of complainants and the rest of the public by leaving them exposed to 100% of the prejudice caused by the misconduct and disability complained about, and any additional prejudice at the hands of the exonerated judges, who were left free of any deterrent to further committing misconduct and indulging in disability; and at the hands of other judges who, realizing that misconduct and disability had no adverse consequences for judges, committed misconduct and indulged in disability;

    l. disregarded Canon 3 providing that “The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities”, for the number of extra-judicial activities highlighted on their individual page on the DCC website allows ‘the math of perfunctoriness’(OL2:760) to demonstrate how lack of time accounts for 93%(OL2:457§D) of appeals being disposed of through the clerk-filled out, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like dumping forms of summary orders(jur:43§b);

    m. intentionally “prejudic[ed] the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and the persons to whom they swore to administer justice, We the People, for it is a torts tenet that “people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their acts”. By dismissing 100% of the complaints and denying 100% of review petitions, the judges rendered their misconduct and disability riskless, which enabled their further prejudicial misconduct and disability. Worse yet, they emboldened themselves and others to commit misconduct and indulge in disability of ever more diverse nature, to a greater extent, more frequently, and of higher gravity. While dismissing and denying for over a decade, they saw their foreseeable prejudice become a fact, whose continued occurrence they intended;

    n. deceived potential and actual complainants by pretending that their complaints would be fairly and impartially processed although the judges intended to dismiss 100% of them, thus running the Act’s complaint mechanism as a sham that works fraud on We the People.

    B. Action requested

    1. Therefore, we respectfully petition the judicial officers processing this complaint to:
    2. deem and treat this complaint as the public document that it already is; and make it available to the public easily and widely as it progresses through the stages of its processing;
    3. communicate to us and the public the judges’ answers; and afford the opportunity to reply, for it would constitute partiality toward them to take their answers at face value;
    4. in the interest of justice for the complainants and public confidence in judges, make the 478 complaints and their dismissal orders, review petitions, and denials public, and transfer them under Rules 25 and 26 to be processed impartially by DCC-unrelated §353 special commit-tees, whose members need not be judges or lawyers (next) and which can replace the failed mechanism of judges –priests, police officers- judging their peers, colleagues, and friends;
    5. hold fact-finding public hearings on this and all other complaints to ascertain the causes for complaint, which hearings Judge Anthony Scirica, Chair of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, stated at the October 30 hearing on Code and Rules proposed changes are conceivable as part of the Committee’s work; and let independent fact-finders, i.e., news anchors and editors, investigative reporters, and journalism professors(OL2:777¶21c), conduct them to find whether dismissing complaints not matter the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability turned into all judges’ pattern of action that became the Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi(OL2:756¶¶9-11);
    6. have independent IT, mail, and phone forensic experts investigate the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications(OL2:781), such as mine by email, mail, phone, my website, PayPal, GoFundMe, LinkedIn, and FB accounts(*>ggl:1); and make their findings public:

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq.JDR@gmail.com;   tel. (718)827-9521

    Subscribe for free to
    the series of articles of
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org thus:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse
    and quest for justice are.

    Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
    professional research and writing effort
    to advance our common interest in exposing
    unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power;

    at the GoFundMe campaign
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    C. Links to official court statistics on complaints about judges and their analysis

    1. Article on official statistics on complaints about J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers and their analysis using “the math of abuse”: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf
    2. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_ JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf
    3. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_ complaints_v_judges.pdf
    4. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 15 reporting courts: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf
    5. Article on statistics and math: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through ‘dumping forms’: unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like orders; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:760, 457§D

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

    Sincerely,

    s/Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City


    The Federal Judiciary’s abuse of power by its judges dismissing complaints about them, which ensures their unaccountability, can be exposed through J. Kavanaugh and his peers’ dismissal of the 478 complaints about them, and your protest against the sham hearing on changes to the judges’ complaint rules and code of conduct

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article non-commercially
    in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This article is also at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:773

     

    Dear Deans, Professors, Students and Members of the Media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

    I read with interest the articles in The Crimson and those written by others at Yale concerning then-Judge Kavanaugh and the power of law students to cause their deans to take a position on his confirmation, as well as the letters relating to him that more than 2,400 law professors and more than 2,000 Mothers in the Law Profession published in The New York Times(NYT).

    This is a proposal for you, your professors and students, the media, and me to join forces, not to revisit the sexual abuse allegations leveled against him, but rather to use his case to insert into the national debate on the evaluation of judicial candidates’ fitness to serve what is more important: their service.

    Indeed, the very politicians who put judges in office cannot thereafter turn around and investigate their appointees for lack of integrity and competence, lest they incriminate their own vetting procedures and skills for evaluating character and competence.

    To evade their responsibility for exercising constitutional checks and balances on ‘our men and women on the bench’, politicians have delegated to judges authority to self-discipline. In the federal government, they have adopted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *> jur:2418a).

    Thereunder, the only way for anybody to complain about a federal judge is by lodging a complaint in the circuit where the judge serves. There it is processed by precisely his or her peers, colleagues, and friends. They are required to submit the statistics of their processing of those complaints to Congress and the public in the Annual Report of the Director [who is appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice] of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); jur:2623a).

    Those statistics(>OL2:772§G) show that Judge Kavanaugh and his peers dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints about them lodged with their District of Columbia Circuit and reported in the annual official statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(OL2:748). They have abused their self-disciplining authority to grant themselves 100% exoneration from complaints regardless of the complained-about conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity.

    Acting only in self-interest, he and his peers have left complainants and the rest of the public at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

    Held by politicians and themselves unaccountable, life-appointed judges, in practice unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§a), risklessly abuse(*>OL:154¶3) for their gain and convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

    Their service is incriminated, not by an individual’s allegations and partisan opinions, but by their own non-partisan, verifiable, and official statistics. The latter’s analysis through “the math of abuse” exposes them as Judges Above the Law.

    This novel statistics-based approach to judicial service evaluation is the product and distinguishing feature of my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    Volume 2:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    Justice Kavanaugh now has the strongest personal motive to prevent any investigation into his and his peers’ abuse of power to secure his and his peers’ 100% exoneration from complaints about them. Such investigation can force the disclosure of the complaints, conveniently kept secret; the detection of patterns and trends of abuse; and the exposure of the organization and execution of, and benefits from, their cover-up.

    Nor can Justice Gorsuch, who comes from the 10th Circuit, allow such investigation. There he, who so values camaraderie(>OL2: 546¶¶4-6), and his peers dismissed 99.83% of complaints about themselves(OL2:548).

    This explains why the 15 complaints about Judge Kavanaugh lodged in the last month that his peer, Judge Karen Henderson, referred to Chief Justice John Roberts, were in turn referred by him for processing to precisely the 10th Circuit.

    The presumption of a whitewash would not be less justified if C.J. Roberts had referred them to the Second Circuit, the former circuit of Justice Sotomayor. While there, she and her peers denied 100%(jur:11) of petitions for review of dismissal of complaints about themselves (jur:65§§1-3). The percentage of complaints dismissed in all the circuits is 99.82%(jur:10, 12-14).

    The exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its cover-up by VIPs published by NYT and The New Yorker pressured C.J. Roberts into referring for sexual misconduct investigation Former 9th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who then resigned.

    The almost 700 letters of complaint about abuse in the Federal Judiciary submitted to the C.J. caused him to admit to abuse therein and to set up a study committee(>OL2:645). Its report has led to proposed changes to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules for processing complaints.

    Only as recently as October 2 did the Administrative Office announce only on its website that the changes will be the subject of only one single hearing at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., rather than at each of the more than 200 federal courts.

    How many people can afford to travel to D.C. at all, never mind do so the day before to be ready to testify at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, for only a few minutes?

    Any request to be heard must be emailed by October 18 to CodeandConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov; for the first week, a ‘glitch’ prevented AO’s receipt of those emails; http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/10/02/judiciary-hold-public-hearing-proposed-changes-judges-code-and-judicial-conduct.

    This has been an announcement pro forma about compliance in bad faith with the hearing requirement. It is a sham!

    No change to the Code or the Rules will stop judges from dismissing complaints about themselves, just as the changes adopted in 2008 and 2015 did not.

    Such dismissal is their institutionalized mechanism for enforcing the complicit agreement through which judges reciprocally ensure their unaccountability for their past abuse and the risklessness of their future abuse. Abuse of power is the modus operandi(OL2:457§D, 760) of Powerful Judges Who Can Do No Wrong.

    Students have shown to have the power to draw public attention to abuse. You, law professors and students, and we lawyers have the duty to expose abuse by judges, the ones who run(OL2: 717) our profession and corrupt it by ensuring their impunity.

    Your publication of this letter and one or more of my articles(OL2:755, 719§C) and your protest against the sham hearing can launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power akin to the one into sexual abuse sparked by NYT’s and The New Yorker’s publication of their exposés. Just days later, the MeToo! movement emerged. It has led to a historic societal transformation from silent sexual abusees to a national public that shouts:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

    That is precedent for the reasonable expectation that if we join forces to expose judges’ abuse of power using J. Kavanaugh’s dismissal of complaints as a test case, we may bring about a historic transformation:

    We can insert this issue into the mid-term elections, the national debate, and the presidential campaign; and enable We the People for the first time ever to hold our judicial public servants accountable.

    We may expose what will be a national scandal: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications to each other and to others –did you receive my previous ones to you?-, shown by a statistical study and verifiable by IT experts examining computers and servers (See the following article; also at >OL2:775).

    Thus, I respectfully request that you publish this letter and call me(*>jur:1) to invite me to make a presentation to you, school members, and media colleagues. Time is of the essence.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Subscribe for free to this series of articles thus:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse
    and quest for justice are.

    Donate

    to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
    professional research and writing effort
    to advance our common interest in exposing
    unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
    at the GoFundMe campaign
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org


    Exposing government interception of communications of critics of judges as an abuse of power that would cause a national scandal and launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse

    By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article non-commercially
    in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    This article is also at:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:775

    A. Statistics as the source of probable cause to believe that there is interception

    There is reason to believe that the communications among critics of judges, including Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, and between them and third parties are intercepted, which is prohibited as provided for in the Criminal Code under 18 U.S. §2511(*>OL:5a13).

    This is demonstrated through the statistical analysis(>OL:192 >‡>ws:58 §7) of communications(>ggl:1;>OL2:476, 425, 405§§A-C) in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    Volume 2:
    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    Statistically, people line up in a standard normal distribution, which is a continuum that goes from one extreme of low values to the opposite extreme of high values of the variable in question. This continuum, when graphically plotted on an X,Y system of coordinates produces a bell curve. Most people bunch up on either side of the top –the crown– of the bell. Hence, it is abnormal and a sign of manipulation to see the values for everybody on only one of the two extremes.

    Although I email to tens of thousands of email accounts directly and through hundreds of yahoogroups, hardly ever do I receive an email that is positive and encouraging.

    Nevertheless, my website (this one at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org) has 24,700 subscribers and counting; it is built on the most widely used platform in the world, WordPress. When was the last time that you liked what you read on a site so much that you subscribed to it, although you and the rest of us suffer under information overload?

    It is counterintuitive for people to subscribe but leave no comment. It is decidedly suspect for the number of subscribers, which had reached an average of 90 a day, with peaks of over 110, to drop to 0 in the space of a week and then pick up to only around 3 a day(OL2:604¶2).

    To some emails I receive no reply at all. Practically every reply that I do receive is negative and critical of them. That is counterintuitive in a country as divided as ours, where at one end of the spectrum of everything there are people strongly in favor of it and at the other end people strongly against it. Cf. A rubric of one of the national TV networks, either CBS or NBC, is precisely “A Nation Divided”. Although I have communicated with some Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for years, I do not receive emails from them anymore. People email me, I reply to them with an encouraging message, but then I do not receive any more emails from them.

    More than 2,000 Mothers in the Legal Profession and more than 2,400 law professors took out each an ad in The New York Times regarding J. Kavanaugh. I addressed them in the Subject: line of emails that I sent to tens of thousands. Despite that and although I too am a lawyer, and a doctor of law at that, I have not received a single reply from any of them. This is most suspect because we have harmonious interests(>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3). Those protected under the 1st Amendment(>jur:2312b), are “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

    Moreover, requests that I make for membership in yahoogroups are approved only for my next posting to them to be rejected because I am told I am not a member.

    1. Recent cases showing government interception of communications

    The National Security Agency (NSA) engaged in a warrantless, indiscriminate, mass ‘dragnet’ collection of the metadata of communications of scores of millions of unsuspected people(OL2:395§B), as revealed by the secret documents that Edward Snowden leaked.

    Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her personal and work computers to spy on the status of her investigative reporting on the attacks by extremists on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three of his aides; and the fiasco Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which sold even assault rifles to track their way to Mexican druglords(OL:346¶131) and resulted in one such rifle being used to kill an American border patrol. Her articles were so incriminating that A.G. Eric Holder would respond to congressional demands for documents with entire pages blacked out. He was the first sitting member of the presidential cabinet to be held by Congress in contempt of it. Accordingly, he was forced to resign.

    These cases show that the government, of which the judiciary is part, engages in illegal digital activity against those whom it perceives as a threat, such as a persistent investigative reporter, and even those who are suspected of nothing at all, such as those caught in NSA’s surveillance dragnet.

    It is the judges of the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that approve up to 100% of the NSA’s secret request for secret orders of secret surveillance. Do they do so for the quid pro quo of the interception by the NSA of the communications of critics of judges? That is what the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation must determine(OL2:600§B).

    B. Money and a scandal that focuses the media on judges’ abuse of power

    Potentially, there is money to be made by suing the government for breach of constitutional rights and the right to privacy. More realistically, exposing to the national public that judges have abused their power to intercept their critics’ communications and prevent their ‘assembling to petition for redress of judges’ abuse’ would constitute a scandal far greater than that provoked by Snowden’s leak. It would shock America’s conscience and put you and your organization on the frontpage of every publication and at the top of every newscast, and on the list of Pulitzer Prize candidates.

    C. What you can do to expose government interception of communications

    I respectfully propose that you participate in exposing the interception of the communications of critics of judges by those who have the greatest interest therein: judges themselves. You can:

    1. widely share and post my articles with your address as the reply address to see what kind and number of replies you receive, which you can forward to me under an unrelated Subject: line;
    2. help finance IT experts’ examination of critics’ email accounts and computers, and servers;
    3. help organize presentations(OL:194§G) by me at law, journalism, IT, and business schools, pro se groups, and venture capitalists who may be interested in my business plan(OL2:563).

    Consider this proposal in light of these principles of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL2:570§E, 475§D, 465§1):

    1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (we share the interest of defeating our common enemy).
    2. The friend of the friend of my friend may want to become my friend (which speaks to the indirectness of connections and a means of building alliances of result even if not of interests).
    3. People never work as hard as when they work for themselves. (Ask yourself: What interest of her own can the person that I want to persuade to do something advance by joining forces with me? Cf. Some such interests are to make herself and her group or organization known.)

    Time is of the essence to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse in the mid-term elections.

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

    Subscribe for free to these series of articles thus:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse
    and quest for justice are.

