Author: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

An opportunity for Trump to emerge as
The Voice of
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment,
The Champion of Justice of
the victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges, and
The Architect of the New American Judicial System
by causing the investigation of
two unique national stories of judicial wrongdoing

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

On May 23, I delivered at the reception of Trump Tower a letter(^†>ol2:422) for you with materials^† proposing that you denounce federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, and reap benefits from so doing, i.e., attracting the attention and support of the huge(*>ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people who are dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form part of the dominant sector of the electorate to whom you have given a voice and who represent your key constituency: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

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

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

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

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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

A. Federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing raises probable cause for criticism of abuse of discretion

1. Your criticism of the exercise of discretionary power by Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presides over the Trump University case, offers you the opportunity to denounce judges’ unaccountability that enables wrongdoing and abuse of discretion(*>jur:5§3):

2. You can argue that judges have granted themselves absolute immunity from prosecution, thus elevating themselves above the law; and are held unaccountable in practice by the Establishment politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them to the Federal Judiciary and protect them there as ‘their men and women on the bench’. So the judges are in practice irremovable:

3. In the last 227 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, the number of impeached and removed federal judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13– is 8!(jur:22fn13, 14) As a consequence, they do wrong risklessly(jur:65§§1-3) and even exercise their discretion abusively: Those who can do the most –impeachable wrongdoing– can do the lesser –reversible discretion-abusing decisions–.

B. Distinguishing between abuse of discretion and a charge of wrongdoing

4. You need not prove that Judge Curiel himself has engaged in wrongdoing, not even that he has abused his discretionary power, for which you would have to meet the exacting requirement of proving that his decisions were grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence.

5. Convincing appellate judges in any case that a peer in the court below and friend of theirs for years, who knows of their own wrongdoing and abuse, abused his discretion is an uphill battle; it is rendered in this case all but impossible because the appellate judges as well as all the other judges have closed ranks as a class behind one of their own under attack.

6. Instead, you only need to show the appearance(jur:68fn123a), rather than prove based on evidence, that the Federal Judiciary and its judges, of whom J. Curiel is one, engage in wrongdoing involving illegal activity so routinely, extensively, and in such coordinated fashion that they have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi. Abuse of discretion is only part of the mindset that develops in people who know that they can get away with anything they want.

C. The mindset of impunity: the policy established by the Supreme Court and its manifestation in judges’ conduct

7. The wrongdoers’ mindset has been fostered by policy established by the Supreme Court itself. In Pierson v. Ray(jur:26fn25), it stated that judges’ “immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”. In Stump v. Sparkman(26fn26), the Court even assured judges that “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”.

8. Such assurance has created the mindset of impunity. Once on the bench, forever there no matter what. Self-restraint is superfluous because anything and everything is condoned. Self-indulgence has but contempt for discretion.

9. Unaccountable judges exercise abusively, not merely discretion, but even power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives. They wield absolute power, the kind that ‘corrupts absolutely’(27fn28). Abuse of discretion is an institutional uninhibited mental reflex.

10. As a result, federal judges abuse discretion for their own benefit. Indeed(*>Lsch:21§A):

a. Chief circuit judges abuse judges’ statutory self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(jur:24§b). By judges immunizing themselves from liability for their wrongdoing they deny complainants their 1st Amendment right to “redress of grievances”, making them victims with no effective right to complain.

b. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders(jur:44fn66) or opinions so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) that the judges who wrote them mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43§1). In their own estimation, they are raw fiats of star-chamber power. They are as difficult to find as if they were secret; and if found, meaningless to litigants and the public, for most frequently their only operative word is the one that betrays the expediency that motivates them: ‘affirmed!’ They are blatant abuse of discretion.

c. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In Calendar Year 2010, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). Money! lots of money! the most insidious corrupter. About 95% of those bankruptcies are filed by individuals; bankrupt, the great majority of them appear pro se and, ignorant of the law, they fall prey to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:42fn60).

d. That scheme was covered up by Then-Judge Sotomayor, e.g., DeLano(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), which she presided over. Whether it is one of the sources of assets that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) suspected her of concealing (65§§1-3) is a query that you can raise at a press conference(jur:xvii) to launch(jur:98§2) a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(ol:194§E) of her and the Judiciary through two unique national stories (see infra).

D. Wrongdoers and their accessories: What did they do or know and when did they do or know it?

11. Not all judges are wrongdoers; but they need not be such to be participants in illegal activity that requires their resignation(jur:92§d) or impeachment. When they keep silent about the wrongs done by their peers, they become accessories after the fact; when they let their peers know that they will look away when the peers do wrong again, they become accessories before the fact(jur:88§§a-c).

12. In both cases, they breach their oath of office(ol:162§§5-6), show dereliction of their collective duty to safeguard institutional integrity, and contribute to denying due process and equal protection of the law to all parties.

13. Thus, the question is properly asked of every judge: What did he or she know about their peers’ wrongdoing and when did he or she know it?

E. Actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing and become the Champion of Justice of victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges

14. Republican Establishment Sen. McConnell has called your criticism of the judge in the Trump University case “your worst mistake”; and Republican Sen. Collins has asked for you to apologize to the judge.

15. You can defend your criticism by showing that unaccountable judges engage in institutionalized wrongdoing as part of their history, policy, and mindset of impunity, which provides probable cause to believe that they abuse their discretion as part of their way of doing business.

16. What is more, you can turn your own defense into that of the national public, for ‘if judges can treat me unfairly, though I am a presumptive nominee, represented by the best lawyers, and able to appeal to the Supreme Court, how much more abuse do they heap on you?’ So to become the voice of the Dissatisfied With The Establishment and its judicial and legal systems, you can:

a) denounce(jur:98§2) judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference and ask the media to conduct a pinpointed, cost-effective investigation of two unique national stories, stated below, that can expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judicial wrongdoing;

b) invite the public to:

1) upload their complaints about judges to your site(cf. infra 362), search them for patterns of wrongdoing supportive of motions for disqualification, remand, new trial, etc., and

2) demand nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform;

c) propose to the deans of Columbia and NYU law schools a course to research(ol:60, 112-118; jur:131§b) judicial unaccountability and reform as an independent third party(jur:128§4) working to the highest academic standards(infra 364⁷) to produce the Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America and the Required Reform; and

d) pioneer judicial unaccountability reporting as a business venture(jur:119§1).

15. By so doing, you can turn your criticism of a judge into a master strategic thinker’s move to:

a. pack(ol2:422) the Judiciary with your nominees to replace justices and judges forced to resign or removed;

b. reform(jur:158§§6-8; ol:129§3) the Judiciary to detect, prevent, and punish wrongdoing as warranted by(ol:135§A) the wrongdoing exposed; and

c. become thereby the Architect of the New American Judicial System.

16. I respectfully request an opportunity to present this strategy to you and your officers.

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

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

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

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

NOTE 2: This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

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

The Two Unique National Stories

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

1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer & Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal judges(jur:105fn213b) know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets, which entails the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– but covered up and lied(ol:64§C) about to the public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it and other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)

2. This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for vetting judges and other candidates for office; and open the door for ‘packing’ the Federal Judiciary after judges resign for ‘appearance of impropriety’.

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

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

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

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

4. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425), pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.

5. This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation (jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).

By

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to nominate to the Supreme Court, not just one of your 11 candidates, but rather many justices and judges, thus packing(*>jur:23fn17) the Federal Judiciary with jurists handpicked to uphold your legislative agenda’s constitutionality for a generation. To that end, you can appeal to the electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

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

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

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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

Among The Dissatisfied is a huge(infra ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems because judges are held unaccountable(jur:21§1) by the politicians who nominated and confirmed them, so they risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3).

