April 2020 – Judicial Discipline Reform

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

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
To subscribe go to <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New.

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

A LexisNexis representative sent me an email where he ended with this empathetic statement:

…today is not normal. So, we want to do everything we can to support you – so you can support your clients. If there is anything I can do in the meantime, please reach out.

A. An already shrinking legal market totally shrunk further by Covid-19

1. I am reaching out to you, law, newspapers, and magazine publishers, journalists, and lawyers, with a proposal that may not be the normal way in which you support your audience and clients, but is what you can do to support them and even grow your pool of them nationwide during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Indeed, with the courts closed and jury trials and oral argument suspended, clients are not paying anymore, never mind bringing new business to lawyers.

3. In fact, the only sector of the legal market growing today is that of the pro ses. It will only keep growing, for people who are or have been unemployed due to the Covid pandemic will not flock to lawyers after it is over to pay them attorney’s fees of $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 or more per hour. The prospect for lawyers is bleak.

4. By contrast, the prospect for you can be bright if you adapt to these new long-term realities of the legal market and the rest of the economy. Here is how:

5. Clients and 100% of the non-essential workforce are staying home. They have much more time to read emails and postings to your online publications. This is the most opportune time to offer them information about how judges run judicial process. The latter forces people to go through one of the most anxiety-causing experiences in their lives, for so much is at stake; it is so difficult to understand; and it confronts them with expenses that run into the $1Ks and even $10Ks.

6. Judges affect 100% of the workforce and everybody else, regardless of whether they are, have been, or will never be parties to lawsuits but will continue to be susceptible to the precedential value of judicial decisions. Everybody is subject to judges’ exercise of their enormous power over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

7. Judges abuse that power because they are unaccountable so that ‘their power is absolute, which corrupts them absolutely’(*>jur27fn28). Their abuse is riskless. Committing it only has an upside: grabbing gain and convenience.

8. Nothing reaches deeper into the human soul and festers longer therein than the feeling of being or having been abused; nothing makes people more passionate and committed than the quest for Justice. Very often, that quest aims to obtain or can only end up receiving monetary compensation. The insightful appreciation of these facts and the competitively savvy handling of them open a business opportunity for a pioneering publisher.

B. Adapting to the new normal legal market by informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ abuse of power

9. Providing information about how judges abuse their power and outraging the people who were and may be abused by going to court constitute the foundation of a reasonably calculated strategy for adapting to these times of a shrinking legal market, which Covid-19 has reduced to zero, while pioneering a new one.

10. Consequently, my proposal is for you(^†>OL2:744) to publish one or a series of my articles, whether already written(OL2:719§C) or written on commission, on how unaccountable judges risklessly abuse lawyers, parties, and everybody else.

11. These articles are supported by my 2-volume professional study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

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

C. Articles for pioneering a legal news and publishing market

12. The following is a sample of subjects(^†>OL2:719§C) of articles and joint investigations apt for you and others(OL2:1060) to adapt to the new normal legal market by informing and outraging the national public concerning unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. They can become our Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like denunciation thereof(*>jur:98§2).

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

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

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

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

16. A key circumstance enabling these crimes is that judges file misleading annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:65fn^107c) required by the Ethics in Government Act(jur:65fn^107d). While they are public documents(jur:105fn^213a), they are filed pro forma with, since they are approved as a matter of course by, not independent non-judges, but rather other judges, who are their peers, colleagues, and friends; subject to the same filing obligation(jur:102§a; fn^213b); and dependent for their survival on reciprocal approval since they too commit and cover up crimes(jur:88§§a-c). The resulting unaccountability removes the moral reins on greed and allows it to run amok into corruption.

17. Another area of organized criminal activity is the bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614) involving $100s of billions(jur:27§2). Judges abuse bankrupts, most of whom for obvious reasons cannot afford lawyers; appear pro se; are incapable of understanding the mind-boggling complexity of the Bankruptcy Code and procedural rules; and although unfair game are wiped out!

18. The editor and publisher who support the publication of this story can reap commercial and reputational benefits for years to come(*>OL:3§F). They will be acting like Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham. Both of them approved the publication of the story by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC, on June 17, 1972. Thereafter they unflinchingly supported their follow-up stories until President Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

19. This story of judges’ criminal self-enrichment can force the resignation of judges and even justices(*>jur:92§c), who have committed it and covered up its commission by their peers and colleagues. The story can set in motion the downfall of the Federal Judiciary itself by exposing it –and its state counterparts, whose judges are unaccountable too(^†>OL2:887§A)– as corruptly organized to function as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1051).

2. Judges do not read the vast majority of briefs

20. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(^†>OL2:608§A), which constitutes an innovative way of analyzing judges’ performance by using the objectivity of math rather than the subjectivity of a personal assessment of their decisions.

21. Judges require that each party file in support of its case or motion a brief that costs $Ks and even $10Ks to produce(^†>OL2:760§A)^‡ although they know that they will in all likelihood not read it. Instead, they have their clerks dump most briefs out of the judges’ caseload by applying robotically guidelines to identify those cases to be disposed of by the clerks issuing unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary orders lacking any discussion of the facts and the law, and contained in what the clerks only need to date, fill out the blanks, and rubberstamp: a dumping form!
^‡http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

3. Judges intercept people’s emails and mail to detect and
suppress those of their critics

22. Judges’ interception and suppression of people’s emails and mail(^†>OL2:781, 929) amounts to their trampling on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the First Amendment guaranteeing “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(^†>OL2:792¶1).

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

4. The sham hearings on judicial accountability

24. Sham hearings on judicial accountability have been held by politicians and the judges that they put and protect on the bench, lest the judges defend their unaccountability by resorting to their devastating power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C). As a result, neither court/law clerks nor parties to lawsuits can expect a fair and impartial hearing of their grievances against judges(^†>OL2:1056^ϕ).
ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

5. Judges’ abusive dismissal of 100% of complaints against them

25. Judges self-ensure their unaccountability by dismissing 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them, and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748). Through such systematic self-interested dismissals and their power of retaliation, judges maintain the status that they have arrogated for themselves: a State within the state.

6. Invoking the Chief Justice’s conduct at the impeachment trial

26. After the courts reopen for business, parties can invoke as precedent for their own benefit the disregard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., during the Senate impeachment trial of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(^†>OL2:1040^ϕ, 1045); and his application in connivance with the Senate of a mutual self-serving live and let live complicit arrangement: ‘I will let you run the impeachment trial however you want, and you let us, the judges, run the Judiciary however we want, regardless of the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law’.
^ϕ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

D. Pioneering citizens hearings and the conference on judges’ abuse of power

27. The articles mentioned above and similar ones will allow you to take the lead in joining forces to hold unprecedented citizens hearings.

28. As opposed to congressional hearings, citizens hearings are to be held at reputable media outlets, particularly national publications and TV/radio networks, and universities; nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia; conducted by reporters, professors, and other experts, who will take the testimony of victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse; likely to appeal to presidential and all other 2020 candidates, who have an electoral interest in gaining the attention, donations, and votes of the huge(*>OL:8fn^4,5) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

29. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented to the national public at an event that you can also take the lead in organizing: the first-ever conference on judicial abuse exposure and compensation of victims, hosted by a top university and media networks and attended by life and digital audiences.

E. Abuse institutionalized for millennia and deemed impossible to change has been defeated through transformative change

30. Forms of abuse have been institutionalized for thousands of years to protect powerful abusers and maintain the season open to keep preying on the weak. But courageous and stubborn people have never stopped fighting the abuse although theirs appeared to be a losing battle. Yet, it was not.

31. Slavery, in place since the beginning of mankind when some people realized that they were stronger than others, was abolished by the 13^th Amendment in 1865.

32. The ban on women voting, a symbol of the oppression of women by men, was lifted by the 19^th Amendment in 1920.

33. Beginning with a Louisiana case in 1985, judges have held pedophilic priests and their churches accountable and liable despite their invocation of the state and church separation clause of the First Amendment. This was the first time in the recent past that a form of institutionalized abuse that had lasted thousands of years began to undergo transformative change.

34. To date, the Catholic Church has paid its victims of sexual abuse well over $2.2 billion in compensation. After the enactment in at least 15 states of lookback laws that allow the filing of sexual abuse claims stretching back decades and otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, some 5,000 new cases could force the Catholic Church to compensate the victims by paying them more than $4 billion.

35. Sexual abuse of women and the disbelief of their claims had been an institution of society for millennia. But then The New York Times (NYT) and The New Yorker (NY) published on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation. In less than a week, on October 16, the MeToo! movement began to emerge worldwide after actress Alyssa Milano called on Twitter for victims of sexual abuse to accuse their abusers. MeToo! accusers have brought people at the top of the entertainment and news industry and the rest of society down for their sexual abuse.

36. Those are reliable precedents for other forms of abuse, also reputed to be millennial impossibles, such as holding judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power, to be defeated by transformative change.