    Donate
    to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
    professional research and writing effort
    to advance our common interest in exposing
    unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
    at the GoFundMe campaign

    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org


    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

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    The letter form of this article,
    which can be printed and mailed to judges and handed out to clerks and others,
    is at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:681

    A. The most propitious public mood to expose judges’ abuse

    1. On October 5, 2017, a reliable precedent was established: Reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey published in The New York Times their exposé of Harvey Weinstein’s predatory sexual abuse and its condonation by Hollywood insiders.
      .
    2. No reasonable person could have anticipated the extent of their exposé’s impact here in the U.S., never mind abroad. Their exposé has provoked a change in people’s attitude that is historic and occurring unimaginably fast.
      .
      a. Victims of sexual abuse have found the courage to break their silence.

    b. The rest of the public has become assertive enough to expose or condemn not only sexual abuse that it has witnessed or learned about, but also unequal pay by gender and unequal access to top corporate positions by others than non-minority white males.

    c. Regardless of your position on guns, the fact is that high school students have been motivated to take action against gun violence and even large companies have found the courage to break their special commercial deals with the NRA and its members.

    d. People are also holding Facebook accountable for failing to prevent the misuse of the private information that they entrusted to it.

    1. 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.

    1. The media has afforded the public the means of making that cry effective: Abusers are being held accountable.
      .
    2. 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

    1. 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).
      .
    2. 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).
      .
    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.
      .
    4. 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.
      .
    5. 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:8fn4, 5). Many of the parties to them are abused.
      .
    6. The ranks of those parties are increased by their affected friends and family, workmates, employees, clients, suppliers, neighbors, etc.
      .
    7. 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.
      .
    8. 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

    1. 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 9th 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 2nd 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.

    1. 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
      .
    2. “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.
      .
    3. 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.
      .
    4. 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?
      .
    5. 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:65fn107a,c) and thereafter commit money laundering(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii; jur:105fn213).
      .
    6. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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.
      .
    3. 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.
      .
    4. 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 3rd 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).

    1. To discuss how you and I can implement this proposal as openly or discreetly as you wish, I respectfully request that you call(OL2:612¶1b) me to arrange a meeting in person or over the Internet.

    Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
    can resonate throughout the country:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

    Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
    to support its work of
    exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers
    here



    or

    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Subscribe for free to the articles on this website thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,.

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    To retain Dr. Cordero’s
    law consulting, research and writing, and representational services,
    read his model letter of engagement at *>OL:383.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    NOTE: Given the interception of Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    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

    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.orgCorderoric@yahoo.com

    In support of this proposal to PBS Newshour to investigate unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power, you can forward this email to newsthirteen@thirteen.org, pressroom@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, amiller@newshour.org, frontline@pbs.org, viewer@rmpbs.org, member@rmpbs.org.

    Mr. William Brangham
    Correspondent
    PBS Newshour
    2700 South Quincy St. #250
    Arlington, VA 22206

    Dear Mr. Brangham,

    I watched with interest your reporting on widespread sexual misconduct against women in the Forest Service that goes all the way to the top of that agency. It was only because of the pressure generated by the first installment of your report that just before you went on the air with your second one the Forest Service issued a statement admitting to the problem. [On March 8, the Forest Service Director resigned.]

    This is a proposal for you to use the pressure of your reporting to bring to national attention a problem that harms scores of millions(>OL2:607¶2) of people far more deeply: judges’ abuse of their power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives(>OL2:672¶2). Yet, judges are taboo to the media.

    You can be the first to break the taboo by investigating institutionalized abuse of power in the Federal Judiciary involving, not subjective claims of excess of judicial discretion, but rather objective concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money.

    Judges systematically conceal assets by filing with reviewing judges false and misleading annual mandatory financial disclosure reports(*>jur:105fn213). Neither filers nor reviewers are subject to independent oversight(jur:21§1).

    Neither are the key agents of assets to be concealed: bankruptcy judges(jur:35§3). They dispose every year of hundreds of billions of dollars in creditor-debtor controversies -$373 billion in 2010(jur:27§2)-. Their unaccountability has led to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(>OL2:614). It is run by bankruptcy judges with the circuit judges who appoint them for renewable 14-year terms and who together with district judges can remove them(*>jur:43fn61a).

    Running the bankruptcy fraud scheme is facilitated by bankrupts’ unaffordability of lawyers and consequent appearance pro se. Most pro ses are abused due to their ignorance of the law. Their cases are weighted as 1/3 of a case, so judges are authorized and expected to dedicate to them only 1/3 of the care and time that they do the average case(OL2:455§§B, D).

    The investigation of this scheme(cf. >OL2:609¶2) is focused by the leads incriminating Justice Sotomayor in it(jur:65fn107a,c; OL2:672¶4), her cover-up by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who shepherded her through the Senate confirmation process, and the connivance of her nominator, President Obama(jur:77§§5-6).

    The investigation findings will outrage the public more than sexual abuse because while there has been moral ambivalence about, and secular toleration of, sexual abuse, concealing assets is a crime(*>OL:5fn10) and unequivocally condemned. Judges who disrespect the law enough to commit it also abuse their clerks and parties.

    So, you said that Forest Service employees have endured the abuse because of their sense of mission, but are speaking out against their abusers as a result of the MeToo! movement having launched a cultural moment that does not suffer abuse in silence. They are calling your tipline.

    Law and court clerks entered the judiciary to pursue a high mission: Workers of Justice; many can be assumed to be disgusted(>OL2:645) by having been reduced(jur:30§1) to executioners of judges’ abuse(OL2:608§A).

    After you conduct the proposed investigation and report on it, they will call a tipline on judges’ abuse as will the public: My website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, where I post my articles exposing judges’ abuse, has over 23,929 subscribers and even more visitors.

    By joining forces(>OL2:611§B), we can attain a realistic objective:

    1. to insert judges’ abuse in the mid-term campaigning as the issue most representative of our cultural moment: ‘Enough is enough! We won’t take abuse anymore’; and
    2. organize the unprecedented: public hearings on judges’ abuse held by the media(OL2:675¶15).

    I respectfully ask that you call(>OL2:612¶1b) me to discuss a joint investigation of judges’ abuse.

    Let’s join forces so that our rallying cry
    can resonate throughout the country:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take judges’ abuse or anybody else’s anymore.

    Donate to Judicial Discipline Reform
    to support its work of
    exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse and all other abusers



    or
    at the GoFundMe campaign at
    https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

    Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgCorderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

     

    NOTE: Given the interception of Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


    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

    By

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

    You may share and post this article in its entirety,
    without any addition, deletion, or modification,
    with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
    and the link to his website:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    A. Your donation will benefit you by helping to expose how unaccountable judges abuse you and everybody else

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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

    6. 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.
      .
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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

    12. 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.
    13. 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!
    14. Given such connivance and retaliatory threat, politicians condone the abuse and wrongdoing of “their judges”.
    15. This explains how judges have institutionalized abuse and wrongdoing as their means of doing business from the safe haven of their judiciaries.
    16. 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

    17. The more you learn about unaccountable judges and their riskless abuse of We the People, the more you will be outraged.
    18. 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.
    19. 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
    *

    1. 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

    2. 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.
    3. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    1. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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).

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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).

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

    1. 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.

    1.  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

    1. 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

    1. 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).
    2. 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).

    3. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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).

    2. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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).

    2. 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

    1. 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).
    2. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    1. 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

    1. 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

    1.  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.
    2. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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

    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

    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

    1. Last December 18, former 9th 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.
    1. 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 2nd Circuit for investigation by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
    2. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. If the clerk finds a job, its salary establishes the floor for future salaries.

    7. 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.

    8. It follows that clerks stand no chance of winning against a judge.

    9. 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

    1. 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.
    2. 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”.

    1. 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.
    2. Chief Justice Roberts has known officially[6] that when Then-Judge, Now-Justice Gorsuch served on the 10th Circuit(>OL2:548) and Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor on the 2nd(*>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 .

    1.  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.

    1. 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”.
    2. 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)

    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:78fn159, 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.

    4. 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).

    5. 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

    1. 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”.

    2. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Drivers, bar attendants, maids, and similar little people invisible to VIP judges have lots of fun information and are not bound by confidentiality agreements.

    6. 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,

    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.

    ********************************

    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”

    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

    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

    1. 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?
    2. 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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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

    4. 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,

    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.


    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

    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.JudicialDisciplineReform.org

    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-DisciplineReform.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*

    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

    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

    1. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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.
      .
    3. 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.

    1. 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!

    1. 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

    1. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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).
    3. .

     

    1. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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’.
      .
    3. 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.
      .
    4. 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.’
      .
    5. 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.).
      .
    6. 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?
      .
    7. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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.
      .
    3. 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:68123b, 4471).
      .
    4. 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.
      .
    5. It has been judges’ duty of integrity(*>jur:68123a) 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.
      .
    6. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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)
      .
    3. 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.
      .
    4. 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:2728, 32, 4260).
      .
    5. 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).
      .
    6. 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

    1. 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.
      .
    2. 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!
      .
    3. 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.
      .
    4. 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.
      .
    5. 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/

    1. 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:2212b); and

      h. therein lead to a new We the People-government relation.

    2. 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.
      .
    3. Hence, I respectfully request that you invite me to your office to discuss this proposal.
      .
    4. 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

    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.


    Joining forces to effectively inform the public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing, which is enabled by their secrecy and probably by their interception of the communications among their critics, the Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

    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

    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 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. Pervasive secrecy infects the Federal Judiciary with wrongdoing

    1.  Secrecy pervades the Federal Judiciary: It holds all its adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors, and holds no press conferences(*>jur:27§e). Secrecy spares judges of scrutiny and allays their inhibitions about disregarding due process and equal protection requirements, and abusing their power for their own benefit. It constitutes a circumstance enabling(*>OL:190¶¶1-7) them to commit wrongdoing as their institutionalized way of doing business(jur:49§4).

    2.  Secrecy also enables judges to engage in coordinated wrongdoing, such as would be required to intercept the communications of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries(§B infra). If your boss could hide under the same level of secrecy, would you reasonably fear that he or she would do wrong ever more gravely, even if thereby he or she harmed you?

    NOTE: 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.

    B. Is there interception of our emails? How to find out

    3.  In Volume II(>OL2:567) and not downloadable separately as well as hereunder is the article on joining forces to seize the opportunity presented by Trump’s chaos to implement nationally the inform and outrage strategy(§C infra) for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy. That article also accompanied this one in my latest email.

    a. Such seizing is the opposite of prosecuting separately a personal, local case, which is ineffective for the prosecuting party and brings no progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone reforming their judiciaries.

    4.  My emails elicit reply emails. I make every effort to acknowledge receipt of emails sent to me, although I cannot afford the effort and time to comment individually on each email that I receive. However, that intended two-way exchange of emails raises a troubling question:

    5.  How is it possible that readers who take the time to contact me to show their appreciation for my articles and make the effort to share with me their ideas, and to whom I gratefully write back, hardly ever contact me again?

    6.  That does not make sense at all. It constitutes conduct inconsistent with precedent. It need not be their conduct that is to blame. Rather…

    7.  Is there a third party intercepting our communications, in general, and those among Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, in particular, with the purpose of foreclosing our forming an effective team for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy? See the statistical study pointing to probable cause to believe that there is(*>OL:19fn2 >‡>ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C).

    1.  IT experts can investigate whether judges misuse their networks to intercept their critics’ communications

    8.  Experts in information technology (IT), including Advocates with advanced IT knowledge and appropriate hard- and software, can find out whether there is interception and, if so, whether it can be traced back to those who have the greatest interest in preventing our exercise to their detriment of our 1st Amendment “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:130fn268), namely, judges.

    9.  IT experts(*>OL:346¶131; OL2:396§3) can investigate whether the interception is conducted by the judiciary, particularly the Federal Judiciary, misusing its national and advanced computer network. The latter is composed of each federal court computer system and runs the huge document filing and retrieving system PACER, the acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records; https://www.pacer.gov/.

    2.  A quid pro quo for, and financial benefits from, interception

    10.  The Judiciary can intercept communications either alone or with the assistance of any of the surveillance agencies in exchange for its federal judges’ approving up to 100% of the agencies’ secret requests for secret orders of secret surveillance(*>OL:5fn7).

    11.  The Judiciary can also misuse its and the surveillance agencies’ networks for the transfer for judges’ benefit of assets between disclosed and hidden financial accounts(*>jur:65§§1-3; 102§§a,b; 105fn213b).

    12.  If interception under judges’ auspices of Advocates’ communications were taking placed and revealed, public outrage would be profound and national, and that not only because it is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(*>OL:5a/fn13) and would be committed precisely by the public officers sworn to uphold the law.

    3.  Contents-based interception as opposed to only collection of metadata

    13. Such interception would also be outrageous because aimed at preventing our communications due to their judge-criticizing contents, thus involving judges in denying our constitutional rights and abusing their power in self-interest.

    14.  Contents-based interception is qualitatively very different from an intelligence and surveillance agency, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), collecting ‘metadata’, which would involve only the recording of the email addresses used and the time and place of the communications, without reading the emails, never mind preventing their delivery.

    15.  Contents-based interception of Advocates’ communications cannot be explained away as action by a third party “in the interest of national security”, for there is no evidence whatsoever that our criticism of judges’ wrongdoing endangers “national security”.

    16.  It follows that the revelation of interception by judges or at their behest(>OL2:525§H) would provoke national outrage graver than that arising from Edward Snowden revealing that NSA was conducting dragnet collection of metadata of millions of people’s phone calls, e.g., phone numbers and time and duration of calls, but without listening to their conversations.

    17.  If IT experts determined that there is such unconstitutional and power-abusive self-interested interception by judges of communications among the public, in general, and their critics therein, in particular, they would make a national name for themselves.

    18.  In the process, the IT experts would significantly advance our inform and outrage strategy by providing either evidence that judges engage in wrongdoing, probable cause to believe that they do, or “the appearance of their impropriety”(*>jur68fn123a).

    C.  Implementing the inform and outrage strategy by joining in sharing and posting the article; and precedent for its success

    19.  Our strategy for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing seeks to inform the public about, and so to outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing(>OL2:449§B, 461§1) as to cause the public to insert that issue in the national debate and the 2018 primaries and general election campaigns, and make that issue a decisive one for voters as well as politicians.

    20.  We all can participate in implementing that strategy if we disseminate this article and the one below while seizing the opportunity that Trump’s chaos opens for exposing judges’ wrongdoing. Share these articles with your friends and relatives and post it on social media as widely as possible. We need Advocates to Take action!

    1. Precedent for succeeding in stripping judges of their secrecy and holding them accountable

    21. Our joint and well-organized effort can be effective: Judges and politicians can stop some of us by denying our rights and intercepting our communications, but they cannot stop all of us, much less do so simultaneously.

    22.  There is precedent for success. Think of the model offered by the Tea Party. In fewer than 10 years, its grassroots members spread their message and managed to dominate national politics. They were disciplined enough to concentrate all their efforts on one single issue with national appeal: taxes. That is what Tea stands for: Taxed Enough Already.

    23.  Even millennial impossibles have been overcome by people who would not cease taking action until the “impossibles” were replaced by opposite realities: For thousands of years:

    a.  only landed white men could vote;

    b.  only the sons of the rich could get educated;

    c.  only the wealthy had access to medical treatment;

    d.  women could neither vote nor hold office;

    e.  African-Americans and other ethnic groups were enslaved;

    f.  employees were held in virtual enslavement by abusive employers wielding power of arbitrary firings from their business;

    g.  a landlord could evict tenants from his home into the street for any and no reason; etc.

    24.  Changing those ‘facts of life’ constituted millennial impossibles. But they gave way to the realities of today because some people kept taking action against the injustice of privilege and the abuse of the powerful.

    25.  We too can take action jointly to change the millennial unaccountability and secrecy of judges by asserting our status as We the People, the masters of all public servants, and our right to hold judicial public servants accountable for discharging the duty for which we hired them, namely, to apply the law to us and themselves fairly and impartially.

    26.  In “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172), No Wrongdoer is beyond accountability in a safe haven Above The Law.