This is illustrated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c), which suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets(65§§1-3).

She was President Obama’s first justiceship nominee, shepherded through the confirmation process by both Sen. Chuck Schumer, whom Sen. Harry Reid has named to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York(77§§5-6).

Your denunciation(98§2) of judges’ wrongdoing –as opposed to wrongdoing judges- at a major press conference or speech would be a masterstroke, allowing you to:

1. attract dissatisfied Democrats and Independents, and Hispanics, Muslims, women, and Blacks;

2. tarnish P. Obama, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic brand itself, and embarrass them, J. Sotomayor, and her current(71§4) and former peers by requesting that they release the secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor for the district, circuit, and supreme courts and those of the other justices and peers(jur:105fn213); and call their bluff by offering to publish your IRS returns if they release those reports;

3. take on judges safely, for they not only have no constitutional claim to immunity(ol:158) in ‘government by the rule of law’ where Nobody Is Above the Law, but also are the most vulnerable public officers to news pointing to their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct(jur:68fn123a) “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, a standard of showing that journalists can easily meet and that forced Justice Abe Fortas, nominated by President Johnson for the chief justiceship, to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

4. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, akin to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee; just as the latter led to the unthinkable, the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(jur:4¶¶10-14), these judicial wrongdoing hearings can lead to the unimaginable, the resignation of all the justices for participating in, or condoning their peers’, wrongdoing; your demand can taint with suspicion of a cover-up all the presidential candidates and other politicians of the Establishment who oppose these hearings, which can become known as ‘the Trump hearings’ on the Judiciary;

5. earn $100s of millions’ worth of free media coverage as the media conducts its, and reports on your, investigation(*>ol:194§E) of J. Sotomayor as a Trojan horse into the circumstances of secrecy, unaccountability, coordination, and risklessness enabling(ol:190¶¶1-7) judges’ wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and grave as to be the judges’ and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4);

6. emerge as the untarnished leader if the investigation exposes judges nominated, confirmed, and protected by conniving Republicans and tarnishes their Establishment, whereby you, as the reformer in chief of our political and judicial systems, can do without their and its endorsement or force them, including Speaker Ryan, to choose between going down with their party or joining you;

7. burnish your credentials as the only candidate who, as the only Establishment outsider, could have taken on federal judges, and who can take on any domestic lobby and even foreign entities so as to bring relief to, as Mr. Lewandowski put it, the people “tired of the way things are”;

8. develop your website so that it becomes:

a. the place for people to submit and analyze for patterns of wrongdoing their complaints against judges(311) and their conniving and compelled helpers(395); and

b. the center with innovative, interactive, and competitive features for people to give and receive vital information about your campaign, their lives, terrorism, etc., (362), and to gratefully donate to your campaign, which desperately needs every dollar it can get; and

9. use your denunciation to inform the national public about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in a country supposed to be founded on the rule of law and create such national outrage as to:

a. set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation that stirs up news-dominating controversy;

b. announce the presentation of the findings of your own investigation at the Republican Convention so that you

c. turn the Convention into a reality show that irresistibly attracts every Republican, Democrat, Independent, and all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, whereby you

d. become their Champion of Justice;

e. set once again the subject of the public debate because you are the one who senses and can ‘treat’ the pulse of We the People; and

10. pave the way for historic, profound judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), which can be his most important and enduring legacy regardless of whether he wins the presidency.

I respectfully request an opportunity to present this and supporting strategies to you and your staff. Time is of the essence.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net;  Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

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

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

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

A. Probable cause to believe that communications about exposing judges’ wrongdoing have been intercepted

1. I am a lawyer, a doctor of law, and a researcher of court statistics, reports, statements, etc.(*>jur: iii/fn.ii), which I have cited hundreds of times in my 880+-page study of federal judges and the Federal Judiciary –the models for their state counterparts– titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://   www.google.com/chrome/

or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://   support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

2. I have proposed the pinpoint, profit-making(*>ol:326§F) investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through a unique national query(ol:191§A) based, among other things(ol:194§E), on the articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) that suspected the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets. Such concealment is undertaken to evade taxes and keep the illegal origin of taxable assets hidden; it is a crime(ol:5fn10).

3. The evidence(jur:65§§1-3) shows that her asset concealment is enabled by, and only part of, wrongdoing coordinated among federal judges and between them and insiders of the judicial and legal systems(jur:81fn169). Thus, her investigation would be a Trojan horse that would reveal wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinated as to constitute the judges’ and the Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190¶¶1-7).

4. I have sent that proposal to over ten thousand people, yahoogroups, and pertinent websites. Given the evidence in the study of how widespread dissatisfaction with the judicial and legal systems is, and a current public mood dominated by the Dissatisfied with the Establishment, one could reasonably expect many recipients to contact me to express interest in my proposal. Yet, only a handful has done so. Neither under the circumstances, statistical analysis, nor related events is this a normal reaction.

5. This article argues that under those three considerations, there is probable cause to believe that the communications that I sent or that were sent to me were intercepted and their delivery was prevented. It calls on victims of judges’ wrongdoing and on advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces to expose such wrongdoing by implementing a strategy that takes advantage of the public mood and the presidential campaign that feeds off it.

B. Interception and secrecy as the government’s modus operandi

6. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and the intentional access to a protected computer without authorization are acts prohibited as federal crimes and punishable with up to 20 years in prison under Title 18 U.S. Code §§1030 and 2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14).

        1. NSA and judges can issue companies secret orders of interception

7. The documents of the National Security Agency (NSA) leaked by Edward Snowden(ol:17) have revealed that the NSA, which reports to the President daily, broke the law to intercept the communications of private and public parties, including 35 heads of state and government, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazil President Dilma Rousseff among them as well as U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

8. This supports probable cause to believe that the government is once more intercepting communications, such as mine, to safeguard its own interests.

9. The NSA has an interest in intercepting communications calling for the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing: It depends on judges, such as those of the secret federal court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(ol:20fn5 >50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811), to have its secret requests for secret orders of surveillance rubberstamped, up to 100% in a year(ol:5afn7).

         2. Microsoft sued the government over its orders’ permanent secrecy

10. In mid-April 2016, Microsoft sued the federal government over secret requests, such as those by the NSA, for secret orders of surveillance that those who must execute them, such as Microsoft and other Internet Service Providers, must keep secret forever. It is arguing that such permanent secrecy even after the abatement of the emergency that warrants the order’s request and execution without due process notice and opportunity to defend to the surveillance target defendant prevents any control on the government and, as a result, leads to government abuse of power.

11. Secrecy is the petri dish for corruption(jur:49§4), for it places wrongdoing beyond public condemnation, rendering it private, blameless, acceptable to those in on it, whom it renders unaccountable and whose wrongdoing it turns into riskless acts to gain irresistible, wrongful benefits, inevitably leading to their performance through abuse of power(jur:88§§a-c). “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Justice Brandeis put it: information is needed to rid the government of corruption.

        3. Unauthorized access to CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computers

12. CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed the fiasco of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the Department of Justice (DoJ), which sold weapons, including military assault rifles, intended to be followed all the way to druglords in Mexico. But the Bureau lost track of them; one was used to murder an American border patrol.

13. DoJ Attorney General Eric Holder tried to cover up Fast and Furious by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents, submitting them with whole pages redacted so that they no longer made sense. As a result, he became the first sitting member of the cabinet in American history to be held in contempt of Congress. Having lost the trust of Congress, he had to resign.

14. Likewise and much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, Reporter Attkisson reported on the Benghazi attacks, where the American ambassador to Libya and three other American officers were killed by Islamic militants while the Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton.