F. Judges’ abuse of power exposed through a scoop and leading to investigations

37. Judges and their judiciaries are among the last bastions of institutionalized abuse of power. The time has come for them to be held accountable and liable to compensation, for in government by the rule of law Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

38. By publishing my articles, you can make a scoop. The articles may go viral. They can launch the first salvo against the judges’ and their judiciaries’ bastion.

39. Other publishers will join the fight in a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation into unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and its several manifestations mentioned above(^†>OL2:1060).

40. That investigation will be conducted by professional journalists with the support of an army of citizen journalists among the scores of millions of people who have been abused by judges. It will lead, not just to the impeachment and trial of one officer, but rather to the resignation of judges, justices(*>OL:92§c), and even a whole branch.

41. The investigation conducted jointly by you and me can jump ahead from the springboard of a wealth of leads(*>OL:194§E). Both my articles and our investigation can cause an informed and outraged public to keep coming back to us for more information and the latest findings.

G. Victims seeking compensation through local chapters of a national movement

42. The articles and the presentations can alert parties to the abuse that judges inflicted, are inflicting, and will likely inflict upon them. Almost all parties, whether pro se or represented by an attorney, go to court alone and prosecute their cases separately. As a result, they suffer in isolation and silence judges’ abuse and the anger that it provokes incessantly. They need not be alone. Rather, they can join forces to shout self-assertively the rallying cry:

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

43. You and I can promote their joining of forces by relying on another current and repeatable precedent: the emergence of the Tea Party. Advocating the single issue of tax reduction, the Tea Party sparked ever more local chapters. They coalesced into a national movement that in less than 10 years rose to dominate national politics.

44. The Tea Party and the MeToo! movement make it realistic for publishers, lawyers, and me to strive to form local chapters and coalesce them into a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation of victims, and reform. This is a realistic and commercially promising proposition since we would be catering to the huge(^†>OL2:719¶¶6-8) bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

45. In this context, the article on, and subsequent investigation into, judges who do not read most briefs and have their clerks dump the corresponding cases out of their caseload through dumping forms(supra ¶¶21-22) can provide a potent incentive for the formation of the local chapters. The latter will be constituted of parties before the same judge or in the same court who join forces to demand the refund of their court filing fees, compensation for briefs intentionally rendered wasteful, and punitive damages for fraud.

46. You and I can promote these local chapters by channeling to them necessary legal assistance directly and indirectly by:

a. publishing adequate how-to pamphlets(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) and standardized arguments accessible to laypeople(*>jur:123§§a-c) as well as offering webminars(^†>OL2:957);

b. calling on law school deans(^†>OL2:644), professors(^†>OL2:1045, 973, 932, 773) and student class officers(OL2:747, 641) to offer and enroll in clinics where students supervised by professors assist the chapters(^†>OL2:571¶24a); and

c. developing a niche market for recently graduated, the glut of unemployed, and established lawyers to represent victims as they jointly as chapter members or as individual parties file a host of motions for refund of court filing fees and compensation as well as for vacating decisions and remanding for new trial or appeal process.

47. That is how publishers, lawyers, and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

H. Facilitating people coming to us through a website enhancement, and going to them on a tour of presentations

48. To facilitate people coming to us, you can support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D) of Judicial Discipline Reform.

49. Articles like this one have been posted to its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They consist only of text with no graphics, pictures, video, or sound. Yet, they have been assessed so positively by countless visitors that 31,067 [as of 15apr20] have become website subscribers as of this writing. You can join them by going to the website and either surfing to <left panel ↓Register or clicking + New or Users >Add New.

50. Ever more visitors and subscribers can be attracted to the website so that they bring with them their information and investigative leads as well as their business. Indeed, as proposed in the business plan(OL2:1022) of Judicial Discipline Reform, its website can be enhanced to add to it:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:792, 918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, which a single complaint cannot provide, namely, patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. The research tools can include sophisticated software(*>OL:42; ^†>OL2:846) that:

1) on the one hand, allow anybody to frame queries using natural language; and

2) on the other hand, enable researchers(*>jur:128§4) to take advantage of artificial intelligence to conduct advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis(jur:131§b) of judges’ decisions as well as all other writings;

c. the website center can be developed into a multidisciplinary academic(*>OL:60, 255) and business(*>jur:153§§c-g) center that functions as a department or subsidiary of yours or is attached to a top university that sponsors it.

51. Simultaneously, publishers can go to the public by sponsoring a tour where I present(*>jur: 119§1) the articles and the investigation findings at numerous appropriate venues(*>OL:197§G), such as journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, bar associations, public defender and pro se organizations, etc.

I. Offer of a presentation to you and your guests

52. The proposed articles; the investigations that they will spark by journalists and eventually by the authorities; the citizen hearings; and the conference will contribute to inserting the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power in the 2020 campaign. The issue can become a decisive one on Election Day because judges wield power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity. Hence, it matters significantly whether due to their unaccountability, judges abuse their power to grab material gains and increase their convenience at the expense of those who own that power and entrusted it to them through a revocable grant: We the People. At the polls, the People can decide to take their power back.

53. Your publication of those articles can set in motion that chain of events, which will heighten the interest in the issue of the national public, in general, and your audience and clients, in particular. They will prove once again that ‘scandal sells’. It is in your commercial interest to publish them.

54. By so doing, you and I can for the first time in history bring about, to begin with in our country and then abroad, a system of justice where We the People of the World, the masters of all public servants, hold also our judicial public servants accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how for the sake of the People, we can become pioneers of transformative change in the system of Justice.

55. I offer to present this proposal via video conference to you and your group of peers, colleagues, and other guests. You may use the information in the letterhead above to contact me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling, as well as the terms of the commercial publication of my articles and participation in the proposed investigations.

56. To decide whether to organize such a presentation watch my video together with its supporting slides(^†>OL2:958) using the following links:

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

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

57. Meantime, you can support the work of Judicial Discipline Reform:

Donate

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

or at the Gofundme campaign, https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)…and you may enter it.
^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_Covid_legal_market.pdf

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

Exposing a pattern of judges’ abuse of power: Sen. E. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment in reliance on their unaccountability; the House hearings on protecting Federal Judiciary employees from judges’ abuse; and politicians’ conniving pretense of holding accountable those whom they put and protect on the bench A call for universities and the media to hold unprecedented citizen hearings

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_citizen_hearings_exposing_judges_abuse.pdf

This article deals with exposing:

a. ways in which judges abuse their enormous power, including their abusive self-enrichment, the harm to the parties before them and the rest of the public notwithstanding;

b. sham hearings that politicians and judges have conducted under the pretense of holding judges accountable for their abuse, including sexual abuse, of their court/law clerks; and

c. the call for unprecedented citizens hearings to be held by universities and the media to give an opportunity to citizens to testify to judges’ abuse that they have suffered or witnessed.

A. Sen. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounce federal judges for self-enrichment by failing to recuse themselves from cases where they hold shares in one of the parties before them and resolving 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. She 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)
Judges’ involvement in such self-enrichment involves necessarily their commission of crimes, e.g., concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of trust.
This is demonstrated 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

Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.
Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.
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.
The House hearings on sexual harassment by federal judges
The House of Representatives Courts Subcommittee held a hearing on “Protecting Federal Judiciary Employees from Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Other Workplace Misconduct” on February 13, 2020. The articles thereon by National Law Journal reporter Jacqueline Thomsen, jathomsen@alm.com, are quite revealing and disturbing. She wrote:

Rep. Hank Johnson, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, said in a statement after the hearing that the testimony of Olivia Warren [who clerked in 2017-2018 for, and was sexually harassed by, the late U.S. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals] reminded lawmakers “of what we have long known is a problem—that systemic harassment, discrimination, and abuses of power are entrenched in our federal court system”.

Judges harass court and law clerks, who work at judges’ pleasure and can be fired without recourse at anytime(*>jur:30§1) or depend on judges’ recommendation to obtain their first job after law school and their clerkship and are muzzled by an abusive ‘confidentiality agreement’(^†>OL2:745).
The self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren and ‘the entrenched abuse of power’ acknowledged by Rep. Johnson describe a pattern of racketeering criminalized under 18 U.S.C. §1961(5). Other forms of judges’ abuse establish the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise, shown next.
Federal judges’ pattern of racketeering through other extensive and grave abuse of power
Judges rely on their unaccountability to engage also in other forms of abuse of power, such as:
judges’ mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), which are public documents so that they are filed with false and misleading information to conceal judges’ assets(jur:105fn213);
judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614) involving $100s of billions(jur:27§2). Its initial exposure –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’, thus leading to a Ukrainian scandal-like generalized media investigation(OL2:1048§B) aimed to Follow the money!(*>OL:1, 194§E); increase one’s audience and revenue –scandal sells–; and win Pulitzer prizes;
judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs, as demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(OL2:608§A) and the analysis of official statistics(^†>OL2:457§D). Judges dump out of their caseloads the corresponding cases and motions by having their clerks fill out dumping forms: unresearched, arbitrary, fiat-like orders 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).