    D. Massive dissemination can lead to nationally televised hearings that boost the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing

    27.  Cicadas are grasshopper-like insects that ensure their survival by overwhelming number of them making a shrill creaking noise at mating time.

    28.  We too can survive judges’ interception of our communications and make attention-grabbing noise by massively disseminating this article, the one below, and my other ones, all of which surpass any personal, local case by dealing with wrongdoing of national scope.

    29.  Our massive dissemination can marry conviction and action. The offspring is national outrage that causes the public to insert the judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing issue in the national debate and the mid-term elections.

    30.  Dissemination can be boosted by becoming a member of yahoo- and googlegroups(§E infra): One email sent to a group of which one is a member is automatically distributed to all its members.

    1.  Nationally televised hearings on judicial’ wrongdoing

    31.  The massive dissemination of these articles through sharing, emailing to groups, and posting on social media can pave the way for the most powerful means  of communication: nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing. They can expose before a national public judicial wrongdoing’s nature(*>jur:5§3), routineness(*>jur:28§3), gravity(*>OL:154¶3), and the harm in fact that it inflicts on litigants and the rest of the public whom judges abusively and for their own benefit(*>OL:173¶93) deprive of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that frame their lives.

     a. Congressional hearings

    32.  Such hearings can be held by Congress, like the one held by the Senate to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey on June 8. It has been estimated that some 20 million people followed it live; to them must be added all those who have since watched on demand its recording.

    b.  Media hearings

    33.  But there is also an unprecedented type of hearings that we call for: nationally televised hearings organized by a board of national media outlets in the public interest as well as in their own competitive and commercial interest. They can be held across the country by panels of prominent investigative journalists, legal affairs reporters, newscasts anchors, publishers, and members of schools of journalism, law, information technology, and business, including students elected by their classmates and dutybound to report back to them.

    34.  These media hearings can generate the critical mass of outrage needed for judicial reform. They can serve the purpose of “…Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(¶2 supra). Thereby they can have a continuing effect, so to speak, a ‘successor’ over time.

    35.  Moreover, the media hearings can become a mechanism for a measure of direct democracy that bypasses a dysfunctional, partisan, and discredited Congress. They can not only take the pulse of the country, but also give a voice to its people to express how they want their representatives, that is, their public servants with legislative duties, to work for them rather than for their own partisan benefit and their permanence in power.

    36.  Indeed, the nationally televised public hearings can enable We the People to assert our status as the source of all political power, entitled to tell our legislative servants what and how to legislate on our behalf.

    c. Hearing findings as the basis for judicial reform

    37.  The findings of the congressional and media hearing will provide the factual basis necessary to convince the public and politicians that since judges are held unaccountable by themselves and politicians(>OL2:567§B), only judicial reform of a scope that today would appear unrealistic, and millennially has been held “impossible”, can ensure that judges apply and abide by the rule of law, e.g.:

    a.  Judicial reform through the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability that publicly receive and process complaints against judges; and to that end, exercise power of subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and indictment; and hold judges liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    E. Maximizing the joint effort to inform and outrage the public by emailing my articles to yahoo- and googlegroups

    38. Group membership and distribution are multipliers of the effort of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries and other email senders to reach as many people as possible. A list of yahoo- and googlegroups to which we can email this article and the one below on the opportunity opened by Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure is at >OL2:433. A group of Advocates can take charge of dividing the list among themselves to email the article more easily and faster. To become a member follow these simple instructions:

    a.  Place only seven group addresses at a time and only in the To: line of your email; otherwise, your email will not be distributed. These measures take into account restrictions adopted by group programs to ward off spam to their groups.

    b.  A reply from each group will inform you that your email to it was not delivered because you are not a member. Scroll down and copy the email address intended for membership requests, which has this format: Name.of.group-subscribe [or -owner]@yahoogroups.com –or googlegroups, as the case may be- and replace with it the address in the To: line.

    c.  Likewise, replace the text in the Subject: line with ‘Membership request’.

    d.  Another reply email from that group will let you know whether your request for membership in it was granted and, if so, that you can start emailing that group. You must replace the address in the To: line with the normal address for emailing the group, e.g., Name.of.group@yahoogroups.com.

    e.  Every email sent to the group will be distributed to you too. Receiving them is the price to pay for having your emails to the group distributed to all its members. But to find out whether anybody replied to your email, simply copy part of the subject line used in the outgoing email and paste it in the search box of your email client, i.e., the email program from which you sent your email.

    f.  If you receive replies to my articles, please forward them to me.

    F. Division of labor to obtain the rosters of attorneys and invite them to join in the strategy and the dissemination

    39.  I appreciate a reader’s suggestion about contacting the attorneys on the official state and bar association attorney rosters to invite them to join in implementing the strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy, and disseminating the article.

    a.  Attorneys are indispensable to taking on successfully unaccountable judges, whether in their own turf, the courts, where they disregard the rules and the law as they want(*>jur:xxxv-xxxviii), or outside it.

    b.  Pro ses can do an enormous amount of necessary work, but they cannot improvise themselves as lawyers, much less match their legal knowledge with the judges’.

    c.  To beat judges at their own game, we need the best and the brightest of attorneys; otherwise, we will not be taken seriously, making rookie legal mistakes one after the other.

    40.  Division of labor is a basic operational principle of any organization. Hence, I would appreciate it if a reader would access those rosters -to the extent that they are available at all-, harvest the attorneys’ email addresses listed therein, and send them to me. Perhaps the reader could take the leadership in forming a group of Advocates that volunteer to do that work with you.

    41.  Good ideas are costless and welcome; but taking action is, though harder, always more effective.

    G. Sunshine can disinfect the Judiciary of its wrongdoing and wither impossibles

    42.  Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Its light must be shone on the Judiciary to disinfect it of its secrecy and the wrongdoing that breeds in it. When it enlightens people with outrageous information, they can be heated up to turn millennial impossibles into opposite realities.

    43.  Only the largest number of informed and outraged people, We the People, can force the holding of nationally televised public hearings by politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office; and by the media, lest they miss the opportunity to attract a bigger audience, sell pricier ads, and take advantage of Trump’s chaos.

    44.  Hence the need to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform, and overcome any interception of our communications by massively disseminating my articles, which deal with a national problem, not a personal, local case, through yahoo- and googlegroups, and social media, and by sharing them with friends, family, and attorneys.

    45.  By joining the effort to inform the public and outrage it into action, you too can become nationally recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its articles series 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

    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.

    *******************************

    From ineffectively pursuing a personal, local case, to joining forces so as to turn judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a key 2018 mid-term election issue

    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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    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: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    Visit that website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users > Add New

    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” and other formatting oddities in Dr. Cordero’s emails(>ol2:426§C), this email has them, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,  DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

    A.  On the audience of my articles and my respect for all readers

    1. The main audience of my articles is composed of professionals. They are indispensable because they have the knowledge and skills necessary to take on the Federal Judiciary’s mighty, life-tenured judges, so powerful that they dare suspend nationwide two executive orders of a president as combative and outspoken as President Trump.

    a. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the models for their state counterparts. If Advocates of Honest Judiciaries manage to set in motion their exposure, it will be easier to launch the exposure of state judiciaries and judges.

    2. To attract those professionals, I myself must appear to have the knowledge and skills of a professional. These are revealed by the grammatical correctness of my articles, the meaningful contents and logical soundness of my argument, and the clean and well-organized presentation of the text. That is what I have endeavored to exhibit in my emails and my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCorderoHonest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    3. This objective is defeated by dumbing down my articles. No professional is going to risk attracting the retaliatory wrath of judges by following the invitation to join forces to expose them with a person who does not know how to write and who has nothing to say that is novel and convincing.

    4. In addition, it is dangerous to follow the suggestion that I dumb down my articles. Nobody likes to be treated as a dummy. If a lawyer dumbs down his way of talking to, and what he tells, the jury, he shows disrespect for their intelligence. The jury is most likely to resent it and make him pay a hefty price. An article for the general public that is dumbed down is likely to elicit the same resentful and punishing reaction…and it certainly loses the professional audience.

    B.  Neither local corruption nor local, personal cases should cause us to miss taking advantage of the opportunity in Trump’s chaos to expose judges’ wrongdoing nationally

    5. There is strength in numbers. If we, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, break down our support for the common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by concentrating our strength on local and personal matters, we will achieve only as much as we have up to now: nothing.

    a. Pro ses, who know about the judiciary only through the judge in their personal, local case are not in a position to claim that the whole judiciary is corrupt and that all judges are wrongdoers. .

    b. Would you dare claim that all medical doctors and nurses are hacks because those who treated you did not do succeed in restoring your health? Would that be fair? Would it be fair to claim that all people in your racial, ethnic, and religious class are bad people because some of them are thieves, drug-dealers, and terrorists? No, it would not be fair.

    c. Accordingly, pro ses need to do their homework: They must first learn about:

    1) the circumstances that allow judges to engage in wrongdoing, to wit, unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness;

    2) the most insidious motive to do wrong: money!, lots of money!(*>jur:190¶¶1-7); and

    3) the evidence showing that they engage in a pattern of wrongdoing(>OL2:546).

    d. Those are (blue text references) to volumes I and II, respectively, of my above-mentioned study. It is based on my extensive professional and original research, analysis, and writing on judges and their judiciaries, and their reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). You can help yourself and your case by reading them and sharing them with others.

    6. What the group in New Jersey is doing is of no interest whatsoever to what the group in Chicago is doing against local politicians and the guardianship abusers that they protect, just as what the group in Los Angeles is doing in exposing judges’ being paid an extra salary by the city council is of no interest to the group in Florida that is trying to expose collusion between bar members and judges. When was the last time that you read the case of an Advocate in any state other than yours…or just any case other than yours?

    C.  Joining forces to implement the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    7. Unless we think strategically and proceed jointly, we are going to miss the best opportunity that we have ever had to bring judicial wrongdoing to the attention of the national public and thereby the public of the several states. As explained in the article below, this opportunity has been opened by Trump, who twice dare criticize federal judges.

    a. When indictments concerning, among other things, the Russia probe start making their way to the courts and despite Trump’s invocation of executive privilege, judges uphold search and seizure subpoenas and order members of his administration to produce documents, Trump is likely to rail against them.

    b. That will present a unique opportunity for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to cause Trump to look for support and donations from The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System and for us to cause The Dissatisfied to make their grievances known and demand from politicians running in the 2018 mid-term primaries and general election campaign that they call for nationally televised congressional public hearings on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, similar to the nationally televised Comey hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, June 8.

    c. The hearings are necessary to expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and demonstrate the profound judicial reform required to prevent, detect, and punish their wrongdoing.

    d. A public so informed and further outraged by the hearings will compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake the judicial reform that they have always resisted as part of their protection of the people that they recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed to office in the judiciary.

    8. This is the inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. Trump’s chaos opens the opportunity to implement it.

                1.  From Advocates, to The Dissatisfied, to the mid-term election, and to We the People

    9. The implementation of the strategy requires that we inform thereof the Advocates so that they join the effort to inform The Dissatisfied, and all contribute to turning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform into a decisive national issue of the mid-term elections and thereby inform most cost-effectively the rest of We the People.

    10. The People are the only constituency numerous and strong enough to compel politicians to hold the indispensable national congressional public hearings on the wrongdoing by ‘their men and women on the bench’ and thereafter undertake judicial reform that recognizes the right of the People to hold all their servants, including judicial public servants, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing (see the article below and at >OL2:567).

    11. Pressure on politicians to hold those hearings in Congress may have to be built up. This is the rationale for calling for unprecedented nationally televised public hearings on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform organized by the national media in the public interest and held by a pioneering, potentially trend-setting board of prominent investigative journalists, court reporters, newscast anchors, and schools of journalism, law, business, and information technology.

    a. Media executives will only organize such hearings if they realize that there is an audience large enough to justify both taking the risk involved in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and expecting a commercial reward by attracting advertisers interested in reaching the largest audience possible to whom to offer their goods and services.

    b. The media have the technical means and reach necessary to become the largest disseminator of The Dissatisfied’s complaints about judges; their capacity to multiply our judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform effort is unmatched. They are indispensable to our success. Thinking strategically, we can turn the media into our ally by our pursuit of an objective that is harmonious with theirs: the largest possible audience.

    D.  Joining forces and focusing them on implementing the inform and outrage strategy

    12. Therefore, I respectfully invite you to organize a presentation on the inform and outrage strategy and its implementation to your group by me in person and, if here in New York City, free, or if elsewhere, then at your group’s expense; otherwise, at a video conference.

    13. The article below provides a preview of the presentation. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read it and have your group read and discuss it.

    14. To attract others to the presentation organized by you, you may share and post the article as widely as possible.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    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

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    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

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ********************************

    An invitation to take advantage of the opportunity that President Trump’s “drama” offers to participate in a for-profit business to lead The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to turn judicial wrongdoing and reform into a national issue and a decisive one of the 2018 mid-term election: Thinking strategically and becoming Champions of Justice

    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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    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: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. 

    A. Why you are invited to join forces to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. President Trump’s presidency is pervaded by what Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell charitably called “drama” when he  said, “We could do well with less drama from the White House”. Since Trump was only a presidential candidate, many commentators have used a more poignant term to describe the product of his personal conduct and managerial style: chaos(*>OL2:488¶1).

    2.  Last year, I took a different approach when, thinking strategically(>OL2:416), I described Trump’s chaos, not as a destructive force, but rather as an opportunity to expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) and advocate judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8). I wrote(>OL2:488¶8):

    Chaos Candidate Trump has added; more he will cause. But if he can harness his chaos and that of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, he can use chaos as the force that unrelentingly and unmitigatedly exposes the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(*>jur:65§B). Trump’s chaos can subject judicial public servants to accountability to their masters, We the People.

    *The materials corresponding to the (blue text references) are contained in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting*

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

    Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

    1. Knowledge prompts duty

    3.  People like you, who read this website, are likely to, and many who contact me definitely, have superior knowledge about the judiciary and its judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to its prescription in theory. That knowledge imposes on you a higher duty of care of judicial integrity: Knowledge commands action for the common good; otherwise, the knower is liable to the charge ‘you knew about that harm to us but did nothing to warn us’. Thereby the knower becomes an accessory after the harm done and before the next harm encouraged and facilitated by his or her silence(*>jur:88§§a-c).

    B. The facts and tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    1. The facts

    4.  Judges cannot hold other judges accountable who have been their peers, colleagues, and friends for years and will continue to be for more. They know about each other’s wrongdoing and implicitly shout at each other, “If you take me down, I’ll bring you with me!”, e.g., by ‘trading up to a higher fish’ in plea bargain(*>jur:69¶9). For holding them unaccountable today, they expect to be similarly treated by them in future. Their conduct is determined by the principle of reciprocally assured unaccountability required by mutually dependent survival(>OL2:466¶11; 468§A).

    5.  Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm for judgeships people of their ilk, who know how the power game is played. Thereafter they cannot turn against the very people whom they vetted and for whose honesty and competence they vouched by investigating them for being dishonest and incompetent, never mind find that they engaged in wrongdoing(*>OL:191¶¶3,4; OL:265§2). The appointer cannot indict his appointee without indicting himself.

    6.  They also hold judges unaccountable for fear of their awesome power to retaliate by, among other things, declaring even the key pieces of politicians’ legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17). Such declaration prevents the fulfilment of their key electoral promises and diminishes the accomplishments on which to run for reelection(*>jur:22¶31).

    7.  Judges,  held unaccountable by themselves and politicians, are irresistibly attracted to the material, professional, and social benefits(*>OL:173¶93) that they can grab risklessly by abusing their powers(>OL2:267§4, 505). In the absence of any adverse consequence, wrongdoing thrives rampant. Theirs is shown in detail by the facts and statistical analysis discussed at *>jur:§§1-3.