15. Rep. Attkisson(ol:215) had three independent computer experts examine her home and work computers. They attested to their having been hacked and roamed through. She, represented by Judicial Watch, has sued DoJ for information concerning the hacking of her computers (ol:216fn2); and reportedly has demanded $35,000,000 in compensation.

          4. The government sued Apple to get backdoor access to an iPhone

16. In order to gain access to the messages on the phone of one of the terrorists that committed the massacre at San Bernardino, California, the federal government sued Apple to force it to crack on its behalf the encryption system that protects the privacy of messages on its iPhones. Apple refused to comply, arguing that the public interest in the privacy of emails trumped the interest of the government in particular cases and that cracking the encryption would set a dangerous precedent, give the American government as well as foreign ones a backdoor access to all messages on all iPhones, and lead to abuse of power.

17. After the government managed to crack the encryption with the help of another company, it withdrew its suit.

18. Instead of just after a crime, how far ahead of any crime or even suspicion of it will the government enter through that backdoor to read all contents of iPhones…and eventually of all phones and computers?

19. Power is by nature expansive; it will only stop its advance if opposed by an equal power or is pushed back by a stronger one(jur:81¶174). Such can be the power of We the People, the sovereign source of all public power, when informed by the free flow of communications.

B. Statistical considerations: the normal distribution of a series of values and the abnormal number and contents of replies

20. Probable cause to believe that there has been interception of my communications derives from the statistical abnormality(ol:19fn2 >ws:46§V) of my non-receipt of replies from the thousands of people to whom I wrote(cf. *>Lsch:1), except for some five replies, and the statistical oddity that all those replies were negative, expressing the repliers’ lack of interest in my proposal.

21. Normally, the reactions of the subjects to whom an attitudinal questionnaire is submitted –like the people to whom I sent my proposal– line up on a continuum from an extreme of very few ‘not liked any bit of it’ rising toward the most numerous ‘balanced bunch’ and descending toward the other extreme of very few ‘liked every bit of it’. When the series of values measuring the intensity of their reaction and the number of those so reacting are plotted on an X,Y graph, they produce the bell-shaped curve called a normal distribution of values(ol:19fn2 >ws:59¶124).

22. Instead, the replies that I received produced a flat floor line with a hiccup at the end. But there is neither a logical nor a psychological cause to believe that normally only people who disliked a proposal would be motivated enough to bother to write to let the proponent know that they disliked and rejected it rather than outright delete the email or shred the letter of proposal.

23. Only the interception by an outside agent who managed to gain access to all the replies, examined them, and prevented the delivery of those that liked and accepted the proposal can explain that abnormal one-sided delivery to me of only replies that disliked and rejected my proposal.

C. Interception by companies’ suspending email and cloud storage accounts

24. Probable cause to believe in interception is found in the sudden, unexplained, arbitrary suspension between October and December 2014 of my email and cloud storage accounts by Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft.

25. It is utterly improbable that these three, at the time independent, companies acted independently and only coincidentally to suspend my accounts. Their doing so was contrary to their commercial interest in advertising themselves through the accounts that people open with them, which bear the companies’ names in the domains of the accounts, e.g.,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf?dl=0,

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com, and

Ric.Cordero@hotmail.com(*>ggl:1 et al.).

          1. One of the 5% most viewed Linkedin profiles loses most of its contents

26. A company’s commercial interest in encouraging Internet traffic with its name attached to it is shown by Linkedin’s congratulating me for my profile being among the 5% most viewed among its more than 200 million profiles(*>a&p:25-27). So how is it possible that last week, I checked my profile and noticed that my photo and most of its information about me were not there? I had to repost them. Do you see them at www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/?

          2. Microsoft prevents again the signing in to an email account

27. After Microsoft suspended my Hotmail account, I created this other Microsoft account: Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com. But since last week, my attempts to sign in have been met with the following notice, which you will likely receive if you go to www.microsoft.com and try to sign in as RicCordero@verizon.net. So I can neither access the emails sent to my Outlook account nor upload to my Microsoft DriveOne cloud storage account the updated versions of my study of judges and their judiciaries.

Sign in
Something went wrong and we can’t sign you in
right now. Please try again later.
Microsoft

         3. The dramatic drop in the number of daily subscribers to my blog

28. I built a new website using WordPress in September 2015 and started to post my articles there; www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Although I did not advertise it, readers found it and I began receiving at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net automatically generated email notices of their having subscribed to it.

29. At the beginning, it was only a handful a day. But the phenomenon of referential chain reaction increments that occurs throughout cyberspace must also have occurred with respect to my blog-like website: One reader who liked my articles referred them to two or more other readers, who did the same, thus giving rise to an exponential growth rate.

30. As a result, by Monday, April 11, there was a daily average of 53 new subscribers with an upward trend. But thereafter the daily average plummeted. In fact, only 8 readers subscribed last Sunday, April 17, although normally the highest number of readers subscribe on Saturdays and Sundays.

31. One cannot reasonably assume that for the third(ol:19fn2; ggl:1) time and only coincidentally companies, this time Microsoft and Verizon, have caused a negative flow of emails to me, whether in their content or number, concerning my proposal for exposing judges’ wrongdoing.

32. Rather, such flow is probably caused by interception of emails to and from me. But since such interception only hurts those companies’ commercial interest in self-advertisement, it occurs either without their participation or by them upon orders of a third party. The latter can reasonably be assumed to be those who have the most to lose from judicial wrongdoing exposure:

a. judges (cf. jur:71§4);

b. the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them(cf. jur:77§§5-6) and now protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’; and

c. others who benefit from maintaining a good relation with judges in exchange for favorable rulings.

E. Another query for investigation during Election 2016 of judges’ wrongdoing

33. Based on these and other instances of actual, attempted, and probable government interception and access, I have posed the following query(ol:192§4) for professional investigation:

To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii) through PACER, Public Access to Court Electronic Records– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA to:

1) conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1; ¶2 supra),

2) cover up judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by intercepting the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of their exposers; and

3) prevent exposers from communicating to join forces, thus infringing upon their rights “to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:22fn12b; ol:371)?

          1. From collection of metadata to unconstitutional interception based on contents and undertaken in the interest of covering up wrongdoing

34. The findings of the investigators of that query can have a farther-reaching impact than Snowden’s revelations. His leaked documents pointed only to illegal dragnet collection of communications metadata of scores of millions of people, such as their telephone numbers, call duration, date, etc., but not the contents of the intercepted communications. Even so the public was out-raged by the breach without warrants of communications privacy, its scope, abuse potential, etc.

35. The public would be more intensely outraged if verifiable findings pointed to the government committing communications interception based on their contents, which constitutes breach of privacy as well as abridgement of freedom of speech and the press”(jur:130fn268).

36. Public outrage would reach its paroxysm if the interception were spurred by the unjustifiable motive, not to protect any alleged ‘national security interest’, but rather to advance judges’ crass interest in covering up their wrongdoing and the government’s in avoiding judges’ retaliation by executing their im-plicit threat “If you let them take any of us down, we bring you with us!”(jur:22§31; ol:266¶13).

37. Such findings can lead to a test case representative of many other cases of government content-based interception of the communications of advocates of honest judiciaries, victims of wrong-doing judges, and journalists critical of public officers.

38. The findings can support discovery through a suit under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, 552a, to ascertain the identity of those who sought and those who implemented interception orders, the latter’s text, target, justification, objective, etc.

39. Moreover, an outraged public could impact the elections significantly.

         2. Strategy for launching the investigation and informing the public

40. To launch the investigation, I offer to make presentations(ol:197§G) at video conferences and in person, generally, to IT experts, journalists, lawyers, students and their professors, business people, and other potential members of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture (jur:128 §4) and advocates and victims, and, particularly, to any or all presidential candidates.