1) 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:

a) statement of fact
b) >legal question in controversy
c) >applicable law
d) >reasoned application of law to facts
e) >legal conclusion
f) >decision of what party gets what in controversy.

A dumping form only makes the parties and everybody else hear abusive judges shout an arbitrary “because we say so!”

2) Through the use of dumping forms, judges render wasteful the $1Ks and even $10Ks that each party must invest in producing the brief required in support of its case or any motion. By informing the parties and the rest of the public about this abuse, they can be so outraged that those who had or have a case before the same judge or must file their case in the same court join forces to demand:

a) the refund of court filing fees;
b) compensation for the waste of unread briefs;
c) punitive damages for the fraud of judges pretending that they decided “Upon the papers submitted and the applicable law…”, and
d) guarantees that their briefs will be read and their cases and motions disposed of in reasoned decisions that allow them and everybody else ‘to see that justice was done’.

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.

judges’ abuse of pro ses, whose cases they disparagingly weight from the moment they are filed as only one third of a case(^†>OL2:455§B), as shown in the official report and statistics of the courts(^†>OL2:457§D), published and submitted to Congress every year(*>jur:43§1). This means that judges:

1) are authorized to spend on the case of a pro se only one third of the effort and time, and court resources that they spend on a case of a party represented by an attorney;

2) are expected not to ‘waste’ more than a third;

3) nevertheless require pro ses to pay the same fees and produce the same briefs as they require of represented parties;

4) thereby deny pro ses the equal protection of the law.

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’s representatives in Congress assembled’.
judges’ pervasive secrecy through their holding of all their administrative, policy-making, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and their refusal to hold press conferences, never mind take journalists’ questions(*>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 seeing transparently out in the open combats the mold of corruption that secrecy breeds; and
judges’ interception of the mail and emails of the public in order to detect and suppress those of their critics(^†>OL2:781, 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).
Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People
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 a meaningful way against their partners in abuse of power(jur:77§§5-6). Their connivance is shown by the conduct of the Chief Justice at the impeachment trial(OL2:1049¶8).
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 meaningful 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.
This is shown by former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who simply resigned after decades of harassing others(^†>OL2:645¶1); and the unrealistic means proposed by Sen. Warren for holding judges accountable: the very same politicians and judges who have always held them unaccountable!(OL2:998)
Politicians 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, with disregard for the harm to We the People that they leave unprotected. Judges in their courts, where they reciprocally exonerate from complaints, risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience. Neither on their own initiative are going to bring about effective judicial reform.
Only the People can assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, to hold judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. bring it about. That is the objective of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>OL2:1037). They are in the strongest position to do so during a presidential campaign, when politicians must appear to be sensitive and

That requires that the People be informed about, and so outraged at, judges abuse as to be stirred up to force politicians to adopt reforms that enable the People,

During a presidential campaign, the People are in the strongest position to wield their voting power The People can also hold accountable the politicians The People can be informed(^†>OL2:1016§1) about judges’ abuse of power, including by the Supreme Court justices, who have committed it(*>jur:65§§1-4) and who as circuit justices(jur:26fn23a) have covered for their former peers and other judges. Outraged, the People can hold justices and judges accountable and liable(OL2:1048¶4) for harming others and running the Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1014).
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” had provoked(*>jur:92§d).
Your call for unprecedented citizen hearings; a conference; and the insertion of the issue in media reporting and politics
Journalists, professors, and students together with all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, including parties to lawsuits as well as judges and court/law clerks acting either openly or as confidential informants or whistleblowers can set in motion the process of exposing judges’ abuse. You all can call for unprecedented citizen hearings.
The citizen hearings can be held at universities and media outlets; conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts; and nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia so that people wherever they are can testify to abuse committed by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.
The hearings can so inform and outrage the People as to stir it up to demand from now until Election Day and thereafter that politicians take a stand on this issue.
Hearing findings 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.
The citizen hearings, the conference, and insertion of the issue in our national politics and discourse will pave the way for the eventual meaningful reform by those who in their own interest of giving themselves ‘government by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6) gave power to judges to apply the law and can take it from them when the judges ‘embezzle’ that power for their own gain and convenience: We the People(^†>OL2:1032).
If you Dare!(^†>OL2:1003) launch this process(OL2:1047§A) and thus cause one or more justices, even the whole Supreme Court, to resign(OL2:1050§D), you can end up writing a bestseller or being played in a blockbuster movie(OL2:879). The money and prestige of arguing at the Court is less meritorious than becoming the historic agents of transformative change(OL2:1037§1) in the Master-Public Affairs and servants relations and the application of the rule of law.
Offer of a presentation via video conference to you and your group
So, I respectfully request that you invite me to make a presentation to you and your peers, students, and other guests, including NLJ reporter Jacqueline Thomsen(supra ¶4), on:
unaccountable judges’ pattern of racketeering and abuse of power in connivance with politicians; and
the citizen hearings through which the issue of judicial abuse can be inserted into the campaign and the national discourse.
To decide whether to hold such presentation you may watch my video together with its slides(^†>OL2:958) and share this email^‡:

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_judges_abuse_citizen_hearings.pdf

Thereafter you can use the contact information below to discuss with me the terms and conditions of the presentation and its scheduling.
Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money
If you are interested in bringing accountability and liability into judicial Public Affairs, you may want to support Judicial Discipline Reform, which:
produced the study* ^†of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3);
conducts professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D); and
runs the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has been found so informative by its numberless visitors as to cause 30,324 to become subscribers as of February 21, 2020(^†>OL2:Appendix 3).
Judicial Discipline Reform has a business plan(OL2:1024§C, 914) containing a program of activities(^†>OL2:987, 1025¶) intended to form a national civic single issue movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and meaningful reform(^†>OL2:1032).
To begin with, the plan envisages the enhancement of the website from an informational outlet into:
a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload;
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.

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

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-media_DARE.pdf

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6505
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

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

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

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

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:

5. Federal judges’ entrenchment in power is indisputable: In the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of their peers impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:22fn¹⁴) Once a judicial candidate is confirmed, he or she can do whatever they want.

a. This includes harassing court and law clerks, who work at judges’ pleasure and can be fired without recourse at anytime (jur:30§1) or depend on the recommendation of the judges for whom they clerk to obtain their first job after law school and their clerkship and are muzzled by an abusive ‘confidentiality agreement’(^†>OL2:745).

6. The self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren and ‘the entrenched abuse of power’ recognized by Rep. Johnson underlie a pattern of racketeering criminalized under 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).

C. How an article can set off the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy; and the motivator of compensation for the abused suffered

7. Judges rely on their unaccountability to engage also in other forms of abuse of power where they do not act separately as individual rogues, but rather operate in coordination(*>jur:88§§a-c) with each other for their gain and convenience(*>OL:173¶93). These forms show that judges run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise(^†>OL2:1051).

8. The initial exposure of any of these forms of coordinated abuse –e.g., in an article or news segment appearing nationally– can generate among media outlets competitive, commercial, and reputational pressures to jump on ‘the investigative bandwagon’ aimed to Follow the money!(*>OL:1, 194§E); increase their respective audience and revenue –scandal sells–; and win Pulitzer prizes.

a. This prospect is supported by reliable and repeatable precedent: The complaint of the whistleblower set off the generalized media investigation into the Ukrainian scandal that led to the impeachment and trial of President Trump(OL2:1048§B).

9. By informing parties to lawsuits and the rest of the public about judges’ abuse of power, they can be so outraged that those(*>OL:276§C) who had or have a case before the same judge or must file their case in the same court will heed the rallying cry to join forces to demand compensation for the abused suffered.

10. The prospect of being compensated for the abuse suffered or avoiding suffering it is reasonably calculated to be the most potent motivator for an informed and outraged public to join forces to hold judges accountable and liable for their abuse.