    2. The tenet

    8.  The tenet underlying judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform is implicit in the principle of “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82fn172):

    a. We the People are the sovereign source of political power. We are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom we hire to serve us. We are entitled to hold all of them accountable.

    b. In particular, We are entitled to hold judges:

    1) accountable for discharging their duty to ensure due process and equal protection of the law, and exercising in our interest the enormous power entrusted to them over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives; and

    2) liable for abusing that power for their own material, professional, and social benefit(*>OL:173¶93); and for compensating the victims of their breach of duty and abuse of power.

    3) After exposing the full extent, routineness, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing, We will be in a position to determine how and how far to exercise our right to detect, prevent, and punish it by reforming judges’ conduct in practice and in theory(*>jur:158§§6-8).

    C.  The thesis: Trump’s chaos opens a realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform because it will suck in judges and enable The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System to become a constituency

    9.  A realistic opportunity for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform results from Trump’s chaos. In brief, every disputed issue in our country ends up before judges, whether it is the ban on Muslim immigration, Obamacare, abortion, gun ownership, same sex marriage, voter identification and voting districting, campaign financing, etc. The more this is the case and stirs up national debate, the more we can highlight the political importance and grievances of the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Trump will need and appeal to them; and we will advocate for them and help them become a self-aware and assertive constituency.

    10.  Accordingly, Trump’s conduct and policies will end up in court and even in the Supreme Court, in connection with, for instance:

    a. the revised ban on Muslim immigration;

    b. deportation of immigrants;

    c. the probe into the interference of Russia in the past presidential election;

    d. the invocation of presidential privilege to quash subpoenas for Trump’s tapes of conversations in the White House and to prevent production of White House staff to testify before congressional committees and the special counsel;

    e. obstruction of justice;

    f. Trump’s removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution on a declaration essentially of his mental disability;

    g. conflict of official and personal business interests;

    h. the emoluments clause of the Constitution;

    I. timing and corrupt purpose of a presidential pardon;

    j. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s refusal to produce subpoenaed documents and Congress’s potentially holding him in contempt;

    k. the scope of the Russia probe and the powers of Former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct it as special counsel;

    l. Mueller’s eventual firing just as Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Preet Bharara; and

    m. the expected White House shake-up by Trump, which may provoke ‘spit and tell’ retaliation by those fired, with him countering by ordering the Department of Justice to prosecute them for having leaked information;

    n. etc., etc., etc.

    11.  No doubt, Trump’s chaos will spin a whirlwind of lawsuits. Through them, Trump will not only focus national attention on judges through media reporting, but also heighten tension with them by doing what he has already done, thus causing again Democrats as well as Republicans to react either in support of him or of judges’ independence: He will disparage “so-called judges” who in his view treat him “very unfairly” because for one reason or another they are biased against him; and he will feel justified in diminishing them because, as his Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller stated critically and he approved:

    “We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government”(>OL2:527).

    12.  Subsequently, Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, revealed a concurrent sentiment when he stated, thus outraging many:

    “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific [U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson for the District of Honolulu, Hawaii] can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power [to issue his revised ban on Muslim immigration].”

    13.  That judiciary and its judges Trump is bound to attack in an effort to survive his own chaos. Thereby he will cause the judges to react by applying the judges’ unwritten ‘canon’ of conduct that Then-Judge, Now-Justice Neil J. Gorsuch enunciated when he, though nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court, commented on his “so-called judge” derogatory remark about District Judge James Robart for having suspended nationwide his ban on Muslim immigration: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:527).

    14.  That ‘canon’ describes conduct that is not determined by reflection upon principles based on the law, professional duty, or social norms grounded in ethical consideration. It expresses the judges’ gang mentality. That is the way the gang survives in the hood. From the point of view of ‘we against the rest of the world’, every act of every non-gang member is a potential deadly threat to every member, their turf, and their material privileges and ‘respect’ in the hood, earned through sheer abuse of power and brutal retaliation. When the act is done by none other than the president of the enemy gang, the gang’s reaction reverts to its tribal, primitive, atavistic origin: ‘Us against the savage animal at the entrance of the cave’. The gang versus tyrannosaurus rex. Their fight to the death is preprogrammed by the survival instinct. It is in the nature of savages, gangs, and judges.

    15.  By Trump picking a fight with the judges, he will render realistic the opportunity for us to make him and his top officers aware of the significant moral and electoral support and donations that he can receive by appealing to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. Simultaneously, we can appeal to The Dissatisfied as their advocates and organize them strategically to assert their First Amendment right “to petition for a redress of their grievances”(*>jur:130fn268) against unaccountable judges and their consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    16.  That is how we seize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform: by applying the principle of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    17.  hat calls on us to identify our main enemy: It is the one that has abusively taken our property, liberty, and rights, and can still wreck our lives by bullying us at will: the gang. T-Rex will be gone sooner or later. Before he does, we need his jaws to chase the gang out of the cave so that we can hold it liable for what it took from us and subject it to us: We the People.

    D. The need to join forces to realize the opportunity in Trump’s chaos for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

    18.  We can ever more effectively take advantage of the opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy if we join forces by engaging in harmonious activities aimed thereat and even coordinating them. Concrete examples of how each of us and all of us can do so given our respective status are provided in the next section.

    19.  However, to take full advantage of this opportunity we must join forces in a more organic framework that allows and at once requires us to think and proceed strategically. For such junction, I have developed a for-profit business plan. It is available upon request and discussed in an earlier article hereunder (also at >OL2:560), which is followed by its Table of Contents to provide an overview of it(>OL2:563).

    20.  In synthesis, the plan calls for raising the investment capital necessary to set up an office and form a multidisciplinary academic and business team of highly competent and responsible professionals capable of rendering an ambitious array of judicial wrongdoing and reform advocacy services(jur:128§4) to paying clients(jur:119§1) -e.g., representation, litigation, investigation, seminars and courses, advanced information technology research and development of software for auditing judicial decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing- and in the public interest –e.g., submission and access to databases of complaints against judges and research materials, analysis of court statistics, how-to articles.

    21.  Whether by joining forces through harmonious and coordinated activities, or by running the for-profit business, we will be able to pursue simultaneously two interests that are consistent with each other:

    a.  to work for the public good by making progress in the realization of the noble ideal of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6); and

    b.  to advance our careers by making nationally recognized names as well as earning tangible, valuable rewards(*>OL:3§6), eventually having the option of earning our living as members of the business.

    E. The initial harmonious and coordinated activities that we can pursue to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    22.  We can from now on engage in the following illustrative activities to inform the public about judges’ wrongdoing and so to outrage(>OL2:461§1) the public at judges that it is stirred up to demand that incumbent politicians and those who will soon run in the 2018 mid-term primaries and main campaign, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office(>OL2:517¶16), denounce judges’ wrongdoing and conduct or call for nationally televised congressional public hearings -like those being held by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hear the testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey  and others- on people’s own and third parties’ experience at the hands of unaccountable judges who engage in consequent riskless wrongdoing.

    23.  We all can strive to insert that issue among the core ones of the national debate and the mid-term election so that being either for exposing or for covering judges’ wrongdoing is a decisive choice for incumbents -including Trump and his decision to campaign for or against somebody- all candidates, and voters(*>OL:356). To that end, we can do the following:

    1. The media members

    24.  A nationally known court reporter and a newspaper editor(>OL2:511) can:

    a. investigate(*>OL:194§E), interview, and write articles on the issue(>OL2:483);

    b. promote its investigation(*>OL:344; 374; >OL2:524) at journalism schools(*>Lsch:23) or by individual(*>jur:xlvi§H) students or those taking a team reporting class;

    c. facilitate the organization by students of a multimedia public presentation(*>jur:97§1) as part of a course(cf. *>dcc:31);

    d. induce talkshow hosts(*>OL:222§1) to hold a weekly or monthly show(*>OL:146¶1) and even form a coalition(>OL:113, 142) for judicial wrongdoing exposure, which can become a powerhouse of American politics, just as Roger Ailes developed Fox News into a conservative politics force to be reckoned with;

    e. produce a documentary(>OL2:464, 536, 537);

    f. call for, and produce an unprecedented and potentially trend-setting nationally public hearings held in the public interest by a board of national media outlets, prominent court reporters, editors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and schools of law, journalism, business, and information technology;

    g. thereby winning a Pulitzer Prize or commanding a higher salary with the same or a different employer;

    h. see to it that a series of my articles is published; and

    I. that I teach a related course at a school(cf. *>dcc:1, 23);

    j. am invited to make a presentation(*>OL:54) to their colleagues or at a school(*>OL:197§G); and

    k. am interviewed.

    2. The law professors

    25.  A preeminent emeritus law professor(>OL2:542, 543) and a tenured law professor(*>jur:xi) at an Ivy League law school can:

    a.  draw the attention of deans(>OL2:539, 541) and the legal community(>OL2:453) to the issue, and thereby become courageous academic figures that pioneer the study of judges’ conduct in practice as opposed to in theory; cf. Professor John Banzhaf III of George Washington Law School taught a public integrity class that successfully led three of his students to sue Former U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for having taken kickbacks and bribes while governor of Maryland, which he was forced to pay into the state treasury with interest;

    b.  organize the first academic conference ever on the issue(*>jur:97§1; *>OL:253), to be held during the 2018 primaries;

    c.  innovate on the role of law schools to turn them into independent, apolitical entities that instill in students the moral strength and develop their skills to hold judges accountable(>OL2:452), thus developing an academic niche for the school and a practice area niche for students;

    d.  promote the creation of an institute of judicial accountability and reform advocacy(*>jur:130§5);

    e.  apply their influence to allow me to present(*>OL:197§G) to their students, faculty, and student organizations(*>Lsch:1, 2):

    f.  see to it that I teach a related course(*>OL:60, 42; dcc:1, 23); and they can

    g.  request of law journals and book publishers(*>jur:x) that they publish my articles(>OL2:483) and study(supra ¶2) of judges and their judiciaries.

    3. The politician

    26.  A local politician(>OL2:487) can:

    a. adopt the issue to appeal to the huge(*>OL:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System, placing the issue at the core of her platform and turning it into her brand to enter the national scene and become a national leader that runs for national office; and

    b. invite me to address her supporters at her rallies and fund-raising events (*>OL:46, 51).

    4. The members of courts

    27.  A member of a court, even a judge (*>OL:180), can:

    a.  share with me on a confidential, Deep Throat (*>jur:106§c) basis inside information on judges’ conduct, individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and operation of their judiciaries (>OL2:468); and

    b.  eventually become a whistleblower and end up:

    1)  on the cover of Time Magazine as the Person of the Year(*>jur:iv/fn.iv) and

    2)  as the main character in a blockbuster movie or bestseller, like All the President’s Men(*>jur:4¶¶10-14), for her courageous service in We the People’s interest(*>OL:4¶7) and practical support to the rule of law principle that Nobody is Above the Law,

    3)  thus earning the national merit and name recognition to become this generation’s version of the historic Watergate figure of Deep Throat(*>jur:106§c). Why should a president be investigated and leaked on but not a judge?

    5. The members of district attorneys’ offices

    28.  A member of a district attorney’s office can

    a.  provide me confidentially inside information on:

    1)  how the assistant district attorneys (ADAs) perform in connivance(*>jur:L; ix/c-e) with judges to avoid the latter’s retaliation and abusive exercise of power by making capricious and arbitrary rulings and orders(*>Lsch:17§C), whereby ADAs try to preserve and enhance their “winning scores” and chances of a promotion;

    2) how ADAs’ choice of both cases to prosecute and manner of prosecution is influenced by the district attorney’s dominating goal of securing his reelection to ensure a tenure at least as long as that of his predecessor; and

    b.  manage to pass on to defendants and other litigants the information on how they can work together in small groups to audit(*>OL:274) judges’ decisions and other writings in search of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(*>OL:282, 304, 308); and refer them to me for a free of charge seminar on auditing judges;

    c.  eventually becoming a whistleblower(supra §4) and gaining enough public recognition and gratitude to run for district attorney; and

    d.  use his or her connections to cause community and grassroots organizations to invite me to present the issue in person or at a video conference.

    F. Work through which we can have a consequential and historic impact here and abroad

    29.  By thinking strategically(>OL2:445§B, 475§D), we can seize the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers to launch the process of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. We can even take advantage of the opportunity to set in motion the development of a Tea Party-like, single-issue civic movement(*>jur:164§9) that seeks to hold judges accountable through, among other things, citizen boards of judicial accountability(*>jur:158§§6-8). This out-of-court strategy(OL2:461§1) is justified by the incapacity of judges to hold their peers accountable and of politicians their appointees(supra §B.1).

    30.  This would constitute progress of historic(*>jur:xLv§G) proportions by We the People in asserting our status: We are the source of all political power. We are the masters of all our public servants. We have the right to hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. That assertion will express the awareness of self-identity and power of the movement: The People’s Sunrise(*>OL:201§J).

    31.  As with so many socio-economic innovations that started in America and set the example for the rest of the world, our analysis, business plan, and experience can travel abroad. We can take action in our country that can reach The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System in other countries. We can inspire them with the ideal of Equal Justice Under Law and share with them our means to advance its realization. We can set a trend that makes them aware of who they are: We the Peoples of the World, asserting our universal right to justice and our power as masters to ensure that our servants administer it fairly and impartially according to the rule of law.

    32.  By initially joining forces and then developing into a well-integrated team of competent and responsible professionals ‘dedicated to a mission greater than ourselves’, our work in life can be consequential and historic. In addition to deservedly earning material and professional rewards(*>OL:3§6), we can earn the highest reputational one: We can become recognized here and abroad as the Peoples’ Champions of Justice.

    G. Contact me to schedule a presentation in person or at a video conference

    33.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to contact me to choose a convenient time for us to meet so that I may present to you, if here in New York City, in person, or if otherwise, at a video conference, my invitation to join forces to take advantage of the realistic opportunity that Trump’s chaos offers for exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. On that occasion, we can discuss the extent to which everyone can initially get involved and how discreetly or publicly.

    34.  Hence, I look forward to hearing from you. To that end, you may contact me by email sent to the following bloc of email addresses:
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com.

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    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

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    *********************************

    A For-profit Business Plan for exposing how judges self-exempt from discipline by dismissing 99.83% of complaints against them, and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; and a proposal for public hearings conducted by Congress and/or a board of national media outlets on personal cases and the experience of litigants, lawyers, and others at the mercy of judges above discipline and their decisions by fiat

    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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    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: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org 

    To subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website go to:
    + New or Users >Add New

    Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

    Thank you for your emails replying to my article on Judge Neil Gorsuch and his fellow judges (>ol2:546), and for letting me know about your projects and seeking my opinion thereon. Kindly consider the following comments on two projects that are representative of others.