41. They and their top officers, e.g., their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, can be interested in drawing support(ol:311, 362) from the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, part of the Dissatisfied with the Establishment(¶4 supra).

42. Since the candidates are covered by the national media and the public pays attention to them, they are in the best position to denounce(jur:98§2) contents-based interception and judges’ wrongdoing. They can cause their campaign research teams, and encourage the media, to conduct pinpoint, profit-making investigations of the unique national queries of Justice Sotomayor(¶¶2-3) and the Federal Judiciary-NSA.

43. After exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the wrongdoing, informed discussion and adoption of judicial reform measures(jur:158§§6-8) can begin.

44. If you have had an experience similar to those described above, please email me to all my addresses^†. Kindly use the headings of this article as those of a template, providing information under applicable ones. If necessary, add headings.

45. If you want a presentation for you and others, let me know.

46. You can also network with your acquaintances so that they may network me with campaign officers for me to make a presentation on how their candidate can attract that huge untapped voting bloc and eventually nominate replacements for wrongdoing judges(ol:312¶10).

47. If we think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E), we can earn material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), including the highest one: to be nationally recognized as We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§§J,K).

48. But time is of the essence.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,

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

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

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at:

or

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:

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

or

http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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

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

A. Making presentations to each presidential candidate on how to benefit from denouncing unaccountable judges and their riskless wrongdoing

1. I have offered to make a presentation either at a video conference or in person to you, advocates of honest judiciaries and victims of wrongdoing judges, so that you would network me with top officers of the presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, in order for me to present also to them, and eventually to the candidate, how the latter’s denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing (> *jur:5§3) can reasonably be expected to resonate with an electorate dominated by ‘The Dissatisfied with the Establishment’.
2. Consequently, the candidate can become the standard-bearer of, and draw support from, the huge(> *ol:131¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

NOTE: All (blue references) and superscripts are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows*:

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

* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:311

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8 >ol:311

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf >ol:311

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

3. What is more, if the denouncing candidate also outlines two unique national stories involving wrongdoing by Justice Sotomayor, President Obama, and the NSA(ol:191§§A,B), the dissatisfied electorate as well as the rest of the public will be outraged.
4. The media will investigate those stories because ‘scandal sells copy’ and because the stories will be undoubtedly pertinent to the confrontation between the President and Republican senators over the confirmation of his nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes of that confrontation are so high, namely, the voting balance between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning justices, that the Republican senators have refused even to meet with the nominee, never mind hold confirmation hearings.
5. Those two unique stories will show that regardless of the justices’ splitting along political lines when voting on cases before them, they are united in participating in, and condoning their peers’, wrongdoing. It will also show that presidents and senators who have connivingly nominated and confirmed judges and thereafter held them unaccountable. They have done so, not in ‘the national security interest’, but rather in their crass judicial class and personal and political interest.
6. The dissatisfied public will be so profoundly outraged at Establishment judges and politicians and so avidly demand news thereon as to generate the commercial incentive for ever more media outlets to offer such news by climbing on the investigative bandwagons running toward the deepest webs of politico-judicial wrongdoing.
7. The outraged public will also demand that politicians open, and those campaigning for office call for, official investigations, lest they receive no more donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth endorsement, and be defeated at the polls. It is because the presidential candidates so desperately need such public support and votes that they will see it in their interest to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and outline the two unique national stories.
8. This concrete, realistic, and feasible out-of-court strategy can through presidential candidates and the media insert into the national debate the issue of unaccountable judges’ and their judiciaries’ riskless wrongdoing that has become their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4).
9. The public can compel reform that not merely touches up judiciaries to assuage its outrage, but rather transforms them into a We the People’s system of public servants held by the People accountable for administering justice according to law and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:160§8).
   

   B. The need to abandon failed ways of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and join forces in support of a novel, out-of-court strategy
   

10. We must join forces to take advantage of the turmoil generated by the presidential campaign and the justiceship nomination. If we fail to, we will miss a unique opportunity to make some progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and setting in motion a process of judicial reform. The fact is that up to now, we have worked in isolation and made by rote the same kind of traditional, failed efforts.
11. We continue to sue wrongdoing judges in court, their turf, where they are protected by trial and appellate judges who are their peers and friends, who disregard the facts and the applicable law and make up rules as they go, such as the doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d), which is contrary to the Constitution(ol:158).
12. We keep approaching legislators to ask them to pass laws to restrain judges, even though those legislators are the very ones who recommended, endorsed,
    nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, those judges, so that the legislators have no interest at all in incriminating or reining in those whom they now protect as ‘our men and women on the bench’. The dissension over the justiceship nomination proves how important it is for politicians to have and keep their own people in a judiciary: the balance of voting that sustains or denies the constitutionality of their legislative agenda is at stake^17a.
13. We fail to realize the inherent contradiction, inconsistency, and absurdity of complaining about law-disregard judges while assuming that if the laws that we advocate were passed, they for some strange reason would not disregard them too, although the evidence indicates the opposite: Federal judges’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers under the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24§§b,c) amounts to their abrogation of it in effect. They will disregard the new laws too with the conniving toleration of the legislators who passed them pro forma, thus making all our effort a fool’s errand.
14. As a result, we have made no progress whatsoever in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone curbing it. For proof, there is the official statistic that although 2,217 judges were on the federal bench on 30sep13¹³(jur:22fn13), in the past 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!¹⁴(jur:22fn14)
15. Such historical record of irremovability in practice has assured federal judges that they can engage in any individual and even coordinated wrongdoing without risking either their jobs or even their salary, which cannot be reduced while in office(Const. Art. III, Sec. 1^12a). Federal judges, like most of their state counter-parts, are unaccountable: Officers of a Sovereign State Above the Law of the Appointing State.
16. We will remain whining losers as long as we unreflectively continue to pursue failed ways of judicial wrongdoing exposure. By so doing, we have attracted the application upon us of Einstein’s aphorism: Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality. This is so because such conduct reveals ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and human worlds: cause and effect.
17. By contrast, we can join forces to implement that out-of-court strategy that realistically aims to appeal to the presidential candidates’ own electoral interests to gain what they have and we sorely lack but desperately need: access to the media, and the national media at that.
18. The media is the only entity that can take the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing to the national public, outrage it, and thus turn that issue into a decisive one of the rest of the primaries, the nominating conventions, the presidential campaign, and even American politics thereafter.
19. Therefore, the offered presentation(¶1 supra; ol:311, 362) is a first step toward implementing that strategy.

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

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

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

A. Jointly finding out whether Internet Service Providers are intercepting communications at the behest of third parties

1. If you, the Reader, email me, I will acknowledge receipt promptly. That is very important because I have been informed that people have tried to communicate with me by email but have had their emails returned as undeliverable. In fact, I have sent many emails which ISP Verizon blocked as spam; then I sent them through Yahoo, but did not receive a single reply.
2. You and all the other advocates of honest judiciaries are likely to find of interest the problem of emails being blocked as spam and not sent, for it may interfere with your own communications. It enables the blocking Internet Service Provider (ISP) to wield the power to censure. Such power is unaccountable, for the ISP gives no indication whatsoever of what constitutes spam. As result, the user does not know how to avoid sending spam: He or she is at the mercy of the ISP, who can block any email by just labeling it spam, whether at its own initiative or at the request or by order of a third party. That amounts to absolute power, which breeds abuse.