D. Forms of coordinated abuse of power constituting a pattern of racketeering and revealing a judiciary run as a racketeering enterprise

11. Judges’ mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), pro forma filed with, and approved by, other judges. These reports are public documents so that they are filed with false and misleading information to conceal judges’ assets and their unlawful origin(jur:105fn213);

12. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614). It involves annually hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases -776,674 in the 1oct18-30sep19 fiscal year- and $100s of billions in controversy between creditors and debtors(jur:27§2).

a.This scheme involves not only judges, but also bankruptcy professionals(jur:81fn169), who are insiders of the legal and bankruptcy system, including “attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons”, such as warehousers, bankers, bankruptcy form fillers, etc. They work in coordination to prey easily on bankrupts, most of whom cannot afford an attorney, appear without one, and are wiped out!(jur:43fn65)

13. Judges’ failure to read the vast majority of briefs. This is demonstrated by ‘the math of abuse’(^†>OL2:608§A) and the analysis of official statistics(OL2:457§D; 847). Judges dump out of their caseloads the corresponding cases and motions by having their clerks fill out dumping forms: unresearched, without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only one blank for one operative word: “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16).

a. Dumping forms are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else doing research for precedential guidance. They show judges’ contempt for the rule of law and its foundational principle: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44¶83). Justice can only be seen in the doing of the chain:

1) statement of facts

2) >legal question in controversy

3) >applicable law

4) >reasoned application of law to facts

5) >legal conclusion

6) >decision of what party gets what in controversy.

b. Dumping forms only make the parties and everybody else hear abusive judges shout arbitrary, fiat-like orders “because we say so!”(*>jur:43§1)

c. Through the use of dumping forms, judges render wasteful the $1Ks and even $10Ks(^†>OL2:760§A) that each party must invest in producing the brief required in support of its case or each motion, as well as the effort and time, which have an economic, compensable value, that even parties not represented by lawyers, i.e., pro ses, must invest in producing their brief themselves. This warrants pro ses and represented parties joining forces to demand compensation, such as:

1) the refund of court filing fees;

2) compensation for the waste of unread briefs;

3) punitive damages for the fraud of judges pretending that their decision on the case or motion in question was based “Upon the papers submitted and the applicable law…”, and

4) guarantees that their briefs will be read and their cases and motions decided in reasoned decisions written by judges –not by clerks lacking judicial power and discretionary leeway– that allow the parties and everybody else ‘to see that justice was done’.

14. Judges’ abuse of pro ses. From the moment a pro se case is filed -hence before any judge or clerk has bothered to ascertain its nature and gravity-, judges(^†>OL2:932¶3) apply the official policy of weighting it as only one third of a case(OL2:455§B). This means that judges:

a. are authorized to spend on a pro se case only one third of the effort and time, and court resources that they spend on the average case, weighted as one, of a represented case(^†>OL2:420¶6);

b. are expected not to ‘waste’ more than a third;

c. nevertheless require pro ses to pay the same fees and produce the same briefs as they require of represented parties; thereby

d. deny pro ses the equal protection of the law; and

e. deprive them of due process by not notifying them that their cases will be contemptuously dumped and not giving them opportunity to protest.

15. Judges’ abuse of their self-disciplining authority granted them by Congress. They dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed with them(*>jur:21§a), and deny 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748, 918). Thereby judges abusively self-ensure their unaccountability and breach the trust placed on them by We the People through ‘their representatives in Congress assembled’.

a. The 2019 Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(AO; *>jur:21fn10) has just been released. Its Tables 10 and S-22^‡ show that although in that fiscal year 1,412 complaints against federal judges were filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364, 51 more than in the previous fiscal year, the judges took remedial action upon only 2 complaints! This represents only 1 more such action than in the previous year. Not a single judge was reported as having been admonished or censured privately, let alone publicly. Every judge complained-against got off scot free.
^‡https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2019/09/30

b. Only 10 special committees were appointed to investigate complaints. If for the sake of comparison, they are apportioned to the 1,412 complaints filed that year, this means that only in 7 tenths of 1 percent of complaints was such a committee appointed; or conversely, that the chief judges of the several circuits, who are the first ones to examine complaints filed in their respective circuits, dismissed 99.3% of complaints out of hand without any investigation by a special investigative committee.

c. By so doing, the chief judges systematically disregarded the injunction issued under §352(a): “The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.” It is beyond reasonable doubt impossible that in 1,402 out of 1,412 complaints there was no “matter reasonably in dispute” that would have required a fair and impartial chief judge to appoint a committee rather than make a biased determination in favor of his or her complained-against peer, colleague, or friend, to justify complaint dismissal. What a complaint-processing sham!

d. Yet, AO and the pertinent committees on such complaints(^†>OL2:796) held a public hearing on October 30, 2018, at the instigation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.(OL2:642¶1, 645) precisely for the purpose of amending the rules for processing those complaints so as to render complaining against federal judges more effective(OL2:774-791).

e. However, the facts show that the judges never intended to hold each other accountable at all(^†>OL2:791¶3, 694¶12). Instead, they hold fast to their complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement whereby they mutually ensure their survival(OL2:793g).

f. Just as judges had done before amending those rules in 1986, 2000, 2008, and 2015(OL2:1057¶¶11-12), in 2018, they only held another sham hearing(OL2:1058§C). Their conduct exhibits an undeniable pattern of abuse of power in their favor, with gross disregard of the detriment to complainants, left uncompensated and at the mercy of judges with fearsome power of retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C; *>OL:267§4).

16. Judges’ pervasive secrecy. Judges hold all their administrative, policy-making, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and refuse to hold press conferences, never mind take questions from a pool of journalists(*>jur:27§e). Their secrecy enables their coordination of abuse. It betrays Justice Brandeis’s dictum “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”(jur:158¶350b)…because being seen transparently out in the open combats the mold of corruption that secrecy breeds in darkness.

17. Judges’ interception of the mail and emails of the public in order to detect and suppress those of their critics(^†>OL2:781, 885, 889-913, 929). The exposure of this form of abuse can provoke the most intense(OL2:996§2) scandal as it affects the largest segment of the public and We the People’s most cherished rights, to wit, those that We guaranteed for ourselves under our Constitution’s 1st Amendment: “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet too], and to petition the Government [of which judges constitute the Third Branch] for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:22fn12b).

E. Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People

18. As admitted by Rep. Johnson(supra ¶1), ‘we, the politicians, have long known…that judges are entrenched and abuse their power’. Politicians cannot be reasonably expected to turn in an effective way against their partners in abuse of power(jur:77§§5-6). Their connivance is shown by Chief Justice Roberts’ disregard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” at the impeachment trial in the Senate(OL2:1045, 1049¶8).

19. Politicians(*>jur:77§§5-6) recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates to justiceships and judgeships and protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ by holding them unaccountable; they too have no regard for the harm to We the People that they leave unprotected.

20. In their courts, judges exonerate each other from complaints. As a result, their abuse of power has no downside, only the upside of gain and convenience. On their own initiative, they are not going to bring about effective judicial reform.

a. Allowing an abusive judge to resign and keep his pension without having to compensate his victims, let alone being tried on criminal charges, is not effective accountability. It is only an instance of their reciprocal exoneration from complaints and granting of pardons in effect; and their unequal protection from the law(jur:88§§a-c) by their political appointers: They are Judges Above the Law.

b. This is shown by former 9^th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who simply resigned after decades of harassing court/law clerks and others(^†>OL2:645¶1); and by Sen. Warren’s unrealistic proposal for charging with holding judges accountable –only, but no mention of also liable to compensate their victims– the very same politicians and judges who have always held them unaccountable!(OL2:998)

21. By contrast, the People can assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and masters of all public servants, including judicial public servant. As such, they can force reform that enables them to hold judges and their judiciaries accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse. That is how judges hold malpractising doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, police officers and their departments, pedophilic priests and their churches, etc.: accountable and liable(OL2:1048¶4). Judges should be too, for Everybody is Equal Before the Law.

22. The People are in the strongest position so to hold judges during a presidential campaign, when politicians must appear to be sensitive and responsive to their outrage and demands. To enable them to take advantage of their current position is the objective of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>OL2:1037): To inform the People about, and so outrage them at, judges’ abuse of power that they are stirred up to force politicians to take a stand on the issue and face the consequences at the polls.

23. This is a reasonably calculated strategy given that the People can be informed(^†>OL2:1016§1) about abuse committed even by the Supreme Court justices now and when they were lower court judges(*>jur:65§§1-4). As circuit justices of the circuit to which they are allotted(jur:26fn23a), they learn about the abuse of their former peers and other judges and cover for them. The People can be outraged at justices and judges running the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, as a racketeering enterprise(OL2:1014).

a. There is precedent for a justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas withdrew his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship but still resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) had provoked(jur:92§d).

F. An article that sparks investigation, unprecedented citizen hearings, a conference, and the insertion of the issue in national politics

24. The publication of one(^†>OL2:760, 781, 614) or a series(OL2:719§C) of articles can spark a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power(OL2:876). This is realistically based on the precedent of the MeToo! movement(OL2:1032): It was prompted by the publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predation(OL2:1032).

25. The article(s) can go viral by being shared with friends, family, and associates, and posted to social media as widely as possible by:

a. Advocates of Honest Judiciaries;

b. parties to lawsuits;

c. judges(^†>OL2:607, 613, 807) and court/law clerks acting either openly or as confidential informants or whistleblowers(OL2:1014);

d. lawyers(OL2:841);

e. professors(OL2:773, 808, 973);

f. students(OL2:971), such as those at law(OL2:982), journalism(*>Lsch:23), business(OL2:1024§C), and Information Technology(OL2:846) schools;

g. journalists(OL2:984, 995); etc.

26. All of them can participate as investigators or their sources. To strengthen their participation, they can call for unprecedented citizen hearings. These hearings can be held at universities and media outlets(OL2:1046¶8, 1056¶4, 1066); conducted by professors, journalists, and other experts; and nationally broadcast life through interactive multimedia so that people can inexpensively from wherever they are testify to abuse committed by judges that they have suffered or witnessed.