    † See my study of judges and their judiciaries as they perform in practice as opposed to the conduct prescribed for them in their codes of conduct and statutory rules. It is titled and downloadable as follows:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
    and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *†

    * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

    1. You want to ensure that “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals” are appointed to the bench. Yet, they must also have the academic qualifications and professional experience needed to perform competently as judges so that they are acceptable to the nominators and confirmers; otherwise, you and the nominees are headed for an exercise in self-embarrassment.
    2. The appointment of a judge, whether to the federal or a state judiciary, is a political act intended to assure that the laws enacted by the appointing party will be upheld as constitutional and interpreted as intended by their adopting party. A group like yours does not offer anything as important as that intended assurance. On the contrary, your demand for honest judges works against the interest of politicians:
    3. Known for their double-talk and opportunism, not their principles, politicians have an interest in appointing people of their ilk, willing to play the power game. They have no use for the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.
    4. Hence, your Washington sit-in will be an exercise in futility that will only waste the effort, time, and money of your group and cause through disappointing results an erosion of commitment.
    5. Neither the President, a governor, nor a legislative body will ever nominate a person who is not a lawyer and a judge, or who does not have the qualifications to be a judge –Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge but was a lawyer and former dean of Harvard Law School–. The risk is too great that the lack of such qualifications may lead to public criticism of the nominee, embarrassment of the appointer, and the forced withdrawal by the nominee of his or her name.
    6. You only need to remember the embarrassment of President George W. Bush when he nominated Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. She was roundly disapproved by even fellow Republicans as unqualified and had to withdraw herself from the nomination. Bush did not risk nominating even his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Instead, he went for a sure name, Then-Judge John Roberts, a member of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
    7. This shows that what appears to advocates of honest judiciaries to be a good idea must be evaluated in the context of one’s resources, the facts, and other people’s interests to determine how to turn it into a reality. This calls for pragmatism enhanced by dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests underlying strategic thinking and resulting in a strategy(>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

    B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

    1. Even if that circuit were broken up into two or more circuits, the judges that have been appointed for life would remain on the bench. Belonging to a smaller or a new circuit is not going to cause them to become “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals”, never mind political neutral and committed to applying only and always the rule of law. They will remain political appointees expected to rule along political lines.
    2. That is shown by the politically motivated controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of Judges Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, nominated to the Supreme Court by Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively.
    3. Worse yet, their respective interests favor maintaining the status quo: The politicians will not dare investigate for misconduct the judges for whose honesty they vouched, lest they indict their good judgment and vetting procedures and provoke the retaliation of all judges, for each could be investigated next. They will continue to hold them unaccountable and allow them to self-exempt from discipline, as shown by the analysis of the official statistics(ol2:546).
    4. The judges will keep risklessly engaging in wrongdoing for their gain and convenience at the expense of everybody else.
    5. Politicians and judges have a harmonious interest in frustrating the advocates’ conflicting interest in non-political judges. The Circuit break-up is not a strategy for judicial honesty. It is an effort that proves that in the absence of strategic thinking and its analysis of interests, there is only wishful thinking, amateurism, and improvisation that do not attain the intended objective.

    C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

    1. The first step to reform the judiciary is to show why it needs reforming: Judges abusively exempt themselves from 99.83% of complaints, are held unaccountable by their Republican and Democratic appointers, and risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3) harmful to everybody else.
    2. For instance, circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., a mere ‘for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect’] by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(ol2:455§§B-E). These decisions are so “perfunctory”(*>jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”…in a legal system rooted in precedent –as opposed to a code of rules– to prevent arbitrariness and off-the-cuff decision-making, and promote predictability and thus, conformance by the man and woman in the street of his or her conduct to reliable legal expectations.
    3. Circuit judges mostly affirm the decisions on appeal and deny motions raised in the appeals(ol2: 457¶26). District judges, who weigh pro se cases as 1/3 of a case and treat them accordingly(ol2: 45§B), know that most of their decisions will be affirmed pro-forma and act perfunctorily.
    4. Their decisions, whether reasonless or cobbled together, are the ad hoc fiats of the judges of “the swamp of the Establishment”(ol2:453), for their life-appointment and in effect irremovability –only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789(jur:21§a) – make them the Establishment’s most established members.
    5. So, We the People are at the mercy of judges who risklessly deny us due process and equal protection of the law, which are reserved for the 7% of decisions that, intended for public scrutiny, are reasoned, signed, and published.
    6. If this information, based on official statistical facts, is made known to the national public -not just the passers-by at the time of a sit-in in D.C.-, it can outrage the People and cause them to demand that their senators and representatives, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call on Congress to conduct public hearings on the experience of the People at the hands of the judges that they hold unaccountably independent.

    D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

    1. You and other advocates should meet locally to discuss the above facts and out-of-court inform-and-outrage strategy before embarking on any trip. Even demonstrating at your courthouse has no chance at present of accomplishing anything: Your demands will not imperil legislators’ electability or even make it to the newscast; they will be ignored like those of most demonstrators.
    2. Your focus should not be on your personal, local cases, which are of as little interest to anybody else as theirs are to you. Rather, highlight through the use of the official statistical tables accompanying the article on Judge Gorsuch and his peers how judges in your circuit abusively dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them, enabling their riskless wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) that harms and interests everybody else.
      1. If your appellate attorney failed to disclose that his or her attorney’s fees would buy you a 93% chance of receiving only a reasonless 5¢ form decision, consider suing him or her for malpractice. If your doctor failed to disclose that he or she would charge you thousands of dollars for medical treatment that for 93% of patients was useless but caused 100% of them a lot of anxiety for months on end, what would you do?
    3. Meet(cf. ol:274) with other advocates to use the table template (ol2:555) to draw up the table concerning your judges. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Gain and wield it to implement the inform-and-outrage strategy that can earn you public respect and attention, and make future demonstrations numerous and effective.
    4. You and others can inform the public by distributing that article by email and social media and discussing it with local groups.
    5. This will allow you to strategically pursue your and other people’s personal cases and share experiences involving wrongdoing judges by demanding that public hearings thereon be held with a view to judicial reform by Congress and/or a pioneering and potentially trendsetting entity: a board of national media outlets working in their commercial and public interest(ol2:558§§D,E).

    E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

    1. If you and your group are travelling for a demonstration to D.C. or anywhere else for free and without having to sacrifice time that you could or must use to earn a living, I would like to know how you have managed that feat. Such scenario is, of course, unrealistic.
    2. Planning to travel there or just to demonstrate locally on a workday must have made you all realize that even the noblest objective requires effort, time, and money. Implementing any plan or strategy needs financing.
    3. Thus, I have devised a for-profit business plan to pursue through strategic thinking the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform. Its table of contents is below. I welcome your ideas on how to raise the necessary investment capital to implement that plan. If you have any experience with Fund Me initiatives or access to individuals willing to put their money where their noble or business ideas are, I would appreciate your letting them and me know.
    4. In this vein, I offer to present to you and your group by video conference or, upon your invitation, in person, why it is necessary and opportune to share and post widely the article that discusses judges’ official statistical facts; to implement a business plan that addresses the public harm caused by their unaccountable abuse of their power over your property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine your and everybody else’s life; and to hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, for they are not entitled to be Judges Above the Law.
    5. Your contribution to informing We the People that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ they are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants; outraging the masters at their servants’ wrongdoing; and empowering them to hold their servants accountable can earn you the People’s recognition and turn you into their Champion of Justice.
    6. So 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

    Subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    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

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    *****************************

    Part I. OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
    their analysis points to its judges’ arbitrary handling of caseloads that denies due process and equal protection of the laws

    Sections A.-E(>ol2:454, 546)

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

    Table of Contents of
    Part II.
    THE BUSINESS PLAN
    for raising investment capital
    to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
    through a for-profit business
    that caters to professionals, litigants, and
    The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal Systems

    F. Executive Summary: Paying to acquire, and earning by providing, knowledge and services to counter judges’ power to harm by denying due process and equal protection of the laws and engaging in other wrongdoing

    G. Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries: the foundation for the for-profit business of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

     1. The publication of the study and the formats of publication

    H. Dr. Cordero’s website: the storefront for the public to look in and the billboard to attract clients

    I. The targeted segments of the market

    1. The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

    2. The market of professionals

    3. Professors and students as a pool of employees

    4. The market of pro ses

    J. Activities to be financed to enable the offering of services

    K. Formation of the team of professionals to pursue the multidisciplinary and business venture and its evolution into the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy

    1. Desirable association with a prestigious academic institution from early on

    2. The key members of the team or officers of the institute

    3. The logistics of setting up and running the office

    L. Key profit points of the business plan

    M. What investors can provide in addition to investment capital

    N. Conclusion: This is the most opportune time for a business intended to help “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”

    ************************************

    How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

    Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

    «An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

    Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
    The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
    UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
    WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
    The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

    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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
    DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    NOTE: 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.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. 

    This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

    1. After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
    2. His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!
    3. J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
    4. He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

    NOTE: The file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546  and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf 

    contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

    1. the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
    2. its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
    3. the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
    4. the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
      a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
      b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

    This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. 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

    A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

    1. Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

    ‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

    B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

    1. J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
    2. With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
    3. Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(>ol2:455).
    4. The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
    5. The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
    6. What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
    7. In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
    8. For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
    9. No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

    C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

    1. So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
    2. Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
    3. Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
    4. By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

    D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

    1. It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
    2. Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
    3. Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
    4. President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
    5. To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    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

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    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

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

    ***************************

    Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

    NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

    and

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548 

    Line Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10th Cir., filed with AO1 ‘06[5] ‘07[6] ‘08A[7] ‘08B[8] ‘09A[9] ‘09B ’10[10] ’11[11] ’12[12] ’13[13] ’14[14] ’15[15] ’16[16] totals
          1. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year * 2 14 7 0 52 18 26♦‡ 8 9 11 17 12 176
          2. Complaints Concluded 0
          3. Complaints Filed[17] 49 37 17 58 [18] 73 62 64 33 59 33 37 51 573
          4. Complaint Type/Source
          5. Written/Filed by Complainants 49 37 17 58 71 61 64 33 59 33 37 51 570
          6. On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
          7. Complainants♦♦
          8. Prison inmates 50 47 26 37 13 27 15 22 13 250
          9. Litigants 8 23 33 19 25 25 16 11 20 180
       10. Attorneys 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 4 2 17
       11. Public Officials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       12. Other 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 16
       13. Judges Complained About **
       14. Circuit Judges 24 18 3 29 21 10 12 3 28 1 4 14 167
       15. District Judges 40 27 43 34 35 22 16 23 29 22 291
       16. Bankruptcy Judges 2 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 3 14
       17. Magistrate Judges 8 12 7 2 6 17 15 6 14 9 4 12 112
       18. Nature of Allegations
       19. Erroneous Decision 2 46 50 57 30 53 16 28 46 328
       20. Delayed Decision 1 7 4 1 5 10 1 4 7 4 6 0 50
       21. Failure to Give Reasons for Decision 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
       22. Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel 4 9 6 6 6 8 7 2 0 48
       23. Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney 0 7 6 7 3 6 14 4 1 48
       24. Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias 14 19 13 28 2 3 9 0 1 3 4 3 99
       25. Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney 3 13 20 21 7 14 18 5 10 111
       26. Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse) 2 4 1 0 7 4 5 1 4 10 2 3 43
       27. Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
       28. Improper Outside Income 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
       29. Partisan Political Activity or Statement 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
       30. Acceptance of a Bribe 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
       31. Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 6
       32. Solicitation of Funds for Organization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       33. Violation of Other Standards 0 1 1 2 1 0 10 0 1 16
       34. Other Misconduct 57 48 23 28 14 23 0 25 40 258
       35. Disability 5 5 0 7 0 0 0 2 10 29
       36. ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
       37. Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
       38. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       39. Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
       40. Withdrawal of Petition for Review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       41. Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
       42. Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
       43. Complaint Dismissed in Whole or in Part 32 78 51 75 33 57 26 42 37 431
       44. Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability 1 0 4 4 3 5 0 2 4 2 25
       45. Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related 30 0 74 43 68 30 49 21 35 33 383
       46. Frivolous 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 18
       47. Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 30 0 46 43 61 18 32 19 32 36 317
       48. Allegations Incapable of Being Established 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
       49. Filed in Wrong Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       50. Otherwise Not Appropriate 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
       51. Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 14
       52. Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       53. Voluntary Corrective Action Taken 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
       54. Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 8
       55. Appropriate Action Already Taken 0 0
       56. Complaint Withdrawn 0 0
       57. Subtotal 0 0
       58. Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
       59. Actions by Special Committees
       60. Matter Returned from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       61. New Matter Referred to Chief Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       62. Judicial Council Proceedings
       63. Matter Returned from Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       64. Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       65. Received Petition for Review[19] 0 58 13 43 0 23 13 26 176
       66. Withdrawn 0 0
       67. Action on Petition for Review 0 0
       68. Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied 21 54 19 45 17 37 18 16 15 242
       69. Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
       70. Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       71. Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       72. Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
       73. Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report 0
       74. Complaint Dismissed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       75. Not Misconduct or Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
       76. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals
       77. Merits Related 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       78. Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       79. Otherwise Not Appropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       80. Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       81. Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       82. Remedial Action Taken 0 0
       83. Privately Censured 0
       84. Publicly Censured 0
       85. Censure or Reprimand 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
       86. Suspension of Assignments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       87. Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       88. Removal of Bankruptcy Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       89. Request of Voluntary Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       90. Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       91. Additional Investigation Warranted 0 0
       92. Returned to Special Committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       93. Retained by Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       94. Actions by Chief Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       95. Transferred to Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
       96. Received from Judicial Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
       97. Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
       98. During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year 37 48 24 0 0- 96 50 83 33 57 47 40 36 551[21]
       99. Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year] 26 0 29 30 7 8 11 18 14 27 170
                  1. Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO ‘06 ‘07 ‘08A ‘08B ‘09A ‘09B ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 totals

    [These notes are in the original.]

    Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

    ♦♦ Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

    Revised

    Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

    * Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

    Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

     

     

    ENDNOTES

    The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability andConsequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting*

    The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

    [1]  This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

    Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

    The above table for the 10th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

    Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

    [2]  Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

    The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

    In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

    The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

    Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

    Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

    And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

    The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

    [3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    However, the website of the 10th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

    [4]  On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

    [5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

    [6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

    [7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

    [8]  The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

    [9]  http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

    [10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

    [11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

    [12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

    Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

    [13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

    [14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

    [15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

    [16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

    [17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

    The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

    Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

    The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

    [18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

    [19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

    The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

    [20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

    [21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.

    When pro ses and lawyers think strategically and proceed unconventionally to join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities, turn clerks into confidential informants, and become We the People’s Champions of Justice

    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

    DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

    Subscribe to this series of articles thus:
    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or >Users >Add New

    You, a pro se or a lawyer, who have had a judge deny you or your client due process and equal protection of the law, can take unconventional, imaginative action to expose such wrongdoing (*>jur:5§3; ol:154§3) judge, e.g., one who has clerks allege that documents were served on you but who can neither produce copies nor even show a record that they were actually served on you.

    * All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
    Pioneering the news and publishing field
    of judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    * Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:# up to ol:393

    Volume 2:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf  >from ol2:394

    A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

    1. There are two basic principles that should guide the actions that pro ses and lawyers take to defend their rights in court:
      .
      a. The court has all the institutional power. If a court wants to railroad you, there is nothing you can do about it, as shown in the analysis(>ol2:452) of the official statistics of caseloads and their management by judges. Suing the judge before his or her own colleagues, peers, and friends is an exercise in futility foretold and a show of lack of understanding of how and why judges cover for each other, as explained in the article(ol2:461) that discusses the concepts of:

    1) dynamics of interpersonal relations based on reciprocally dependent survival; and

    2) institutional circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing.

    b.  Think strategically! This means think outside the box, putting aside the conventional, in-court ways(*>ol:390§B) in which pro ses and lawyers have tried for centuries(jur:21§1) unsuccessfully to secure the respect of the law by judges and their clerks.

    1) Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) consists of the use of knowledge of parties –here: the parties in the judicial and legal systems– and their interrelations to determine through analysis their constantly strengthening and weakening harmonious and conflicting interests underlying and motivating those relations so as to figure out a way to influence those interests to one’s advantage through, e.g.:

    a) the forging of strengthening alliances or the driving of weakening wedges between parties, in application of the principles:

    (1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will do everything possible to help him prevail in order to help myself;

    (2) The friend of my friend is my friend…and I will help him because there is strength in numbers and my grateful friend may help me.