3. The issue of blocking by spam labelling is discussed in my letter to the CEO of Verizon, which is found in my study of judges and their judiciary at * >ol:371. That study is titled and downloadable as follows*:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

In that file, all blue text ^{superscript note} and (parenthetical) references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

4. This is a matter where you, other technically and research savvy advocates, and I can join forces in an effort to find out whether a third party has instructed Verizon and other ISPs to not only block the sending, but also intercept –a much broader concept- the communications of critics of judges and other people disliked by private or government officers. Such interception is a crime under federal law(ol:6fn13).

1. A current $30 million lawsuit by a former CBS reporter alleging government interception of her communications

5. A current case starkly shows how wrongdoing can take the form of interception of communications undertaken by officers at the top of government:

Former CBS Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $30 million on a claim that it hacked into her work and home computers to find out about investigations of hers that embarrassed the Obama administration, in particular the Department of Justice (DoJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and its Fast and Furious operation. The latter concerned the sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers in the U.S. in an attempt to track the weapons’ journey to druglords in Mexico. This ill-considered and worse executed operation led to the use of one of those weapons in the assassination of an American officer….(ol:346¶131)

2. Determining whether judges are directing ISPs to intercept the communications of their critics

6. There appears to be interception of my emails to prevent communication between critics of judges’ wrongdoing and hinder the critics’ effort to reach out to third parties, such as presidential candidates. The latter can have an electoral interest in denouncing such wrongdoing to attract journalistic attention and earn the support of the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. In this vein see:a statistical analysis of a large number of communications critical of judges, which gives probable cause to believe that they were intercepted(ol:19§D/fn2); andb. the cancellation of my email and cloud storage accounts by Google, Microsoft, and Dropbox(ggl:1 et seq.).
7. The revelation that judges have led any ISP to intercept the communications of their critics would outrage the national public by far more intensely than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the blanket collection of metadata by NSA: The latter had the plausible excuse of having acted ‘in the national security interest’. However, the judges are acting only in the crass personal and judicial class interest of covering up their ill-gotten benefits(jur:5§3), including assets(jur:65§§1-4), grabbed by abusing their judicial power and excused by their concoction of the self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d).

B. Judges’ interest in covering up their concealment of assets

8. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico published a series of articles(jur:65fn107a) suspecting of concealment of assets Then-Judge, Now-Justice, Sotomayor, the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court. Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, evade taxes on them, and launder money so that it can be openly invested or otherwise used as if legally acquired. Therefore, concealment of assets is a crime(ol:5fn10).
9. The Code of Conduct for Judges requires that they “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” (jur:68fn123a). The appearance that judges, and all the more so Supreme Court justices, are concealing assets would become a key issue of Election 2016 and lead to precedented resignations(jur:92§d). This would follow the revelation that they have been recommended, nominated, and confirmed by politicians, including presidential candidates, who were knowingly indifferent or willfully ignorant or blind(jur:90§§b,c) to the evidence of judicial candidates’ wrongdoing and who now protect them as ‘their judges on the bench’

C. An outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing

10. The national public can become outraged at the connivance between judges and politicians. Hence, it can force incumbent and challenging politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to take a stand on the issue of judges’ wrongdoing. What is more, the public can demand that politicians, in general, call on Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and, in particular, hold nationally televised hearings thereon and publish the FBI vetting reports on judicial candidates(jur:65§1).
11. Public outrage and scandal sell copies. They can be powerful commercial incentives for journalists to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and their connivance with politicians.
12. As proposed(ol:311, 362), politicians can attract the public by inviting it to post its complaints against judges to the politicians websites-cum-clearinghouses so that the complaints may be analyzed by the public for patterns and trends of wrongdoing. Evidence of coordinated wrongdoing among judges and between them and other insiders of the judicial and legal systems is much more persuasive than the claim of a single party that the judge in its case was corrupt.
13. Presidential candidates as well as other politicians can intentionally advance their own electoral interest while unwittingly advancing the interest of us, advocates of honest judiciaries, in developing the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating conventions, and the presidential campaign. Such issue development we cannot accomplish on our own.
14. However, we can develop an alliance of harmonious interests(Lsch:14§§2-3; ol:52§C) with presidential candidates and other powerful people and entities. That is the result of strategic thinking(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C). It is indispensable to set in motion the process leading to our ultimate objective: judicial reform.
15. Indeed, public outrage at judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians must be so intense that it renders judicial reform unavoidable and so far reaching as to include what today is unthinkable, such as the establishment of citizens boards of judges’ accountability and liability to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8).

D. Concrete, realistic, and feasible actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing

16. Can you imagine how much renown you would win if thanks to your knowledge of computers and skills in Internet and journalistic field research you were instrumental in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, precisely now during Election 2016? Can you imagine the boost to your business provided by all those people who thereafter would want to hire you to work on their cases?

1. Exposing by investigating

17. You can bring your knowledge and skills to bear on determining whether there has been:a. interception of communications(jur:105§b) of critics of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:195§4), by your participation in the Follow it wirelessly! investigation (ol:192§B); andb. concealment of assets by judges(ol:194§E-3; jur:102§a), by your participation in the Follow the money! investigation(ol:191§A)

2. Exposing by networking and arranging presentations

18. In addition to sharing with those on your emailing list and posting to websites the letter to presidential candidates(ol:362) as widely as possible, you can:a. use that letter to network with your friends and acquaintances and have them network with theirs until you and they are able to put me in touch with top officers, such as the campaign strategist and policy-maker, and of course, the chief of staff, of any and each of the presidential candidates so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how, as proposed(ol:311, 362), they can denounce judges’ wrongdoing, draw people to their websites, and earn their electoral support; andb. put me in touch with professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how they can apply their respective expertise and knowledge to expose judges’ wrongdoing and thereby make a name for themselves and earn other valuable moral and material rewards(ol:3§F) as they pioneer the academic and business field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:119§1).
19. I look forward to receiving your email. Meantime, you may share this article widely. To their recipients and the rest of the national public thanks to your strategic thinking and effort to have them join forces to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform, and even lead them to form a We the People, self-assertive, single issue, Tea Party-like movement for honest judiciaries, the People’s Sunrise(ol:201§J), you can become their Champion of Justice(ol:201§K).

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

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

NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email accounts 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  

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 
or
http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

Read the outline of the presentation at * >ol:350:

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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

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

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

[To each of the presidential candidates]

Dear Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you to emerge as the leader who enlightens and reassures the national public when as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino some presidential candidates have misled the public into thinking that terrorism is the main death risk that it runs. You can put terrorism in perspective by comparing it with other leading causes of death that have mortality rates indisputably and even surprisingly higher, e.g., hospital infections and lightning.

By thinking strategically, you can responsibly use the accompanying comparative statistics table in a novel way: to reassure and attract the public to your website through crowd fact-checking and posting.

To that end, you can reassuringly comment at rallies, debates, and interviews on the need to confront terrorism with a sense of proportion so as not to be unduly impressed by the day to day events or even exploited by demagoguery for political gain at the expense to the public peace of mind. Then you can unfold a paper and read its title aloud: Facts against Fear: a table comparing terrorism with other causes of death in America.

That table will be only the first of many on a wide spectrum of subjects and serves as a template for the presentation of verifiable data.

So you can invite the public to contribute to researching the incomplete entries of the table and submit their findings to your website for verification.

You can announce that the most prolific submitters of verifiable and enlightening statistics and analysis[1]* will be publicly recognized and invited to become members of the campaign’s virtual teams of enlighters. Their task will be to turn your website into the most trusted and visited source of presidential election information and the most reliable fact-checking entity. Their mission will be to provide the truth-in-fact foundation for your motto: An enlightening leader leads an enlightened people[2].