27. The findings of the citizen hearings can be presented at the first-ever and national conference on judicial abuse of power exposure and compensation of abusees, held at a top university.

28. The article(s), citizen hearings, and the conference can so inform and outrage the People as to insert the issue of judges’ abuse in our national politics and discourse(^†>OL2:938). This will pave the way for eventual effective judicial reform by the People:

a. In the interest of giving themselves ‘government by the rule of law’(*>OL:5fn6), ‘the People giveth power in trust to judges for them to apply the law; and the People taketh it back from them upon being informed that judges have outrageously breached the trust to ‘embezzle’ that power for their own gain and convenience’. The grant of power is transient.

29. Through your participation in implementing the inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1047§A), you can cause one or more justices, even the whole Supreme Court, to resign(OL2:1050§D), or expose “the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) of so many justices and judges as to reasonably conclude that they have institutionalized their abuse of power through coordination that has made them members of a racketeering enterprise. The ensuing institutional crisis can far surpass the consequences of the Watergate scandal(jur:4¶10-14), for it can bring down, not just a top officer and ‘All his men’, but rather the Judiciary as a branch.

30. Unaccountability allows power to “corrupt absolutely”(*>jur27fn28). Only after full exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the racketeering of judges and their judiciaries, can judicial reform that today is deemed inconceivable become unavoidable.

31. If you Dare!(^†>OL2:1003) participate, you can earn one or many rewards(*>OL:3§F). Among them are writing a bestseller(jur:4¶13), being played in a blockbuster movie or documentary(OL2:879), winning a Pulitzer that opens the doors to working in a position or for an entity that is more prestigious, and even the loftiest and longest-lasting of all: being recognized by We the People of the World as a historic agent of transformative change, who turned the millennial impossible(OL2:1069§E) of holding judges accountable and liable into a democratic right and a reality here and abroad(OL2:1037§1).

G. Offer of a presentation

32. I offer to present via video conference this article to you and your peers, professors and students, and other guests. I will present the following actions(OL2:978§E) in which you all can participate:

a. sharing this article and posting it to social media widely so that it may go viral and inform the most people about, and outrage them at, the above-described forms of judges’ coordinated abuse of power through which they run their judiciary as a racketeering enterprise;

b. publishing one or a series of my articles;

c. investigating with academic researchers and journalists the forms of judges’ abuse of power;

d. pioneering citizen hearings thereon held at, and by the staff of, universities and media outlets;

e. holding the first-ever and international conference on judges’ abuse of power to present the findings of the citizen hearings and the investigations;

f. sponsoring a tour of presentations nationwide to inform, outrage, and promote the formation of the single issue civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform;

g. forming the movement’s local chapters of parties joining forces to demand compensation;

h. promoting the offering by law school clinics, lawyers, and law firms of assistance to local chapters and individuals seeking compensation for the harm that judges have caused them;

i. establishing a multidisciplinary academic and business center(jur:119§§1, 5) attached to, and sponsored by, a university, media outlet, think tank, or public interest entity, and dedicated to “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”.

33. To decide whether to organize(OL2:945) such presentation you may watch my video together with its supporting slides(^†>OL2:958) by means of these links:

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

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

34. Thereafter you can share this article^‡ and use the contact information below to discuss with me the terms and conditions of the presentation and its scheduling.

^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

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

35. There is easy-to-follow advice for forming(*>OL:276§C) a local chapter of parties with cases before the same judge or in the same court(^†>OL2:1071§H). By putting it into practice, you can participate in not only the implementation of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(OL2:1037), but also the formation of a national, single issue, apolitical civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and reform(OL2:1032).

36. Forming that movement is a key objective of Judicial Discipline Reform(^†>OL2:1061§A). It:

a. conducts professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:924, 941, 953);

b. produced the study* ^†of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3);

c. made a video with supporting slides(supra ¶33);

d. has sent hundreds of thousands of emails, including to hundreds of yahoo- and google- groups, to share its articles on judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform;

e. runs the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted so many visitors and impressed them so positively that 31,062 and counting have become subscribers as of April 15, 2020(^†>OL2:Appendix 3). You can subscribe to the website by going to it and then to <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New; etc.

37. To implement its strategy(OL2:1001) Judicial Discipline Reform has a program of actions for supporters to participate in(^†>OL2:978§E) as well as a business plan to finance them(OL2:1022), which is guided by the principle: Making Money While Doing Justice.

38. The plan envisages the enhancement(*>OL:42) of the website from an informational outlet into:

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(supra ¶15; ^†>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload;

b. a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many decisions, complaints, and other writings in search of(*>jur:131§b; OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power.

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

DONATE
through

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

or at

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Journalists, professors and students, politicians, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

I would like to submit to your and your colleagues’ consideration this proposal for:

A. The publication of one(e.g., ^†>OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(^†>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

1. analyzing Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “plan for that too”, namely, to hold judges accountable for self-enrichment by failing to recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interests due to their holding shares in one of the parties before them and instead resolving the conflicts in that party’s and their own favor. If elected, Sen. Warren plans to have legislation adopted to hold judges accountable for abusively enriching themselves(^†>OL2:998). Self-enrichment through abuse of power entails concealment of assets, tax evasion, and money laundering(^†>OL2:949);

* ^†The materials corresponding to the(* ^†>blue footnote-like references) are found in my professional two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries. The study is titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

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

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

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

2. showing through “the math of abuse”(^†>OL2:608§A) and official statistics(OL2:457§§B, D) that judges do not read the vast majority of briefs that they require parties to file in support of any case or motion.

a. A brief costs each party $1Ks and even $10Ks to research, discover evidence, write, compile the record of evidentiary documents, print, file, and serve.

b. Yet, judges have their clerks(^†>OL2:1025¶15) dump the corresponding case or motion out of their caseload by applying categories of dumpable cases and motions(OL2:762¶¶14-15, 981¶18d) and rubberstamping in the clerk of court’s name a 5¢ dumping form. The latter contains an unresearched, arbitrary, fiat-like order without any discussion of the facts and the law, let alone any reasoning, and with only a blank to be filled in with “affirmed” or “denied”(OL2:1024¶16). Hence, they are meaningless even to the parties, never mind anybody else.

c. Moreover, those orders are fraudulent, for they take no notice of the only section of the brief that matters to the party filing it and for which the court asks for and receives filing fees: the “Relief Requested”. Through the items therein the party asks the court to solve the controversy with the opposing party and for which it pays the court’s filing fees. But the clerks could not care less, for the only task that they received from the judges is to dump as many cases and motions as possible. They will dump any appeal. “Next!” (^†>OL2:546¶¶4-6)

d. By contrast, a tiny minority of briefs of interest(OL2:1006¶2b.ii) to the judges benefit from their unequal protection: They are read and discussed in opinions with precedential value and reasoned decisions issued in the judges’ names and published for parties, judges, and journalists to cite and comment(OL2:760).

e. To verify the above statements, go to the websites of courts, particularly appellate ones, download a random sample of posted decisions, and analyze and compare them.

3. exposing judges’ dismissal of 100% of complaints against them and denial of 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748), whereby judges self-exonerate from all accountability.

a. Congress granted judges self-disciplining authority under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(*>jur:24fn18a), which it passed for the protection of anybody with a complaint against them.

b. But judges have in effect abrogated the Act for the gain and convenience that they grab through their riskless abuse of power.

c. Congress is informed of judges’ handling of complaints in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(OL2:1037¶6), who is an appointee of the Chief Justice.

d. Congress ‘saw something, but said nothing’. Its culpable indifference has been self-interested: to avoid retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) by judges, who have a gang mentality(OL2:546¶¶1-3) and the power to hold executive orders(OL2:1028¶4), laws, and a legislative agenda unconstitutional(*>jur:23fn17; *>OL:267§4).

e. Congress allows judges to hold themselves unaccountable and become Judges Above the Law, the harm to the public and the rule of law notwithstanding;

4. asserting the equal protection right of victims of judges and their judiciaries to be compensated by them, just as are the victims of malpracticing doctors and their hospitals; lawyers and their law firms; pedophilic priests and their churches; police officers and their police departments; etc.

a. The formation is underway of local chapters of parties to cases before the same judge or in the same court to demand(^†>OL2:729) the refund of filing fees; compensation for wasteful briefs; and damages for the fraud of cashing in filing fees and alleging that cases and motions were decided based on the briefs even though they were not even read(OL2:953).