    1. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read as much as you can of my study of judges and their judiciaries*, starting with the (blue text references* ) to it herein. Then you can proceed, not by rote, but rather by strategy crafted against a formidable opposing party: judges and their clerks, who have all the power of their institutions and will use it to crush you. You only have the power of knowledge, which can help you outsmart them. This you can do in the following concrete ways that apply the above principles. They provide for you to use your case only as an element of a strategy: the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(>ol2:458§1) for exposing unaccountable (ol:265) judges who consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing coordinated with their clerks.

      B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

    1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

    1. Go to the court website(jur:20), surf to, and download the docket of the case and the calendar of the judge for the last year. You must do that immediately to preserve those records as they stand now before they are altered to suit the clerks’ account of the documents in question. If you cannot download them, take screenshots of every screen –Shift + Screen print (the key after F12)–.
      .
    2. Indeed, whenever you visit a webpage for any aspect of this search, download and date it, and add its link to it because it can be moved or deleted. Add all of them to a single searchable pdf(ol:102; 277¶¶18-20) and bookmark each page to facilitate navigation through the pdf.
      .
    3. Go to the courthouse if those records are not online. Many state courthouses are located in the same building as the county clerk’s office, where the judges’ decisions as well as plaintiffs’ complaints and parties’ briefs, motions, and other case papers are filed as public records. It will become apparent below why it is pertinent to note that the county clerk’s office has other departments to keep, file, register, and issue a host of records, licenses, certificates, and applications regarding jury rosters, property, incorporation and sole proprietorships, marriage, birth and death, name changes, identification cards, voting, running in and results of elections, social security, public assistance, etc. County clerks work in close contact with state court clerks. The former know through the latter all the gossip about the judges and what happens in the court.
      .
    4. In a federal court filings are made in the in-take office of the clerk of court, which is not associated with the state county clerk’s office. In-take clerks learn from the law clerks, who are lawyers and ‘clerk for a judge’ (only for a year after law school) or for the court in general as their permanent job, what goes on in chambers, the courtroom, and elsewhere. An in-taker may also learn from a judge who wrongfully orders her to “change that motion’s docket date to today’s”.
      .
    5. These state and federal case filing offices are referred to here as the clerk’s office or office. Go there and quietly, without drawing attention to you more than needed, sit at a public computer terminal and check your case for its docket and the judge calendar. Print them AND take a picture of every frame with your smartphone or tablet, making sure that the picture allows the identification of the computer as that in the clerk’s office. If there is no computer available to the public, ask a clerk for the paper version of those records and make a copy or take a picture.
      .
    6. Likewise, download or print every single document in the docket. You want to determine whether the alleged document was docketed at all so that it is online and, if so, whether it was docketed in the proper numerical order. What you are looking for is:
      .
      a. the date stamp on the first page;
      .
      b. the sequential number of the document, which often is handwritten next to the date stamp;                       
      .
      c. the initials or name of the clerk who made each docket entry;
      .
      d. whether the document was docketed completely because it has all its internal pages;
      .
      e. markings on pages even if they appear meaningless at this early research stage…or no markings, but a year later the document has markings. Who reloaded it with them? Why?
      .
    7. Examine the judge calendar and look for any entries concerning your case. Are they plausible? Determine whether the judge was in chambers, holding court, or even in town on the date when the document in question was signed or the order for its issuance was allegedly issued; or he or she was at a seminar; teaching a class as an adjunct professor; judging a moot court session at a law school; at the wedding out-of-state of his or her son; on holiday; etc. So check the judge’s:
      .
      a. webpage on the court’s website, paying attention to dates, times, places, names of people, titles, relations, occasions, membership in organizations and clubs, etc.;
      .
      b. social media page, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube; download all pictures of the judge, his family, associates, etc., and accompanying articles for future use(infra, ol2:470¶25).
      .
      c. appearance on a Google search showing that he or she holds an honorary position in an organization that advocates positions that under the code of conduct for judges (jur:68fn123a >Canons 4 and 5) are inconsistent with the obligations of judicial office or involve political activity; or contradict his or her public statements.
      .
      ……………1) This is an example of serendipity: You are looking for one thing but detect another thing of great value because you are proceeding with your eyes wide open and a mind that looks at everything critically and integrates every piece of information into a system. A large percentage of findings are made thanks to serendipity.
      .
    8. Compare your case docket and the calendar entries for your case with those of the judge’s 20 other current cases; compare them with those of other judges. Does a pattern emerge that:
      .
      a. was broken in, or confirmed by, your case and points to the judge’s failure to abide by the injunction in Canon 2 of the judges code to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”?
      .
      b. raises suspicion?: e.g., the judge takes the type of order affecting you on Fridays close to the end of business: Is that a mere caseload dumping(ol:92¶b) measure for a light shoulder feeling that has nothing to do with the merits of the cases?
      .
      c. involves other parties that strangely enough are the same? One of the main rules of wrongdoing is: Involve as few people as possible to avoid leakage, mistakes due to lack of coordination of timing and action, infighting for turf, and reduce the number of ‘slices in which the cake’ of wrongful benefits must be divided among the wrongdoers:

    1) the same clerk, the same accountant, auctioneer, warehouser, guardian ad litem, executor, liquidator, evaluator, companies, and other parties with whom the judge and/or the clerk works together in a scheme(ol:85¶2, 91§E), the most complex, profitable, and harmful form of coordinated(jur:88§a) wrongdoing.

    1. Think like a lawyer: What arguments can you make based on each piece of information, such as a marking, in a source, such as a picture, a webpage, an article, and through their integration in, or failure to fit, a system? Arguments do not scream at you to identify themselves. You have to stare at sources critically and imaginatively to craft them; sources only provide a hint in the form of a piece of information. Does it hint at manipulation of dates, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, text replacement, bias, conflict of interests, counterfactual statement, odd behavior, etc.?

    2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

    1. Al Capone was convicted, not on his alleged mafia crimes, but rather for tax evasion. Likewise, a judge may not be brought down on account of her wrongful decisions, which peers and clerks may squeeze within her discretion or cover up, but rather on account of financial crimes(ol:250§B); after all, the most insidious motive for wrongdoing is Money, lots of money!(jur:27§2).
      .
    2. The key documents in this respect can be downloaded or examined and copied in the field and subjected to financial analysis to determine whether the judge is liable to the Al Capone approach for illegal benefits sought and/or obtained for herself or others. These documents are:
      .
      a. the judge’s mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) available for the last seven years(jur:105fn213a); and
      .
      b. the filings in county clerks’ offices(jur:110fn242-244) concerning the property in the name of the judge, her family, close associates, and even strawmen (fictitious people).
      .
    3. Such financial analysis may produce probable cause to believe that the judge may be:a. filing reports that make no financial sense(104¶¶236-237; jur:72§b; ol:315§6), which may point to off-shore accounts in tax heavens(ol:1, 2), money laundering, and tax evasion;
      .
      b. living above his or her means because on a judges’ salary –a matter of public record–:

    1) records in county clerks’ offices show that the judge has a yacht, a condo in Miami, a large investment in a company, in addition to a home in a gated community;

    2) based on the information found in huge commercial databases of newspapers and journals, e.g., Nexis(jur:108§d): the judge has three children at expensive private universities, takes vacations at luxurious resorts, is a member of exclusive clubs;

    c. taking indirect bribes, e.g., has taken out large loans for which little or no collateral has been posted by mortgaging a property and recording it in the county clerk’s office.

    15. The above should have allowed you to realize the strategic thinking that motivates this exercise:

    a. You are not looking to establish that the judge abused his or her discretion. That is a losing battle because by definition ‘discretion’ has a wide margin of leeway. Even if appellate judges would have exercised their discretion to do the opposite of what the judge did, they cannot reverse her decision if it was within her margin of discretion(ol2:437).

    b. You are looking for wrongdoing, including criminal activity, from which the judge and the clerks benefit(ol:173¶93). Three basic elements are considered to establish wrongdoing: motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). They may reveal a settled way of doing, the modus operandi, which manifests itself in a telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing. You only need to show ‘the appearance of impropriety’(jur:92§d), not prove with evidence.

    3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

    1. The search for patterns of wrongdoing is what can allow you to strengthen your case as nothing else can. Right now, you only have yourself, a pro se party or a lawyer for a party, who as such is by definition biased toward his own side of the story. You are alleging with nothing more than words that you are the victim of some form of judicial wrongdoing, e.g., that you did not receive a document or that the record of a document cannot be found. Nobody is going to take your word for it over that of a judge and her clerks, who are her protégés as her accessories in wrongdoing. Forget about people reading the whole record to reach their own conclusion. Thus, you are nothing but a lone whining loser. You need to break away from that damning status.
      .
    2. Strategic thinking and proceeding will allow you to become a member of a class of people victimized by a pattern of wrongdoing of a judge or judges and their clerks. How you form that class, beginning with a small, manageable team of three to seven people who have appeared before the same judge as you have, is described in painstaking detail in the article Auditing Judges (ol:274; and at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero_Auditing_Judges.pdf).

    C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

    1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

    1. To build the Auditing Judges class, you and your Auditing Judges team need inside informants: Deep Throats(jur:106§c), similar to the classic one in the Watergate Scandal, which brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign on 8aug74(jur:4¶¶10-14).
      .
    2. Clerks know a lot about judges’ wrongdoing, for they may be their willing or coerced assistants in committing it. Yet, most only get the smallest benefit, usually limited to holding on to their jobs: They either do what they are told or they are flung out(jur:30§1). If they are fired arbitrarily, they can hardly count on other clerks testifying on their behalf. If they file a suit, they land in front of the firing judge’s peers, who have an interest in sending a message to all clerks: ‘Don’t you even think of disobeying our orders: You can only jump from the pan to the fire.’ Cowardice and helplessness breed resentment in the clerks. How many female clerks have had to endure sexual abuse by judges, such as J. Samuel Kent(jur:22fn14)? Read about it and turn this subject into a talking point to strike up a conversation with a clerk identified as a potential informant.
      .
    3. This explains why clerks may be the ones most indignant about the judges’ wrongdoing: They may have joined the court expecting to be Workers of Justice, but have been forced to become the judges’ Enforcers of Wrongdoing. They may not feel proud about their behavior.
      .
    4. All this points to the need to:
      .
      a. identify former clerks: They know a lot about what went on in the court; still have contacts there, and cannot be fired…or were fired for protesting;
      .
      b. imagine scenarios of how to approach a given clerk based on what you are learning about her that may persuade the clerk to become an Informant for Justice; and
      .
      c. role play(ol:356) frequently with other team members, even on the phone, or in front of a mirror: Do not wing it! Here are three steps for you and your team to search for informants: identify, learn and choose, and contact:

    a. Identify current and former clerks

    a. Go to the website; download and print the picture of every judge and clerk; identify each with name and title, and affix all to The Wall of Insiders of your home, where you will build their organizational diagram (organigram) with those pictures and additional information found elsewhere; use 3” x 5” cards for people whose picture have not been found;

    b. download the telephone register, which lists the name and title of judges and clerks;

    c. check the website’s Contact Us webpage;

    d. check the webpage for each judge, which may identify his or her law (chambers) clerks;

    e. send a crawler to roam the Web for people who in social media or resumes have listed among their former jobs ‘clerk at court X [=wild card]’ or ‘clerked for Judge X’;

    f.  Go to the courthouse; look in the lobby for a directory on a wall listing the name, title, and room of each judge and clerk; take a picture with your smartphone or tablet;

    g. go to the county clerk’s office, the in-take office, the court library and other departments:

                 1) the personnel headshot gallery, with name and title, may be on a wall; take a picture;

    2) ask a clerk for a roster of clerks to help you navigate your way through the maze of departments that you have been told you need to work with. If the clerk has such a roster but not for distribution to the public, ask to be allowed to copy it;

    3) inconspicuously take a picture of every clerk and the desktop nameplates;

    4) ask for newsletters, brochures, fliers, forms, etc.; some may be downloadable;

    h. go to the court library; check the publications that report court decisions, called reporters and advanced sheets, which at the front or the back may have a list of clerks’ names;

    i. check the pages posted on the outside wall of the courtroom on the day when a judge holds motion hearings, which may list the name and phone number of the judges’ clerks;

    j. walk through the courthouse and pay attention to the shingles outside some doors indicating the names of the several departments and their respective heads;

    k. strike up a conversation with any clerk even if you show that you are in the wrong department and have no clue what it does. Use your ignorance to ask for, and receive, the names of current and former clerks in that and other departments with whose requirements you have to comply…to receive child support for a newborn after changing your name after your home was foreclosed and your new address is your car that was stolen. Bad day!

    l. if needed, go to the courtrooms and photograph judges on the bench and their clerks.

    22. Think, think, think creatively, imagining and rehearsing scenarios in advance, to come up with the opportune questions or comments at the right moment. Think strategically to craft a plan of action and, very importantly, to ‘connect the dots’ represented by each big as well as small, even tiny, piece of information. You are doing field research work: You are a Detective for Justice.

    23. Go back home; print and post new pictures and add your field information to that already in the organigram on your Wall of Insiders. Google names and run pictures through face recognition software(jur:146fn271, 272 for a spectacular result of so doing); read the related articles; and add information on 3” x 5” cards. You will be impressed by your own work and so will be others.

    24. Reproduce your Wall on your computer using PowerPoint preferably, otherwise Word, and its many collapsible/expandable features for adding information, such as digital sticky notes, call outs and cloud forms, connecting and freeform lines, etc., also available after you save your PP page in, or add it to a, pdf. Save a copy on your mobile device so that you can share your organigram with other team members(ol2:416§A) by email or when you meet them; and compare it with theirs in order to correct, combine, and enlarge it. This is team work, not competition.

    b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

    1. After compiling the list of clerks, you and the team must learn about each. Check their social media pages and Google their names, as shown above concerning judges. Learn as much as possible about where and what they studied; what their past jobs were; whether they have family and who their friends are; what school their children go to; where they went for their holidays; what hobbies they have; what associations or church they are members of; where they are likely to be found outside the courthouse; etc. Every piece of information will allow you to relate to them better when you meet them. With insatiable curiosity, imagination, and foresight, hog information.
      .
    2. The determination of what clerk is most likely to become an informant begins with those who are more relatable to you because of age, race, educational level, religious affiliation, marital and family status. However, keep in mind that young people are likely to still be idealistic. They may resent more the injustice that they see in the court and that they are forced to participate in. An unmarried young clerk who still lives at home may still be sensitive to a motherly figure.
      .
    3. Old clerks may have become jaded. They have established links of, not only conspiratorial relations with judges, but also of friendship and loyalty. They may be so deep into wrongdoing schemes that they risk too much if they give you any piece of information that may lead to any aspect of the court being investigated. Their ‘fingerprints’ are in every wrongdoing. They knew or should have known about it. They are not only accessories under duress(ol2:462§1); they have become principals(jur:90§§b,c). They may be close to retirement and cannot envisage losing their pension just because you tell them to think back to the days when Justice mattered to them.

    c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

    1. The previous two steps called for members with a bent for research and organization of data and capacity for profiling people(jur:xLvi§H). The third step calls for people’s persons, those with great social skills, talkative, and the ability to touch other people’s soul. They have to go in the field to befriend clerks who have been determined likely to become confidential informants.
      .
    2. Befriend a clerk until you can appeal:
      .
      a. to his or her moral fiber:
      .
      b.  the image of themselves as decent persons, who “Treat others the way they would like others to treat them”;
      .
      c. as honest public servants who take pride in serving the public;
      .
      d. as good parents who want to set the right example for their children;
      .
      e. people with a personal and civic conscience who would be outraged upon being informed(ol:236) that you and so many others, their families, employees, suppliers, etc., have been harmed profoundly by the wrongs, committed with the coerced assistance of their clerks, of the judges who have deprived them of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives. The harm is real –injury in fact–; the pain is constant.
      .
    3. Elicit understanding and empathy, positive reactions that generate personal identification with a common cause and commitment to its advancement; not guilt, a negative feeling that drains people of energy and draws them into self-absorbed recrimination that causes degenerative self-worthlessness. Get the clerk to confide in you under the assurance that you will preserve their anonymity. Share only the information with the other team members(ol2:416§A). Invite the clerk to meet and join them.