* All the square bracketed numbers are references to the endnotes below. They and the parenthetical references are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install

You can portray the table(s) as your means of running a campaign based on facts, as opposed to fearmongering, that illustrates how you as president would run a transparent, honest administration based on facts verifiable by, and known to, We the People.

Naturally, the public that is attracted to your website to post and check facts will also find there information about your platform and upcoming rallies, and have the opportunity to donate to your campaign.

The above proposal further illustrates the potential of strategic thinking. Indeed, the latter has given rise to another proposal(ol:311):

You can draw electoral support from the huge[3] untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. Their dissatisfaction derives from judges’ self-disciplining authority, their abuse of it by systematically dismissing complaints against them[4], and secretive functioning[5], enabling their disregarding of the facts and the law applicable to cases to gain benefits risklessly.

You can tap the bloc’s support[6] by presenting at a press conference and rallies the evidence[7] thereof contained in my study Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing (see above).

You can invite the public to post on your website its judicial complaints so that it can analyze them for coordinated wrongdoing patterns[8], thus attracting Republicans and Democrats alike; and to join you in calling for nationally televised hearings (to be known as your hearings) on judges’ wrongdoing and journalistic and official investigations even as your teams of enlighters conduct their own(ol:194§E).

Judges who give “even the appearance of impropriety”[9] can be led to resign[10]. As president, you can fill their vacancies to secure your legislative agenda’s constitutionality[11].

By leading We the People’s “petition for a redress of grievances”[12], you can emerge as their Champion of Justice[13].

I offer to make a presentation[14] to you and your officers at a video conference or in person.

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

Sincerely,

s/Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Endnotes

[1]^. You can post the accompanying table(ol:365) and ask people to use it as a template when submitting their research findings. The latter will be subject to an initial phase of vetting by the public. Findings that surmount such vetting will be posted as your campaign’s official facts.

[2]^. After presenting to your audience the Facts Against Fear table, you can ask it and the rest of the American public poignant rhetorical questions to cause them to perform a balancing test:

a. Given the comparative statistics already presented, would you prefer to take your chances with falling victim to terrorism or becoming a victim of any of the other causes of death in America whose chance of occurrence is 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of time higher?

b. When a member of your family, a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a workmate or fellow American dies in a car accident, a house fire, a drive-by shooting, or by food poisoning, do you say that their deaths do not count because they did not die a victim of terrorism?

c. The federal government spends more than it collects in taxes, which explains why its borrowing limit has to be raised so often; otherwise, it would run out of funds and have to close down. Imagine that the government manages to gather $5 billion to reduce the mortality of one of the causes of death in America. If you could vote on how to allocate that money, would you vote to allocate it to fight terrorism or to combat any of the other causes of death with significantly higher mortality rates, such as cancer or car crashes?

[3]^. In the federal and state courts, there are filed 50 million new cases(jur:8fn4, 5) annually. They involve at least 100 million parties, each of which may be constituted of two, ten, a hundred persons or the thousands of members of a class. In addition, every case affects the parties’ relatives, employees, clients, shareholders, similarly situated people, etc. To those cases must be added the scores of millions pending and those deemed by parties to have been wrongfully decided to take their property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives.

[4]^. Official statistics cited in my study(jur:21§1) show that:

a. Federal judges dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers and deny up to 100% of petitions to review dismissals(jur:10-14). They cover for each other due to the principle of mutually dependent survival(Lsch:16§1).

b. In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13(jur:22fn13)– impeached and removed is 8! So they not only are appointed for life “during good Behaviour”, but also know based on that historical record that they are in effect irremovable. Impeachment is a useless mechanism for judicial integrity.

c. They rely on the constitutional provision that prohibits diminishing their salary(jur:22fn12).

d. They dispose of around 75% of appeals to the circuit courts with reasonless summary orders, and of up to an additional 15% with decisions so “perfunctory” that they mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”, turning them into arbitrary, ad hoc fiats of raw unaccountable power. They are in practice secret because hardly findable, but if found, they are useless since they do not establish a precedent; hence not worth looking for. They are anathema to a legal system based on precedent as a means of keeping judicial power in check and predictable.

If you were in their position, would you be irresistibly tempted to abuse your power for your benefit and that of your peers, other insiders, and your protectors since to do so was riskless?

[5]^. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the most secretive(jur:27§e) branch and public officers, holding all their policy-making, administrative, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors. Wrongdoing festers in secrecy, which makes it infectious. This calls for ‘the best disinfectant, sunlight’, as Justice Brandeis put it(jur:158¶350b).

Today, the sun of information and knowledge shines through the Internet. A presidential candidate can out of principle or opportunism use his or her website, in addition to stump speeches and access to journalists, to shine light on judicial wrongdoing and cause an outraged national public to follow his or her bright lead.

[6]  People feel offended by judges who took advantage of their ignorance of the law, inability to afford lawyers, lack of access to the media, and impotence before judges who abused them because they could get away with it. For them, vindicating their position is a driving personal matter. They make for passionate supporters of one who can help them in their quest for justice.

[7]  Official statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and official reports, and statements from justices and judges are presented and their implication analyzed at jur:21§§1-3. Those sections contain the most compelling general evidence of judges’ wrongdoing. For evidence concerning specific justices, see jur:65§§1-4. For the enabling circumstances of wrongdoing, i.e., unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness, see ol:191¶6.

[8]  Judges can be unfair, partial, and dismissive of the rule of law because doing so does not constitute in practice a breach of their oath of office and dereliction of duty that carry adverse consequences; rather, it is merely an option.

Hence, they do wrong individually, and worse yet, engage in wrongdoing coordinated among themselves(jur:86§§4-c) and with other insiders of the judiciary and legal systems. Among the latter are the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, and co-opted them into their party list, and who protect them as ‘their men and women on the bench’.

Coordination renders their wrongdoing more secure, routine, capable of extension into more areas, able to develop the complexity of schemes, e.g., a bankruptcy fraud scheme and concealment of assets(jur:65§§1-3), and thus more profitable.

[9]  Their Code of Conduct enjoins them to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123).

[10]  Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas failed to meet this standard and was led to resign on May 14, 1969, even though he had been nominated to the chief justiceship by Pres. Johnson(jur:92§d).

[11]   Packing the courts due to vacancies is different from what P. Roosevelt tried to do(jur:23fn17a).

[12]  Only a national figure with ample access to journalists can lead an enlightened and outraged(ol: 333§G) national public in successfully exercising its 1^st Amendment right to “assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130¶b) against judges who self-exempt from any responsibility, e.g., by invoking their unconstitutional doctrine of judicial immunity.

[13]  This requires strategic thinking: being perceptive, nimble, and astute to quickly detect even slight developments, such as the above proposals, and react promptly to change one’s plan of action as required to turn those developments into opportunities to advance one’s interests.

[14]  I offer to present also to groups interested in a multidisciplinary academic(jur:128§4) and business(jur:119§1) venture to research the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and expose it to outrage the national public and cause it to assert its status as We the People, the masters of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, where none of their public servants, such as judges, is above the law, so that all are accountable to the People and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. This calls for judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

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

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

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

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your interest in the presentation that I made as a guest on Ms. Lidya Radin’s radio talkshow program Crooked Doctors.

A. The oral presentation in an mp3 file

1. The presentation is contained in an mp3 file, which can be downloaded through these links:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

2. I can also send the file itself through Skype. Search for Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. or DrRCorderoEsq, and after finding me, send me a request for it

B. The written study of judges and their judiciary in a pdf file

3.  I would appreciate it if in close proximity to the presentation links, you would prominently indicate that the research and evidentiary basis for the presentation is my study of the judiciary and its judges, and that it is titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 810 pages and is more than 53 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

C. The outline linking the presentation to the study

4. The outline of the presentation is in the study file at * >ol:350. I encourage you to listen to the presentation as you follow it in its outline.