B. Joint investigations of timely stories in the context of the presidential campaign

5. The objective of the investigations is, not to pass judgment on the abuse of discretion by one or more judges(OL:193§D), but rather to expose to voters how unaccountable judges in connivance with politicians have coordinated their abuse into their judiciaries’ institutionalized modus operandi. The investigations can follow the abundant leads already gathered(*>OL:194§E). Their findings will inform voters as well as the rest of the public about, and outrage them at, judge’ criminal activities, such as:

6. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail(^†>OL2:995§B, 899) to detect and suppress those critical of their abuse(OL2:974§B, 930§C) will be the subject of the Follow the wire! investigation(jur:105§b).

a. This is potentially their most outrageous abuse of power, for it deprives We the People of our most cherished rights, namely, those guaranteed under the 1^st Amendment to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(OL2:792¶1). Its exposure can provoke graver outrage than did the revelation of NSA’s warrantless collection of scores of millions of calls’ metadata(OL2:996§2).

7. The Follow the Money! investigation(*>jur:102§a)can be patterned on the one conducted during the Watergate scandal(*>jur:4¶11; ^†>OL2: 522¶d); and those revealed in the Offshore Leaks(*>OL:1) and the Panama Papers, and lead to the discovery of:

a. the money involved in judges’ self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1a); and

b. the hundreds of billions of dollars(*>jur:27§2) involved in the bankruptcy fraud scheme(^†>OL2:614).

1) Judges, their cronies(*>jur:32§§2, 3), and other insiders(*>jur:81fn169) take advantage of millions of people facing the most disruptive and stressful financial situation: bankruptcy.

2) Bankrupts have hardly any money to pay a lawyer, the immense majority appear pro se to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as they supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the rules of the local bankruptcy court, and as a result are wiped out!(*>jur:28fn35, 43fn65a);

8. How the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his approval or condonation of the conduct of senators during the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate can be:

a. invoked by defendants in federal and state cases on grounds of equal protection and due process of law to refuse the production of any witness and document, and assert an absolute privilege of CEOs and other principals to prevent their aides from being interrogated on their advice to them(^†>OL2:1040).

1) Defendants can argue that the President’s attorneys compared the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

2) They argued that the House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

3) They contended that the House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were entitled only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, could vote on whether to convict and remove the President.

4) Equally, a criminal defendant would claim that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict(^†>OL2:1044¶25);

b. traced back to a quid pro quo: the Chief Justice disregarded “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”(^†>OL2:1041¶8), which commanded the production of witnesses and documents, and allowed the senators to do whatever they wanted in exchange for the senators continuing to hold judges unaccountable and allowing them 100% self-exoneration from complaints(supra ¶1c).

9. How the justices of the Supreme Court have engaged in abuse of power as principals and cover it as accessories(^†>OL2:950¶6b) and as circuit justices allotted to the several circuits(*>jur:26fn23a).

a. Justices and judges are well aware of the dire warning that all of them have written on their foreheads: “I know about your own abuse of power. So if you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!” That is how judges extort from each other complicit survival assistance.

b. You can contribute to launching these investigations by sharing this article with all your friends and family, posting it to social media, and emailing it repeatedly to the following blocs of journalists, presidential candidates, and professors, under the stated subject line. Copy one bloc at a time, paste it in the To: line of your email, and send it:

1) To: [journalists]

editors@time.com, NTotenberg@npr.org, MCoyle@alm.com, Sandra.Peddie@newsday.com, aturturro@alm.com, sarah.mimms@buzzfeed.com, newsthirteen@thirteen.org, matt.zapotosky@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, expertanalysis@law360.com, frontline@pbs.org, viewermail@newshour.org, editor@newsday.com, dailybrief@huffpost.com, washingtonweek@pbs.org, tips@nypost.com, tips@theappeal.org, vaughan.smith@frontlineclub.com, jeanette.wells@thomsonreuters.com, jon.swaine@theguardian.com, joshua_benton@harvard.edu, amanda.arnold@nymag.com, amiller@newshour.org, benjamin.weller@newsday.com,

2) To: [presidential candidates]

“Donald J. Trump” <contact@action.gop.com> , Keepamericagreat@groups.io, Keepamericagreat+owner@groups.io, contact@action.gop.com,info@elizabethwarren.com, info@joebiden.com, reply@workingfamilies.org, info@ourrevolution.com, us@ocasio2018.com, info@peteforamerica.com, mymanmert@gmail.com, Kucinich4President@yahoogroups.com, Fernwoods@aol.com, hello@corybooker.com, info@kamalaharris.org,

3) To: [professors]

katyaln@law.georgetown.edu, mjh335@law.georgetown.edu, jg1861@law.georgetown.edu, gucomm@georgetown.edu, jturley@law.gwu.edu, lessig@law.harvard.edu, vdeportu@law.harvard.edu, dersh@law.harvard.edu, susan.rose-ackerman@yale.edu, judith.resnik@yale.edu, kelly.hernandez@yale.edu, jsnyder@gov.harvard.edu, bonnie.posick@yale.edu, ejanger@jd20.law.harvard.edu, RWHEELER@brookings.edu, cgeyh@indiana.edu, hello@lawyersdefendingdemocracy.org, jaimeestades@yahoo.com, rposner@uchicago.edu, eposner@uchicago.edu, bjwalker@uchicago.edu, alisonsiegler@uchicago.edu, knorcross@uchicago.edu, tmiles@law.uchicago.edu, javratin@uchicago.edu, dzarfes@uchicago.edu, wlandes@uclaw.uchicago.edu, kathryn.mammel@yale.edu, lise.cavallaro@yale.edu, abbe.gluck@yale.edu, Rebecca.stone@law.ucla.edu, james.geiser@troutman.com, srh90@georgetown.edu, cogolla@savannahlawschool.org,

4) Subject line:

Re: The rewards of exposing judges’ self-enrichment, denounced by Sen. Warren in her “plan”, and other forms of their abuse of power, by publishing, investigating, and holding unprecedented citizen hearings

C. Investing in Judicial Discipline Reform to enable its continued pursuit of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

10. The website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org has attracted numberless visitors and has exerted such strong appeal that it has turned 30,918 and counting(OL2:Appendix 3) into subscribers. This proof of public appeal makes it a sound business proposition:

a. to develop this free informational outlet into a for-profit interactive business that sells ads, services, and goods, as set forth in its business plan(OL2:1022); and

b. to finance the programmatic activities(^†>OL2:916§C, 978§E) to implement the out-of-court(OL2:1008§B) inform and outrage strategy for forming a national civic single issue movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform(^†>OL2:1037).

D. Unprecedented citizens hearings and the electoral, commercial, and reputational rewards from exposing judges’ abuse

11. More than 50 million cases are filed in the state and federal courts annually(*>jur:8fn^4,5), to which must be added the scores of millions of cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully. Parties sue and are sued separately and suffer abuse alone. They constitute the huge national untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

12. The Dissatisfied can significantly increase the audience of a journalist and/or media outlet that recognize their existence and give them a voice. This is particularly so if the journalist and the outlet together with professors(^†>OL2:1045, 982, 971) and universities contribute to organizing the proposed unprecedented citizen hearings on judges’ abuse of power. Their findings can be discussed at a conference on judicial reform.

13. These citizen hearings are to be held by universities and media stations; moderated by professors, news anchors, investigative journalists, and other fraud and forensic experts; and broadcast on an interactive multimedia basis. The hearings will give the organizers access to a national audience that will hear or give testimony about judges’ abuse of power that witnesses have experienced or witnessed. Thus informed and outraged, the audience, in general, and voters, in particular, will demand that politicians call and hold official hearings and reform judicial accountability and liability meaningfully(*>jur:158§§6-8; cf. OL2:933¶6).

14. A principled or opportunistic but savvy presidential candidate(OL2:1011, 937) can attract The Dissatisfied by denouncing judges’ abuse, as did Sen. Warren(supra ¶1) at rallies, townhall meetings and interviews; seeking compensation for them through local chapters of abusees; and calling for congressional hearings. So can the candidate become their Champion of Justice(OL2:991, 1027).

15. Scandal sells copy. A scandal will be provoked by exposing how the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and thereafter hold them unaccountable as ‘our men and women on the bench’ and allowed judges and their judiciaries to become a racketeering branch(OL2:999¶13).

16. The journalist and media outlet that scoop this scandal will be rewarded commercially and can reasonably expect to enhance their personal and professional names and even win a Pulitzer Prize(*>OL:3§F8).

17. A journalist and a media outlet can seek to turn one or more judges and their clerks into Whistleblower in the Judiciary, the equivalent of the whistleblowing officer in the Executive who launched the process of impeachment of President Trump(^†>OL2:1008). They and waiters, drivers, receptionists, etc., can become confidential informants(jur:106§c).

18. There is precedent for a Supreme Court justice being forced to resign without even being impeached: Justice Abe Fortas resigned on May 14, 1969, due to the public outrage that he caused as a result of his “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:92§d). Could you end up writing a bestseller or portrayed in a blockbuster movie if you caused one or several justices, or even the whole Supreme Court to resign? You can become a transformative historic figure here and abroad.(^†>OL2:1008)

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

19. If you are interested in accountable and liable judges and their judiciaries, you may want to support Judicial Discipline Reform in its:

a. professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(^†>OL2:445§B, 475§D); and

b. enhancement of this website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org into:

1) a clearinghouse for complaints(^†>OL2:918) about judges that anybody can upload; and

2) a research center for auditing(*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints in search of(*>jur:131§b, *>OL:255) the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(^†>OL2:792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power, including judges’ filing of misleading mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a and fn. 213b) and the self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Warren(supra ¶1).