    2. The invisible little men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

    1. There is another class of people that can provide an enormous amount of information about judges and their wrongdoing: They are outsiders: hotel drivers, receptionists, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, room cleaners, and similar ‘little people’ with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts, experience with VIPs, and financial interest in satisfying their every wish– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges full of themselves, and in whose ghostly presence Judges Above the Law uninhibitedly discuss, or engage in competitive boasting about, their wrongdoing(ol:175§2).
      .
      a. Got to the places where, according to your research, the judge went or frequently goes. and show the ‘little people’ the pictures of the judge, her family, associates, etc.;
      .
      b. ask them what they know about the judge and the others. Any apparently insignificant dot of information can become significant once you start ‘connecting the dots based on what makes people tic and the world go around’(ol:279¶25) and a richly detailed figure emerges of the judge, her train of living, property, extra-judicial activities, etc. So, ask about:

    1) the occasions on which the judge was there;

    2) the other people that were with the judge: spouse, boy- or girlfriend, children, other VIP’s, shady people;

    3) who picked up the tab;

    4) any bit of the conversation among them that the little people picked up;

    5) how the judge treated the little people; etc.

    D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

    32. Einstein said that “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, because it ignores the fundamental law that governs both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. The secular practice against wrongdoing judges is to sue them in court, lodge complaints against them with a judicial performance commission, and ask legislators to investigate them. If you do that, you will likewise end up frustrated, exhausted, and abused; and with dissatisfied one-time clients.

    33. Strategic thinking leads to a radical departure: inside knowledge and rational analysis of people’s interests. It detects patterns of wrongdoing and devises an out-of-court/commission plan of action that imaginatively fosters or hinders such interests to expose wrongdoing and hold wrongdoers accountable. This calls for hard work, but it is reasonably calculated to have positive results: objective, verifiable, and convincing wrongdoing patterns that you and your team can take to:

    a. journalists, who do not pay attention to the self-serving allegations of a single party;

    b. politicians(ol2:416) who are looking for a novel issue on which to run for office, set themselves apart from their challengers, and develop a personal, reliable constituency;

    c. documentarists looking for a story that can make them the next Michael Moore, with the equivalent of a hugely successful Fahrenheit 9/11(ol2:461), or Laura Poitras(ol:35, 36);

    d. to other parties before the same judge or other judges in the same court, in other courts in the same city, in other cities, and beyond to build a class and develop a precedented, Tea Party-like movement(jur:164§9) of victims of wrongdoing judges and the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who are members of the dominant segment of the population: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment;

    e. even the judge on a motion for recusal; an appeals court for disqualification or remand and new trial; and a judicial performance commission to support a fact-based complaint;

    34. You are not alone. There are many like you out there. The above is a plan of action for you to become their rallying point. It all begins in your mind, by strategically thinking, then taking imaginative action(ol2:431). Strengthen your mind by reading in my study* because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read and reread the Auditing Judges article(ol:274) to learn how to form a small team of people who have appeared before your wrongdoing judge. They share your experience and frustration. They understand you. They are on your side. Your success is their success. You can become the leader of many pro ses and even lawyers by starting with a few just like you.

    35. Take heart from the people who never dreamed of becoming leaders until they were hit by an event that knocked them to the ground. But they would not stay down and take it: They stood up and fought back. They became reluctant heroes(ol:142§B).You never know what you can do until you decide that enough is enough and take the risk: To do your most. That is how you become recognized by We the People as one who asserted our right to Equal Justice Under Law and to hold all our public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing because Nobody is Above the Law.

    36. Thus, I offer to make a presentation at a video conference(ol:350) or in person on how you can become one of the People’s Champions of Justice.

    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
    www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

    Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

    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.

    Jointly exposing Medicare’s and its related entities’ coordinated abuse of power and cover-up in their self-interest and to the detriment of patients and the public

    A call
    to Medicar
    e Appeals Council
    to decide appeal M-23-386, filed on 28 October 2022
    and still pending
    and
    a call
    to people who have been denied their rights by
    Medicare and related entities,
    to class action law firms, and to investigative journalists,
    to join forces to expose the abuse of power and cover-up
    affecting so many people who assert their rights
    as single party to their stand-alone case and
    even do so without a lawyer (pro se), whereby
    they have barely any chance against
    hospitals, medical practitioners,
    equipment and laboratory services providers,
    health insurance companies and
    health management organizations (HMOs)
    and their networks of services and equipment providers,
    medical decisions reviewers, administrative law judges,
    Medicare, Medicaid, and the Medicare Appeals Council,
    all with their lawyers and
    working in coordination to further their common interest in
    enlarging their networks of services and equipment providers;
    denying claims of people to save money; and/or
    billing them for the balance of bills in excess of
    what the tables of medical costs allow by law and contract, which
    constitutes balance billing and
    has been illegal since 1997
    (OL3:1611§A)
    because it defeats the purpose of
    medical costs limited by health insurance,
    thus prompting the recent adoption by Congress of
    the
    No Surprise Bill Act,
    which so many entities and Medicare blatantly disregard

    http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ALJ/23-8-28DrRCordero_class_action_v_Medicare.pdf

     By
    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
    M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
    D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    New York City
    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    NOTES: a. The text below had a consistent format when posted. If it shows irregularities when displayed here, they crept in and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the text -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable through this link.
    b. To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder:
    1) go to <left panel ↓Register; or
    2) click + New  or  Users  >Add New; or
    3) fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.
    c. To  the latest articles, go to http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf.

    A. To lawyers, journalists, schools, patients, and
    Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

    1. The above-named entities have engaged in coordination consisting in harmonious conduct in support of common interests, described below. Thereby they have reached implicitly or explicitly reciprocal exoneration agreements providing that ‘I help and protect you today and you help and protect me tomorrow’. They function as a collective entity ‘too powerful to be held accountable’.
    2. As a result of their unaccountability, they have been able to form and operate a racketeering enterprise. Cf. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); 18 U.S.C. §§1961 to 1968; and Enterprise Corruption; NY Consolidated Laws, Penal Law-PEN §460. There is a lot of money to be grabbed through racketeering.a. “The Medicare Program [has] 65.0 million beneficiaries and total expenditures of $905 billion in 2022″. It works with hundreds of health insurance and management organizations (HMOs), and medical services and equipment providers. All of them have common interests: pay the fewest claims and attract to, and maintain in their, networks the largest number of providers. To advance their interests they:

    1) deny and uphold the denial of as many of their insureds’ claims as possible;

    2) disregard their legal duty to accept as total payment the amounts stated in Medicare’s and HMOs’ tables of medical services and equipment costs; and

    3) condone the billing of insureds for the unpaid balance, which constitutes the illegal practice of ‘balance billing’.

    i. Section 1902(n)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code of federal laws, as modified by Section 4714 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33, prohibits services and equipment providers from balance billing Medicaid QMBs (Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries) for Medicare cost-sharing.

    ii. The provider is duty-bound statutorily and contractually to submit its bill to Medicaid and accept as full payment what Medicaid pays, as set forth in its tables of services and equipment costs. See also Overview of Medicaid Provisions in the Balanced Budget Act.

    iii. Knowledge of the prohibition on balance billing insureds is imputed to the provider because by law and contract it was informed of it: There is no need to prove that it had actual knowledge.

    iv. The provider has ‘superior knowledge’ relative to the knowledge that insureds can reasonably be expected to have. Consequently, the provider and the insureds do not deal at arm’s length. When the provider takes advantage of this knowledge differential to balance bill an insured, it abuses its power.

    b. Most insureds who appeal claim denials and balance billing appear pro se, unable to afford lawyers precisely when they must pay mounting medical costs. Due to their ignorance of the law, they easily fall prey to abusive providers.

    c. Moreover, burdened by their health problems, few insureds have the substantial resources of emotional energy, let alone money, needed to struggle through four levels of appeal until reaching the Medicare Appeals Council, whose decision is appealable to a U.S. district court.

    1. The exposure of the providers’ coordinated abuse of power can be set off by holding unprecedented citizens hearings.

    a. They are to be held by journalists, media outlets, IT experts, and journalism, law, and IT students and professors.

    b. Their venue will be media stations, school auditoriums, and via the Internet so that wherever abusees are, they can tell their story of the abuse that they have suffered or witnessed by providers and the other entities.

    c. At the citizens hearings, the abusees will shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

    Enough is enough!
    We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

    1. Abusees can so inform and outrage the national public as to cause it to challenge the abusers’ unaccountability through the electoral process and a class action. To that end, we can join forces to turn the above-named entities’ coordinated abuse of power into a key issue of the presidential debates, the primaries, and the general election. This issue can attract the attention of the national public and politicians, whether principled or opportunistic, because “The Medicare Program is the second-largest social insurance program in the U.S.”, after Social Security.
    2. Together we can pioneer a multidisciplinary academic and journalistic business venture; and launch of a civic, MeToo!-like movement arising from an informed and outraged national public ready to wield its strongest powers: electoral donating, volunteering, and voting. The venture and the movement can implement a concrete, reasonable, and feasible plan of action offering rewards:

    a. The plan includes a class action, for it can accomplish what abusees cannot proceeding individually. A class action win can force transformative change in the way health entities coordinate their abuse of patients, in particular, and of the national public, in general. Lawyers can win huge rewards: treble damages, attorney’s fees, and national recognition that increases their number of clients; cf. the suits against tobacco, guns, and opioids entities.

    b. Journalists who investigate(OL:194§E) this story and join in holding the unprecedented citizens hearings can reasonably expect to be considered for a Pulitzer prize.

    c. Students can be nationally recognized as the youth of the Montana climate case have been. They can parlay the experience gained by creating a niche law and investigative practice.

    d. The media and the schools, suffering from low public esteem and income, can increase their appeal and profitability by becoming an engine of transformative socio-political change to be reckoned with. The schools can emerge as the fifth power for public accountability.

    1. I offer to make via video conference or, if in NY City, in person, a presentation on the citizens hearings and the plan of action. See my contact information in the letterhead above. Consequently, this email and its link can be shared and posted widely to announce my offered presentation.

    The presentation is supported by my professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. They are the skills that have already produced my three-volume study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

    Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
    Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:

    Pioneering the news and publishing field of
    judicial unaccountability reporting
    *

    1. The study discusses evidence supporting the axiom ‘Unaccountability breeds abuse’. Its corollary is ‘What judges allow themselves to do -exposed by The Wall Street Journal and Thomson Reuters-, others copy and exceed’.

    a. How many of the above-named entities and judges have found comfort and encouragement in the unethical and illegal practices that justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and the ‘Friends of the Justices’ have engaged in for decades, as revealed by ProPublica; and that a former President has engaged in for years, as stated by NY State Judge Arthur Engoron in his decision on Trump and his business of Tuesday, 26 September 2023?

    1. Some of my articles on unaccountability and abuse of power are posted to my website Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and impressed them so positively that as of 22 October 2023, the number of visitors that had become subscribers was 49,036.

    a. Those subscribers not only read what is in front of them, but also welcome more. They can reasonably be expected to be educated, influential, and capable of understanding how they are harmed by coordinated health entities and willing to support a class action against them. 

    B. Thousands of emails to top Medicare and related officers and entities have met the silence of a coordinated cover-up

    1. Thousands of emails have been sent to dozens of top officers of Medicare and health insurer EmblemHealth for more than a year, who have left them unanswered. Their same conduct cannot reasonably be said to be merely coincidental. Their failure to answer constitutes the circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn: It betrays the silence of a coordinated cover-up. So does their failure to provide discovery, disclosure, even a responsive brief to answer my complaint of 21 May 2022, and to enter default judgment as a consequence thereof.
    2. Likewise, their failure to decide the appeal M-23-386, filed with the Medicare Appeals Council almost a year ago on 28 October 2022, betrays self-interested dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice. A sample of the email headers and text has been collected below. They were sent:

    To:    Medicare.Appeals@hhs.gov, OSDABImmediateOffice@hhs.gov, OS-OMHAATLECAPE@hhs.gov, OSOMHAHearingTechSupport@hhs.gov, erin.nugent@hhs.gov, DABMODHotline@hhs.gov, notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov, dawn.kos@hhs.gov, john.colter@hhs.gov appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov, James.Griepentrog@hhs.gov, Jon.Dorman@hhs.gov, erin.brown@hhs.gov, Rajda.Nachampassak@hhs.gov, Darryl.Holloway@hhs.gov, alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov, hillary.didona@hhs.gov, James.Brown@hhs.gov, Kathy.Greene@hhs.gov, leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov, Sherese.Warren@hhs.gov, corderoric@yahoo.com, medicareappeal@maximus.com, SHillegass@emblemhealth.com, EHCommunications@emblemhealth.com, toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com, CManalansan@emblemhealth.com, esosa@emblemhealth.com, M_Cipolla@emblemhealth.com, sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com, SBergstrom@emblemhealth.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

    C. A similar case of coordinated abuse of power and cover-up involving prosecutors, police officers, and judges

    1. In the same vein are the thousands of emails and letters sent, and phone calls made, to the dozens of prosecutors, police officers, and judges in the below bloc of email addresses since 7 June 2022, with no response, on the subject of:

    Fabricated indictments
    based on false and insufficient evidence
    presented to grand juries by
    prosecutors, police officers, and judges
    who abuse the jurors’
    ignorance of the law and
    untrained and uncritical judgment.
    They reciprocally cover up
    leveraging fabricated indictments
    to coerce defendants into unfavorable plea bargains.
    That leads to
    higher conviction rates,
    greater chances of reelection and promotion, and
    collection of IOUs to be cashed in when needed.
    Thereby they gain a benefit by inflicting
    injury in fact on defendants,
    deprive them and the public of honest services, and
    obstruct justice.
    They thus commit fraud, racketeering, and enterprise corruption.
    The proposal to expose
    the fabricators and their abuse of power through
    unprecedented citizens hearings (¶2↑) and
    a story that can earn journalists and media outlets Pulitzer Prizes.

    1. The many officers listed next have failed to respond though duty-bound to deal effectively with their constituents’ grievances, especially those brought to their attention so repeatedly and for such a long time. Their conduct is non-coincidental. It is motivated by interests that can foreseeably be advanced by obstructing justice through an implicitly or explicitly coordinated cover-up. Any alleged willful ignorance and blindness is particularly inexcusable because of their duty of due diligence to know. Those officers have engaged in dereliction of duty and abuse of power. The abusees can tell their stories at the citizens hearings, thereby enabling the detection of patterns of circumstances where the fabricators fester and their modus operandi.