5. The outline has numerous internal links to sections in the study and articles accompanying it. All of them provide supporting and additional evidence and analysis concerning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

6. All links are active so that by clicking any of one of them the referred-to section in the study and accompanying articles is called up to the screen. This greatly facilitates its review, after which you can click the Previous View tool on the pdf Navigation Toolbar, i.e., the icon consisting in a left-pointing arrow inscribed in a circle. If that tool is not installed, click anywhere in the toolbar and go to More Tools >Page Navigation Toolbar and check Previous View.

7. The outline its worth reading on its own to get an overview of the subject. It is also a guide to my novel series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions identified through strategic thinking to advance such exposure and reform, as opposed to the traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about wrongdoing judges.

8. This highlights the substantive difference between:

a. complaining against a rogue judge, who, if removed, is merely replaced by another one of his or her ilk by the same conniving politicians, whereby the wrongdoing continues essentially undisturbed; and

b. exposing coordinated wrongdoing that has become the institutionalized modus operandi of judiciaries so that an informed public may become so outraged as to pressure politicians to take a stand on such wrongdoing and call for investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts, as well as for nationally televised hearings.

9. The politicians who can be most easily so pressured are those running for election or reelection, who need to appear sensitive and responsive to the public mood. In turn, the ones among them more susceptible to that pressure are those who must stand out in the overcrowded field of presidential candidates.

10. It is such exposure that opens the way to judicial reform. Consequently, it commands most deservedly the joint effort of all advocates of honest judiciaries.

D. Offer to make presentations so We the People may hold our public servant judges accountable

11. I offer to make a presentation, whether in person or at a video conference, to you and your colleagues as a means of so informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing.

12. Therefore, I respectfully request that you network me to other people who can conceivably network me to top officers of any and all presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist:

a. to present to them, and thanks to them to their candidate himself or herself, a strategy for drawing electoral support from the huge(* >ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

E. Your choice and opportunity to become a Champion of Justice

13. You can continue being a lonely victim of wrongdoing judges and keep complaining through ways that judges steer to failure for the worst reason, because they can, thus turning your effort into yet another exercise in futility; or you can join a courageous and visionary group of pioneers as they start to expose them through a series of novel, imaginative, and realistic actions(* >ol:349).

14. Thereby you can help yourself and We the People, the masters in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, assert their status and the right flowing from it to hold all their public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

15. By so doing, you can become nationally recognized by the People as one of their Champions of Justice.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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

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 accounts 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

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

Outline of the Presentation
on how advocates of honest judiciaries can join forces to pursue a series of
concrete, realistic, and feasible actions
identified through strategic thinking
to expose judges’ wrongdoing and
lead to judicial reform
that turn advocates into national Champions of Justice*

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

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

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

A. Pragmatic two-fold objective: help parties and reach out to national public

1. Help parties before same wrongdoing judge join forces and confront them

a. Ever more parties are pro se(jur:28fn35, 38, 64)

b. Organize court strikes to protest coordinated wrongdoing in a court

2. Inform and outrage the national public about judges’ wrongdoing(ol:333§G)

a. Turn the issue into a key one of Election 201

b. Develop a single-issue national movement to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing

c. Tea Party precedent and model for developing single-issue movement

B. Failure to make any progress in holding judges accountable(jur:21§§1-3)

3. Judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3): disregard of the facts and the applicable law

4. Only 8 federal judges impeached & removed in the 226 years since 1789

5. 99.82% of complaints against federal judges are dismissed(jur:10-14)

6. 75% of appeals disposed by summary orders + 11% by perfunctory orders

7. Judges cover for each other: systematic denial of en banc review motions

C. The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing(jur:1§1)

8. Secrecy: adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, disciplinary meetings

9. Unaccountability: abused self-disciplinary system; state within state

10. Coordination: among judges & between them and other insiders

11. Risklessness: all gain, no loss, attraction makes wrongdoing irresistible

D. Traditional, tried & failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:336¶68; 340§B)

12. In-court/judges-judging-judges; in-Congress/appointers-protecting-appointees

E. The need for strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C)

13. Dynamic analysis of harmonious & conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2;ol:52§C)

14. Advancing potential allies’ interests; not asking for their help(jur:xxxix, xliii)

15. Creating and undermining alliances according to their interests(dcc:8¶11)

F. The need to inform and outrage the national public(ol:331§§C, G)

16. Out of court, two step, strategy(ol:135)

17. The nature and ranking of outrageous information(jur:5§3)

G. Natural and potential allies(ol:332§F)

18. Victims of wrongdoing judges

a. parties: easy prey pro ses; those represented by solo-medium law firms

b. not ‘well-connected’ lawyers

c. court and law clerks and judges disgusted with the wrongdoing(jur:100¶b.6)

19. Journalists

a. not a monolithic industry

b. scandal sells

c. fiercely competitive: the Nielsen ratings

20. Politicians

a. of different parties

b. incumbent v. challenger

c. top senator v. first term member of the House(ol:231§3)

d. presidential candidates

H. Concrete, realistic, feasible actions: the three at the core(ol:337§2)

21. Auditing judges(ol:274, 284, 304)

a. Identifying 4 or 5 dissatisfied parties before the same judge

b. Searching for commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing

c. Presenting journalists with patterns of wrongdoing, not one case

d. Court strike by parties and lawyers

1) ‘the Spring the Courts’ campaign on social media

22. Presidential candidates(ol:311)

a. Candidates: need to say something to attract media & public attention

b. Outraged voters compel candidates to take a stand on the issue

c. Networking to top campaign officers, e.g., the chief of staff

d. Presentation on their drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

e. A candidate’s denunciation(jur:98§2) at a press conference or rally of evidence of, and statistics on, judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§1-3)

f. The two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B; ol:138; 321)

1) P. Obama-SCt Justice Sotomayor: concealment of assets (jur:65fn107a,c) and the Follow the money! investigation

2) Federal Judiciary-NSA: electronic transfer of concealed assets between hidden/declared accounts; interception of exposers’ communications(ol:344§§B,C): the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

g. A Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation:

1) Trojan horse-like(ol: 269§1) investigation(ol:194§§1-2) of the two stories leads to enabling coordinated wrongdoing, causing

2) systematic investigation of judges’ wrongdoing, results in

3) pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:2§2) first at federal, then state, level

h. Turn judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of Election 2016(ol:269§2)

i. Nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing

23. Radio and TV talkshow hosts(ol:146, 308)

a. holding a meeting of network officers and talkshow hosts

b. making a presentation at each talkshow

c. each host to hold a weekly show on judges’ wrongdoing, how to audit judges(ol:274) & progress thereof; shows as victims’ rallying point

d. forming coalition that becomes a powerhouse of American politics

I. An effort at presentations(ol:197§G)

24. Journalism schools and associations(Lsch:23; ol:319)

a. not even judges can retaliate simultaneously against all journalists

b. investigator can become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame

c. enhance portfolio for student’s first job or journalist’s promotion

d. conducting team investigation of the two unique national stories

25. Law schools(Lsch:1, 2, 21)

a. glut of unemployed law school students and attorneys(a&p:23§W)

b. create a niche market(ol:257§2) for motions to recuse, and vacate orders of, judges who failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”

c. offer a seminar on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(ddc:1)

26. Business schools(jur:119§a; ol:324)

a. Fraud and Forensic Accounting Investigation

1) Follow the money! from bankruptcy, tenant, probate courts

2) Statistical analysis of judges’ wrongdoing to detect patterns of individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and trends(jur:131§1)