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

DONATE
through

PayPal

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

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

* 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

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. The Chief’s conduct establishes what is fair and just for all other trials

4. If parties cannot invoke as precedent the conduct of the Chief Justice at the impeachment trial, then he has failed to “do impartial justice” to the President, which is what he swore the senators to do in the oath that he administered to them at the start of the trial.

5. If the Chief has treated him as being either above or ‘beneath’ the law, he has violated his own oath of office at 28 U.S. Code §453 [the Code of federal laws only](*>jur:53fn⁹⁰), whereby he swore, as judicial officers must do, “to administer equal right to the poor [in knowledge, intelligence, and money] and to the rich [in prominence, judicial colleagues, and connections to VIPs outside the court]”.

6. The Chief has the duty to apply that oath, for the Constitution, Section 3, 5^th Clause, provides thus:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7. This Clause identifies the proceeding over which the Chief is presiding as a trial. The fact that the entity empowered to conduct it is the Senate does not defeat the principle that was intended to be safeguarded by the adoption of the Constitution, namely, the rule of law and its equal application to all, by contrast to the will of the King of England expressed arbitrarily by fiat on a case by case basis even after the fact, except as curbed by the Magna Carta and British legal tradition.

8. The provision that “when the President…is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” introduces the head of another ‘Power’, i.e., the Judiciary. The Constitution does not subject the Chief to the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate. The latter can adopt binding rules when it tries impeached officers other than the president, in which case the Constitution does not provide for any judge to be brought in to preside over the trial; yet, even those rules must comport with the rule of law.

9. When the Chief Justice is brought in to preside over the trial of an impeached President, he does not come in empty-handed to sit and watch the trial as merely a symbolic figure. Far from it, he comes in with something pertaining to the ‘Power’ that he represents, the Judiciary, and that he must apply to ensure the institutional protection of all courts as well as the equal treatment of all parties: “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”; cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

10. Those notions extend far beyond the single issue of the exercise by a court of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation. Rather, they reach all aspects of a trial that affect the trial’s very purpose: to apply due process to ensure equal justice under law.

C. Raising motions for the Chief Justice to decide unbound by Senate rules

11. In any court, a party can raise a motion of any nature requesting any relief; no rule requires that it first obtain the opposing party’s permission to do so. The opposing party’s remedy is to object to the motion and move for its dismissal; or object to the relief requested and move for its denial.

12. Likewise, during the impeachment trial, either party can submit to the Chief Justice any motion. In determining it, he is not bound by the rules adopted by the Senate for this trial. This accords with the principle that agreements between the parties to a trial are not binding on the court.

13. The justification for this is that an agreement may have been extracted from the weaker party by the party with stronger bargaining power or superior knowledge. The court must not allow itself to be turned into the stronger party’s enforcer.

14. A plea agreement reached by the prosecutor and the defendant or a settlement between civil parties does not bind the judge, who can reject or modify it in order to ensure that it comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.

15. In the Senate, there is always a party with superior power either because of its greater number of senators or because it can count with the tie-breaking vote of the vice-president of the U.S. in his capacity as president of the Senate.

16. As a result, it falls to the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment trial to ensure that the rules adopted for the trial by the Senate are fair and just, rather than the result of unequal bargaining power and partisanship; and that the rules do not offend against those “traditional notions” developed by the Judiciary and applied to all its proceedings to ensure due process and guarantee equal protection of the law. The Chief must ensure this not only on motions raised by a party, but also on his own motion.

17. Since he is presiding at a trial, as a justice of the Supreme Court, and before a national audience, what he does and how he does it establishes a precedent for any party to invoke and for any court to take into consideration in its rulings.

18. Even if any Senate rule or voting provided that no subpoenas calling for witnesses or documents would issue, the Chief could apply those “traditional notions” to order their appearance or production so as to enable “equal justice to be done” not only by the senators, but also to the parties so as to enable each to present its case fairly and unhampered by overpowering partisanship.

19. The Senate majority could not afford to overturn every motion decision by the Chief, lest it appear ensuring a predetermined trial result. If a party made an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court, it would be for the Chief to decide whether the appeal lay, and if so, whether it would be interlocutory, with or without suspensive effect on the trial, or at the end of it. While these are uncharted waters, those “notions” provide the compass to arrive at answers to questions of first impression.

D. Claims of executive privilege made by the President

20. A claim of executive privilege issued by the head of the Executive branch will be incapable of preventing the production of witnesses or documents ordered by the Chief Justice, the head of a co-equal branch, the Judiciary, which has inherent powers for the conduct of its business.

21. The power of judges is so much stronger that one single district judge can hold unconstitutional a law that was researched, debated, and adopted by 535 members of Congress and enacted by the President. One district judge, J. James Robart, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban of the President, though he had campaigned on issuing it and received the votes of over 62.5 million people. Three circuit judges upheld the suspension nationwide.

22. If one judge can do so, the Chief can order witnesses and documents to be produced; and order federal marshals to take custody of that person or documents and bring them to the Senate, for “he who can do the most can do the lesser”.

23. If the President instructed the Executive not to comply with any Senate subpoena or any order of the Chief, he would lend credence to the impeachment article of obstruction of Congress and even render himself liable to the charge of contempt of court, cf. ‘obstruction of the Judiciary’. Such wholesale non-compliance would be fraught with dire consequences.

24. Not even President Nixon dare do that after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered him on July 24, 1974, to turn over the tapes that he had secretly recorded in the White House, which turned out to hold information incriminating him in the Watergate scandal. Nixon complied. The House began drafting articles of impeachment. The Senate was likely to convict and remove him. So Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

1. Judges’ closing ranks and retaliating out of their gang mentality

25. Defiance of all Chief Justice’s orders would be even more offensive than simply berating a federal judge: President Trump berated not only Judge Robart, but also U.S.D.J. Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University case.

26. That prompted a most revealing comment by Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch as he made courtesy visits with the senators who had to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court, even though thereupon the President could have withdrawn his nomination. Judge Gorsuch reportedly said, “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”(^†>OL2:546¶1).

27. That comment reveals the gang mentality that drives judges to defend each other rather than a concern for determining impartially and objectively whether the judge’s conduct in question was legally or ethically right or respectful of the injunction in Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn^123a). No judge is going to defy the gang, which can ostracize him or her as a treacherous pariah.

28. If the President defied or berated the Chief Justice, judges would certainly close ranks behind their Chief and retaliate against the President in the pending cases that are very important to his administration or him personally.

29. Their retaliation(*>Lsch:17§C) may provoke(^†>OL2:1029¶1, §§C,D) the President to escalate his berating and even launch directly or indirectly an investigation of their self-enrichment through abuse of their power and unaccountability that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dare denounced(OL2:998) and other forms of abuse(OL2:1039¶19).

30. An institutional crisis between the Judiciary and the Executive would ensue and aggravate the ongoing one between the Executive and Congress.

2. The Rules allow a witch hunt subject to admissibility of the witch

31. Since the President is the defendant at the trial for his removal from office, he faces a conflict of interests if he claims to issue the order of non-compliance as president. To allow him as party to decide what can be produced at his trial would set a precedent that any other party could invoke:

32. To begin with, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b) on “Discovery Scope and Limits” provides under “(1) Scope in General…Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable”. This provision authorizes an evidentiary hunt which is known to have no courtroom accessible to its evidentiary catch.

33. In the same vein, a representation to the court is proper under FRCP 11 if “(b)(3) the factual contentions…will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

34. In principle, everything is huntable, including the witch. The rules of procedure allow a disclosure and discovery fishing expedition; whether the catch of information becomes admissible evidence is determined subsequently, e.g., on a motion in limine before or during trial.

35. Compliance with the rules will become optional if the Chief Justice and the Senate uphold the President’s refusal to produce any witness or document.

E. How to invoke the impeachment trial in your own case

36. Up to now, the President has only issued a blanket order instructing all members of the Executive not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry by appearing to testify or producing requested documents. However, he has not formally invoked executive privilege.

37. But after the start of the impeachment trial, he tweeted that if the Senate issued subpoenas for witnesses and documents, he would claim executive privilege to prevent their appearance or production.

38. The Constitution does not expressly provide any executive privilege. Rather, it provides for three branches that exercise checks and balances on each other to prevent anyone from overpowering another, for instance, by frustrating Congress’s duty of oversight of the Executive. Its provision for impeaching and trying officers implies ‘all means’ “necessary and proper for its Execution” (Art 1, Sec. 8), e.g., finding facts through the issuance of subpoenas and orders of production.

39. If in spite of these features, the Chief Justice allows a Senate subpoena or his order of production to be defied by the President just as if the Chief denies a motion for such order, the Chief will establish a damaging precedent that any party will be entitled on equal protection grounds to invoke in its own case.