    To: iab@nypd.org, iabcmdcntr@nypd.org, outreach@oignypd.nyc.gov, Shawn.Morris@nypd.org, Sherman.Tyson@nypd.org, Fernando.Garza@nypd.org, Billy.Ramirez@nypd.org, Jesus.Ramos@nypd.org, Kandice.Hall@nypd.org, Robert.Candela@nypd.org, John.McLoughlin@nypd.org, Xiomara.Linton@nypd.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com question@nycourts.gov, ig@nycourts.gov, doipress@doi.nyc.gov, bronxjury@nycourts.gov, agencymail@customercare.nyc.gov, rhuff@advocate.nyc.gov, reception@advocate.nyc.gov, nsmith@advocate.nyc.gov, gethelp@advocate.nyc.gov, jdominguez@advocate.nyc.gov, recordsaccess@advocate.nyc.gov, public.integrity@ag.ny.gov, NYAG.Pressoffice@ag.ny.gov, ig.press@ig.ny.gov, Press.Office@exec.ny.gov, mtcsciq1@bb.nyc.gov, scheduling@bronxbp.nyc.gov, pressinquiry@bronxbp.nyc.gov, mivory@bronxbp.nyc.gov, Everas@bronxbp.nyc.gov, lwalton@bronxbp.nyc.gov, jpeguero@bronxbp.nyc.gov, webmail@bronxbp.nyc.gov, jcortes@bronxbp.nyc.gov, rmiraglia@bronxbp.nyc.gov, amukoko@bronxbp.nyc.gov, accessibility@council.nyc.gov, dinowitz@council.nyc.gov, district8@council.nyc.gov, district12@council.nyc.gov, district13@council.nyc.gov, district14@council.nyc.gov, district15@council.nyc.gov, district16@council.nyc.gov, district18@council.nyc.gov, district18@council.nyc.gov, socratessolano2021@gmail.com, Info@bronxdefenders.org, justineo@bronxdefenders.org, media@bronxdefenders.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,

    D. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
    none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money

    Put your money
    where your outrage at abuse and
    quest for justice are

    Support the professional law research and writing, and
    strategic thinking conducted at

    Judicial Discipline Reform

    DONATE
    by making a deposit or an online transfer through
    either the Bill Pay feature of your online account or Zelle

    from your account

    to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673;
    or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089.

    Dare shout “I accuse!”…You may trigger history and enter it.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
    2165 Bruckner Blvd.
    Bronx, New York City, USA 10472-6506
    Judicial Discipline Reform
    tel. 1(718)827-9521

    Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b


    E. Sample of headings and text of thousands of emails, going back to 30 September 2022 and collected in the file here, sent to and from Dr. Cordero’s email accounts at Verizon, Yahoo, and Judicial Discipline Reform, and Medicare officers and entities, which have failed to reply and decide the appeal, thus furthering their cover-up

      1.  Sample of emails from to date back to 1 October 2023

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Medicare appeal M-23-386, filed on 28oct22, is still pending through a cover-up: a call to Medicare Appeal Council to decide it; & to the public, lawyers & journalists to expose similar abuse of power everywhere
    Date: 2023-11-12 4:39 pm
    From: drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org
    To: medicare.appeals@hhs.gov, osdabimmediateoffice@hhs.gov, os-omhaatlecape@hhs.gov, osomhahearingtechsupport@hhs.gov, dabmodhotline@hhs.gov, notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov, appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov, james.griepentrog@hhs.gov, jon.dorman@hhs.gov, john.colter@hhs.gov, erin.brown@hhs.gov, erin.nugent@hhs.gov, darryl.holloway@hhs.gov, rajda.nachampassak@hhs.gov, dawn.kos@hhs.gov, alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov, hillary.didona@hhs.gov, james.brown@hhs.gov, leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov, sherese.warren@hhs.gov, kathy.greene@hhs.gov, corderoric@yahoo.com, dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net
    Cc: medicareappeal@maximus.com, shillegass@emblemhealth.com, toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com, cmanalansan@emblemhealth.com, lcampos@emblemhealth.com, ehcommunications@emblemhealth.com, sbergstrom@emblemhealth.com, m_cipolla@emblemhealth.com, esosa@emblemhealth.com, sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com, sbergstrom@emblem.mail.onmicrosoft.com, larry@tribelaw.com, tribe@law.harvard.edu, jsg@law.harvard.edu, jturley@law.gwu.edu, dersh@law.harvard.edu, katyaln@law.georgetown.edu, michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com, christopher.stewart@wsj.com, eric.sylvers@wsj.com, kate.milani@wsj.com, clare.ansberry@wsj.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, matthew.weber@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, alexia.garamfalvi@thomsonreuters.com, david.bario@tr.com, liptak@nytimes.com, mark.lombardi@thomsonreuters.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, tips@propublica.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.org, thehill@email.thehill.com, media@propublica.org, patricia.wen@globe.com, newstip@globe.com, newsletters@lists.propublica.net, stephen.engelberg@propublica.org, eric.umansky@propublica.org, robin.fields@propublica.org, a.c.thompson@propublica.org, kimberly.kindy@washpost.com, heather.long@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, rexivan.olarte@lexisnexis.com, ann.marimow@washpost.com, jariley@duanemorris.com, info@momsforliberty.org, paul.duggan@washpost.com, lynh.bui@washpost.com, joepatrice@abovethelaw.com, staci@abovethelaw.com, mcnulaj@nytimes.com, levt2002@yahoo.com, eevallejo@yahoo.com, attorneydonbailey@gmail.com, apropertyownersnetwork@gmail.com

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    From: dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net
    To: Medicare.Appeals@hhs.gov; OSDABImmediateOffice@hhs.gov; OS-OMHAATLECAPE@hhs.gov; OSOMHAHearingTechSupport@hhs.gov; DABMODHotline@hhs.gov; notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov; appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov; James.Griepentrog@hhs.gov; Jon.Dorman@hhs.gov; john.colter@hhs.gov; erin.brown@hhs.gov; erin.nugent@hhs.gov; Darryl.Holloway@hhs.gov; Rajda.Nachampassak@hhs.gov; alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov; dawn.kos@hhs.gov; hillary.didona@hhs.gov; James.Brown@hhs.gov; Kathy.Greene@hhs.gov; leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov; Sherese.Warren@hhs.gov; medicareappeal@maximus.com; SHillegass@emblemhealth.com; esosa@emblemhealth.com; toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com; EHCommunications@emblemhealth.com; M_Cipolla@emblemhealth.com; SBergstrom@emblemhealth.com  sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com; CManalansan@emblemhealth.com; sbergstrom@emblem.mail.onmicrosoft.com; lcampos@emblemhealth.com; DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org; corderoric@yahoo.com
    Cc: michael.siconolfi@wsj.com; jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com; christopher.stewart@wsj.com; eric.sylvers@wsj.com; kate.milani@wsj.com; clare.ansberry@wsj.com; john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com; michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com; matthew.weber@thomsonreuters.com; tips@thomsonreuters.com; alexia.garamfalvi@thomsonreuters.com; david.bario@tr.com; liptak@nytimes.com; Mark.Lombardi@thomsonreuters.com; mderienzo@publicintegrity.org; emily.holden@theguardian.com; tips@latimes.com; ryan.grim@theintercept.com; tips@propublica.org; watchdog@publicintegrity.org; Thehill@email.thehill.com; media@propublica.org; patricia.wen@globe.com; newstip@globe.com; newsletters@lists.propublica.net; Stephen.Engelberg@propublica.org; Eric.Umansky@ProPublica.org; robin.fields@propublica.org; a.c.thompson@propublica.org; Kimberly.Kindy@washpost.com; heather.long@washpost.com; letters@washpost.com; rexivan.olarte@lexisnexis.com; ann.marimow@washpost.com; scwl@cox.net; aging@americanbar.org; JARiley@duanemorris.com; info@momsforliberty.org; larry@tribelaw.com; tribe@law.harvard.edu; paul.duggan@washpost.com; lynh.bui@washpost.com
    Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 04:21:35 PM EDT
    Subject: Medicare appeal M-23-386, filed on 28oct22, is still pending through a cover-up: a call to the public, class action lawyers, and journalists to expose similar abuse of power everywhere

     

    Subject: Medicare appeal M-23-386, filed on 28oct22, is still pending through a cover-up: a call to Medicare Appeal Council to decide it; & to the public, lawyers & journalists to expose similar abuse of power everywhere
    Date: 2023-10-05 7:58 pm
    From: drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org
    To: Medicare.Appeals@hhs.gov, OSDABImmediateOffice@hhs.gov, OS-OMHAATLECAPE@hhs.gov, OSOMHAHearingTechSupport@hhs.gov, DABMODHotline@hhs.gov, notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov, appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov, James.Griepentrog@hhs.gov, Jon.Dorman@hhs.gov, john.colter@hhs.gov, erin.brown@hhs.gov, erin.nugent@hhs.gov, Darryl.Holloway@hhs.gov, Rajda.Nachampassak@hhs.gov, alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov, dawn.kos@hhs.gov, hillary.didona@hhs.gov, James.Brown@hhs.gov, Kathy.Greene@hhs.gov, leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov, Sherese.Warren@hhs.gov, medicareappeal@maximus.com, SHillegass@emblemhealth.com, esosa@emblemhealth.com, toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com, EHCommunications@emblemhealth.com, M_Cipolla@emblemhealth.com, SBergstrom@emblemhealth.com, sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com, CManalansan@emblemhealth.com, sbergstrom@emblem.mail.onmicrosoft.com, lcampos@emblemhealth.com, Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org
    Cc: michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com, christopher.stewart@wsj.com, eric.sylvers@wsj.com, kate.milani@wsj.com, clare.ansberry@wsj.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, matthew.weber@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, alexia.garamfalvi@thomsonreuters.com, david.bario@tr.com, liptak@nytimes.com, Mark.Lombardi@thomsonreuters.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, tips@propublica.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.org, Thehill@email.thehill.com, media@propublica.org, patricia.wen@globe.com, newstip@globe.com, newsletters@lists.propublica.net, Stephen.Engelberg@propublica.org, Eric.Umansky@propublica.org, robin.fields@propublica.org, a.c.thompson@propublica.org, Kimberly.Kindy@washpost.com, heather.long@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, rexivan.olarte@lexisnexis.com, ann.marimow@washpost.com, scwl@cox.net, aging@americanbar.org, JARiley@duanemorris.com, info@momsforliberty.org, larry@tribelaw.com, tribe@law.harvard.edu, paul.duggan@washpost.com, lynh.bui@washpost.com

     

    Subject: Medicare appeal M-23-386, filed on 28oct22, is still pending through a cover-up: a call to Medicare Appeal Council to decide it; & to the public, lawyers & journalists to expose similar abuse of power everywhere
    Date: 2023-10-04 10:10 am
    From: drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org
    To: Medicare.Appeals@hhs.gov, OSDABImmediateOffice@hhs.gov, OS-OMHAATLECAPE@hhs.gov, OSOMHAHearingTechSupport@hhs.gov, DABMODHotline@hhs.gov, notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov, appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov, James.Griepentrog@hhs.gov, Jon.Dorman@hhs.gov, john.colter@hhs.gov, erin.brown@hhs.gov, erin.nugent@hhs.gov, Darryl.Holloway@hhs.gov, Rajda.Nachampassak@hhs.gov, alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov, dawn.kos@hhs.gov, hillary.didona@hhs.gov, James.Brown@hhs.gov, Kathy.Greene@hhs.gov, leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov, Sherese.Warren@hhs.gov, medicareappeal@maximus.com, SHillegass@emblemhealth.com, esosa@emblemhealth.com, toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com, EHCommunications@emblemhealth.com, M_Cipolla@emblemhealth.com, SBergstrom@emblemhealth.com, sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com, CManalansan@emblemhealth.com, sbergstrom@emblem.mail.onmicrosoft.com, lcampos@emblemhealth.com, Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org
    Cc: michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com, christopher.stewart@wsj.com, eric.sylvers@wsj.com, kate.milani@wsj.com, clare.ansberry@wsj.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, matthew.weber@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, alexia.garamfalvi@thomsonreuters.com, david.bario@tr.com, liptak@nytimes.com, Mark.Lombardi@thomsonreuters.com, mderienzo@publicintegrity.org, emily.holden@theguardian.com, tips@latimes.com, ryan.grim@theintercept.com, tips@propublica.org, watchdog@publicintegrity.org, Thehill@email.thehill.com, media@propublica.org, patricia.wen@globe.com, newstip@globe.com, newsletters@lists.propublica.net, Stephen.Engelberg@propublica.org, Eric.Umansky@propublica.org, robin.fields@propublica.org, a.c.thompson@propublica.org, Kimberly.Kindy@washpost.com, heather.long@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, rexivan.olarte@lexisnexis.com, ann.marimow@washpost.com, scwl@cox.net, aging@americanbar.org, JARiley@duanemorris.com, info@momsforliberty.org, larry@tribelaw.com, tribe@law.harvard.edu, paul.duggan@washpost.com, lynh.bui@washpost.com

    On 2023-10-03 9:51 am, drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org wrote:

    On 2023-10-03 9:03 am, drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org wrote:

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    From: corderoric@yahoo.com
    To: medicare.appeals@hhs.gov; osdabimmediateoffice@hhs.gov; os-omhaatlecape@hhs.gov; somhahearingtechsupport@hhs.gov; dabmodhotline@hhs.gov; notifications@dab.efile.hhs.gov; appeals@dab.efile.hhs.gov; james.griepentrog@hhs.gov; jon.dorman@hhs.gov; john.colter@hhs.gov; erin.brown@hhs.gov; erin.nugent@hhs.gov; darryl.holloway@hhs.gov; rajda.nachampassak@hhs.gov; alethia.wimberly@hhs.gov; dawn.kos@hhs.gov; hillary.didona@hhs.gov; james.brown@hhs.gov; kathy.greene@hhs.gov; leslie.mcdonald@hhs.gov; sherese.warren@hhs.gov; medicareappeal@maximus.com; shillegass@emblemhealth.com; esosa@emblemhealth.com; toni-ann.devito@emblemhealth.com; ehcommunications@emblemhealth.com; m_cipolla@emblemhealth.com; sbergstrom@emblemhealth.com; sdambrosio@emblemhealth.com; cmanalansan@emblemhealth.com; sbergstrom@emblem.mail.onmicrosoft.com; lcampos@emblemhealth.com; dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net; drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org; corderoric@yahoo.com
    Cc: michael.siconolfi@wsj.com; jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com; christopher.stewart@wsj.com; eric.sylvers@wsj.com; kate.milani@wsj.com; clare.ansberry@wsj.com; john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com; michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com; matthew.weber@thomsonreuters.com; tips@thomsonreuters.com; alexia.garamfalvi@thomsonreuters.com; david.bario@tr.com; liptak@nytimes.com; mark.lombardi@thomsonreuters.com; mderienzo@publicintegrity.org; emily.holden@theguardian.com; tips@latimes.com; ryan.grim@theintercept.com; tips@propublica.org; watchdog@publicintegrity.org; thehill@email.thehill.com; media@propublica.org; patricia.wen@globe.com; newstip@globe.com; newsletters@lists.propublica.net; stephen.engelberg@propublica.org; eric.umansky@propublica.org; robin.fields@propublica.org; a.c.thompson@propublica.org; kimberly.kindy@washpost.com; heather.long@washpost.com; letters@washpost.com; rexivan.olarte@lexisnexis.com; ann.marimow@washpost.com; scwl@cox.net; aging@americanbar.org; jariley@duanemorris.com; info@momsforliberty.org; larry@tribelaw.com; tribe@law.harvard.edu; paul.duggan@washpost.com; lynh.bui@washpost.com
    Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:06:33 AM EDT
    Subject: Medicare appeal M-23-386, filed on 28oct22, is still pending through a cover-up: a call to the public, class action lawyers, and journalists to expose similar abuse of power everywhere

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:53:16 PM EDT, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. <corderoric@yahoo.com> wrote:

    2.  Sample of thousands of emails to and from Medicare and related officers and entities from 30 September 2022 to 30 September 2023