40. Any party will attempt to defeat any subpoena by asserting a boundless spousal, attorney/client, and priest/penitent privilege; and even craft its own privilege: A corporate chief executive could claim that her communications with her aides were privileged to ensure that they gave her candid advice without the chilling effect of the possibility of being compelled to disclose it.

41. Even more broadly, it would suffice to defeat a subpoena that its target self-servingly characterized the investigation underlying it as “a hoax”, “a witch hunt”, or “abuse of process”.

42. In the same vein, a criminal defendant could invoke the arguments made and conduct engaged in at the impeachment trial in the Senate with the approval or condonation of its presiding officer, the Chief Justice. Underpinning those arguments and conduct was the comparison by the President’s attorneys of the House of Representatives’ impeaching a president to a prosecutor’s indicting before a grand jury a person on counts of having committed one or more crimes.

a. The House was supposed to conduct a full investigation, the equivalent of discovery, during the impeachment process, asking for all necessary documents, calling all possible witnesses, and even allowing the President to cross-examine them and call his own witnesses.

b. The House failed to do that before adopting the articles of impeachment. As a result, its managers were not entitled to call witnesses and request documents during the trial in the Senate. They were allowed only to make an opening statement to the senators and answer their questions, upon which the senators, acting as the jury, voted on whether to convict and remove the President.

c. Likewise, a criminal defendant would claim on equal protection grounds that what was deemed to be due process when trying the President should be so deemed in her case. Consequently, once the prosecutor concluded his case to the grand jury and the latter returned an indictment, the prosecutor could not call witnesses and documents at trial, and was limited to making an opening statement to the jury and answering the questions of jurors, after which the jury would deliberate and return a verdict.

43. A party that moves to have a privilege so extended; such a characterization of an investigation upheld; and such an indictment process and trial applied to her case, can claim to be proceeding in good faith and to be shielded from sanctions under FRCP 11 –or state law, e.g., 22 NYCRR 130-1.1–: Its “(2) claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law”.

44. The party’s motion will be “reasonable under the circumstances” since it will be based on what the Chief Justice did, approved, or condoned over the objections of the majority of members of Congress.

45. The fact that the trial was nationally televised warrants the reasonable expectation that his conduct would set a precedent for every party to invoke and every judge to follow on equal protection grounds.

46. A judge confronted with such a motion would either have to grant it; allow an interlocutory appeal; or certify a question to an appellate court, including the Supreme Court.

F. Presentation on judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

47. I offer to present this article^‡ via video conference or in person to you and your group of guests. You may use the contact information below to reach me and discuss the presentation’s terms and conditions and its scheduling.

48. To decide whether to organize such presentation, you can review the following files, which you may share and post together with this article as widely and repeatedly as possible:

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

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

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

G. Judicial Discipline Reform’s pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

49. The judges of the Federal Judiciary, the only ones with a life appointment and national jurisdiction, as well as state judges, in general, have enormous power over We the People’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities.

50. They are held unaccountable by themselves(^†>OL2:918, 792) and the politicians that put them on the bench. So they risklessly abuse their power for their gain and convenience(OL2:1039§E).

a. This contention has been unwittingly validated by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She has dare denounce their self-enrichment through abuse of power. According to her, it is the result of their unaccountability. She “has a plan for that too: If elected, she will cause legislation to be passed to hold judges accountable for enriching themselves by abusing their power.”(OL2:998).

51. Judicial Discipline Reform pursues “Equal Justice Under Law” through the exposure of abuse of power by unaccountable judges who hold themselves to be Judges Above the Law. Its main means are:

a. its study* ^† of judges and their judiciaries(supra ¶3.a);

b. its website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, which has attracted numberless visitors and motivated 30,912 and counting(^†>OL2:Appendix 3) to subscribe to it –on its homepage, go <left panel ↓Register
or + New or Users >Add New–;

c. its presentations(supra §F); and

d. the promotion of the publication of one (e.g., ^†>OL2:998, 760, 781, 1040) and the syndication of a series(OL2:719§C) of articles in print or digital outlets.

52. To advance its pursuit it has developed its out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>OL2:1037) to inform the public about, and so outrage it at, judges’ abuse as to stir it up to demand that politicians hold judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

53. The strategy is implemented through concrete, reasonable, and feasible actions(^†>OL2:978§E).

54. Relying on the precedents of the Tea Party, the MeToo!(OL2:1033§B) movement, and the global ecological movement led by Greta Thunberg, it promotes the formation of a national civic single-issue movement for judicial abuse exposure(*>OL:194§E; ^†>OL2:1015¶12), compensation of abusees(OL2:952¶5), and reform(*>jur:158§§6-8).

55. The movement’s core is formed by the huge(OL2:937¶1) untapped national voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System(OL2:952¶5).

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

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

DONATE
through

PayPal

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

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at

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

Dare trigger history!(^†>OL2:1003)^‡…and you may enter it.

^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf

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

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York 10472
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Tel. (718)827-9521

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

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

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

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

Month: April 2020

Proposal to adapt to a shrinking and Covid-dried up legal market to make money while pioneering transformative change in the system of justice

A. An already shrinking legal market totally shrunk further by Covid-19

B. Adapting to the new normal legal market by informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ abuse of power

C. Articles for pioneering a legal news and publishing market

D. Pioneering citizens hearings and the conference on judges’ abuse of power

E. Abuse institutionalized for millennia and deemed impossible to change has been defeated through transformative change

F. Judges’ abuse of power exposed through a scoop and leading to investigations

G. Victims seeking compensation through local chapters of a national movement

H. Facilitating people coming to us through a website enhancement, and going to them on a tour of presentations

I. Offer of a presentation to you and your guests

Like this:

A. Sen. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

Like this:

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

A. Sen. E. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

B. The House hearings on sexual harassment by federal judges

C. How an article can set off the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy; and the motivator of compensation for the abused suffered

D. Forms of coordinated abuse of power constituting a pattern of racketeering and revealing a judiciary run as a racketeering enterprise

E. Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People

F. An article that sparks investigation, unprecedented citizen hearings, a conference, and the insertion of the issue in national politics

G. Offer of a presentation

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

Like this:

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

A. The publication of one(e.g., ^†>OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(^†>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

B. Joint investigations of timely stories in the context of the presidential campaign

C. Investing in Judicial Discipline Reform to enable its continued pursuit of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

D. Unprecedented citizens hearings and the electoral, commercial, and reputational rewards from exposing judges’ abuse

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

F. Offer of a presentation

Like this:

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

A. What is here not advocated; advocated; and the advocacy’s basis.

B. The Chief’s conduct establishes what is fair and just for all other trials

C. Raising motions for the Chief Justice to decide unbound by Senate rules

D. Claims of executive privilege made by the President

G. Judicial Discipline Reform’s pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

DONATE
through

Like this:

A. An already shrinking legal market totally shrunk further by Covid-19

B. Adapting to the new normal legal market by informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ abuse of power

C. Articles for pioneering a legal news and publishing market

D. Pioneering citizens hearings and the conference on judges’ abuse of power

E. Abuse institutionalized for millennia and deemed impossible to change has been defeated through transformative change

F. Judges’ abuse of power exposed through a scoop and leading to investigations

G. Victims seeking compensation through local chapters of a national movement

H. Facilitating people coming to us through a website enhancement, and going to them on a tour of presentations

I. Offer of a presentation to you and your guests

Share this:

Like this:

A. Sen. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

Share this:

Like this:

A. Sen. E. Warren’s daring denunciation of judges’ self-enrichment

B. The House hearings on sexual harassment by federal judges

C. How an article can set off the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy; and the motivator of compensation for the abused suffered

D. Forms of coordinated abuse of power constituting a pattern of racketeering and revealing a judiciary run as a racketeering enterprise

E. Politicians-judges connivance v. an informed and outraged We the voting People

F. An article that sparks investigation, unprecedented citizen hearings, a conference, and the insertion of the issue in national politics

G. Offer of a presentation

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

Share this:

Like this:

A. The publication of one(e.g., †>OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(†>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

B. Joint investigations of timely stories in the context of the presidential campaign

C. Investing in Judicial Discipline Reform to enable its continued pursuit of judicial abuse exposure, compensation, and reform

D. Unprecedented citizens hearings and the electoral, commercial, and reputational rewards from exposing judges’ abuse

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

F. Offer of a presentation

Share this:

Like this:

A. What is here not advocated; advocated; and the advocacy’s basis.

B. The Chief’s conduct establishes what is fair and just for all other trials

C. Raising motions for the Chief Justice to decide unbound by Senate rules

D. Claims of executive privilege made by the President

G. Judicial Discipline Reform’s pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power

DONATE through

Share this:

Like this:

A. The publication of one(e.g., ^†>OL2:760, 781, 1040) or a series(^†>OL2:719§C) of my articles:

DONATE
through