27. Information Technology schools and institutes(ol:42, 60)

a. Conduct Follow the money! & Follow it wirelessly! investigations

1) concealing assets for tax evasion and money laundering

2) abused access to confidential information in sealed case files

b. Develop commercial software to perform statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing of judges’ writings(jur:132§§2-9)

J. Supporting actions(ol:337¶74)

28. Pitching the judges’ wrongdoing study(jur:1)to book publishers(jur:l)

29. Contacting and coalescing bloggers and website owners; and inducing digital news media start-ups and documentarists(ol:313) to investigate

30. Identifying authors of scandal books & private investigators to persuade (jur:21§§1-3) to investigate judges’ wrongdoing(jur:65§§1-3; ol:191§§A,B)

K. Material and moral rewards(ol:3§F)

31. A scoop, Pulitzer Prize, and interviews on news casts and talkshows

32. Bestseller on the two unique national stories & institutionalized wrongdoing

33. Blockbuster movie, e.g., All the President’s Men & President Nixon’s resignation

34. In-house promotion and advancement to a more prestigious company

35. Appearance on the cover of Time magazine as Person of the Year

L. Your choice and what is next

36. Traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:347§A) v.

37. Novel, reasonable strategy for appealing to people’s interest in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform: the agenda(ol:329)

38. A statement of your contribution

a. experience, qualifications, skills, networkable relations

b. commitment to an action and hours per week

c.  money; mass emailing; library research and field investigation

39. Key effort: organizing presentations to colleagues, schools, institutes, etc.

40. Forming a multidisciplinary academic(ol:115; 327) and business venture team of people with professional skills and work ethos(jur:128§4)

41. Building a movement for judicial accountability(ol:201§§J,K)

a. Tea Party-like single-issue the People’s Sunrise movement(jur:164§9)

b. first expose nature, extent, & gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:49§4)

c. then discuss means to detect, punish & prevent exposed wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8)

1) e.g. establishments of citizen boards that publicly receive and investigate complaints against judges and hold them account-able and liable to compensate their victims(jur:158§§6-8)

42. Exposers & advocates recognized as We the People’s Champions of Justice

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

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email accounts 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

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 

or

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:

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

or

http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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

A. Who we are and what we stand for

1. We are a group of advocates of honest judiciaries committed to the single issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform.
2. We welcome to the group all people committed to our single issue and who are prudent and disciplined enough to keep all their other personal and public issues and agendas to themselves.
3. We are non-denominational and non-confessional. We do not involve either any god or religion in this effort.
4. We are apolitical. We neither campaign in favor or against any party or candidate.
5. We are neither indifferent to, nor ignorant of, the key role that politicians play in allowing judges to engage in wrongdoing with impunity and the key role that politicians must be maneuvered into playing to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform.

B.  The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing

6. We recognize that Republicans and Democrats alike have connivingly recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, candidates to judgeships. Thereafter, they have protected judges as “their men and women on the bench”.
7. Politicians have disregarded for decades the annual report under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) that shows how federal judges exonerate themselves from any accountability by systematically dismissing 99.82%* of complaints against them.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:10-14

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8 >jur:10-14

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf >jur:10-14

8. Politicians have also provided judges with wrongdoing-breeding and –concealing secrecy by authorizing them to hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors.
9. These are the enabling circumstances of judges’ wrongdoing: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness. They are the focus of our exposure of judges’ wrongdoing.
10. Legislative efforts to bring about judicial reform are doomed to failure because politicians will not voluntarily act against their own interest by exposing the wrongdoing of those whom they put on the bench. Nor will they divest themselves of the power to keep putting their own men and women on the bench.
11. Politicians will only reluctantly expose judges’ wrongdoing if forced to choose between appearing to come to the defense of a public outraged at judges’ wrongdoing and being voted out of, or not into, office.

C. The need to inform and outrage the national public

12. Only an outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing and undertake judicial reform.
13. The public of New York or Florida are not interested in the wrongdoing of the judges of California or Alaska, and vice versa; this holds true for the public of each state with respect to the other states’ judicial wrongdoing.
14. The national public can only be outraged at the wrongdoing of the judges of the only national jurisdiction, the Federal Judiciary. That jurisdiction is our initial target. Since it is the model for its state counterparts, what happens to it will have a decisive impact on the state judiciaries.

D. The need for advocates with professional skills and attitude

15. Federal judges are the most power public officers in our country since they are the only ones with a life-appointment and power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine people’s lives.
16. Exposing the wrongdoing of powerful federal judges requires that we have professional skills in crafting arguments, devising and implementing strategy, advocating our single issue in public, lobbying, and fundraising.
17. We need professional skills and attitude to cause the public to take us seriously, join our effort, and make the donations that we need to pay for ads, travel, meetings, etc. Our professionalism will earn us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.
18. Neither judges nor the public will take us seriously, much less give us money or volunteer work, if we appear as mere “disgruntled losers in court”; given to whining; using unprofessional, foul language; making claims and accusations that we cannot prove but that can get us tied up in ruinous and time-consuming retaliatory defamation suits; espousing conspiracy theories that will brand us as a bunch of freaks. Unprofessionalism will lose us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.

E. The need for prudence and discipline focused on the single issue

19. Being a victim of judicial wrongdoing does not mean that one automatically has the skills or the attitude necessary to expose the wrongdoing of judges, never mind federal judges. .
20. Being a participant in this group does not turn one’s story of judicial victimization into a factual, accurate, and complete presentation of a case, deserving of the uncritical acceptance by all the other participants, for a party to a case is by definition biased toward his or her story and can only present one side of the story.
21. A competition among us for the title of victim of the most egregious case of judicial wrongdoing is divisive of the group and useless to advance our common issue.
22. We do not discuss our personal, local cases, for they are similar to thousands or even scores of thousands of other state and out-of-state cases and hold no interest but to the person who is a party to it each respectively.

F. More than money, we need powerful allies

23. Money is not indispensable initially to expose judges’ wrongdoing. The Tea Party did not form thanks to receiving grants from any government or private entity. It was organized precisely by people who did not want to give out any more of their money to either the government or anybody else. More important than receiving money is gaining powerful allies and rallying the power of victims of wrongdoing judges.

1. Journalists and politicians as potential powerful allies

24. The most powerful potential allies are journalists and politicians even if they are interested only in their own professional and political advancement and have no interest whatsoever in honest judiciaries. We think and act strategically by applying the principles “he who benefits me by working for himself is my friend” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
25. Journalists are indispensable because they control the means of disseminating our information about judges’ wrongdoing and have enough credibility for their information to be believed and outrage the national public.
26. Politicians are very important because they can use our information to attack their opponents and thereby attract journalistic coverage for our single issue. Presidential candidates are the politicians who can best satisfy both conditions.
27. The expectation of drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems can induce politicians to consider making of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a central issue of their campaign and thereby appear as national Champions of Justice.
28. How to approach presidential candidates by networking with people that can put us in touch with officers of their campaigns, especially with their chiefs of staff, so that we can make a presentation of how they can benefit from tapping that huge voting bloc is described in the article at * >ol:311.
29. Politicians can also score points against their opponents by revealing two unique national cases of wrongdoing judges in connivance with other officers at the top of government. That can induce them to denounce judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or in an interview with a national media outlet and thereby launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.
30. The content of those two unique national cases and the plan for investigating them is described at * >ol:191§§A,B, E.

2. The power of victims of wrongdoing judges can be developed methodically

31. Each advocate can organize victims of wrongdoing judges at the local, court level and continue developing a core of victims through the courts in his or her city, in adjacent cites, and throughout the state. Eventually they can join into a national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
32. Each advocate can identify other victims of the same wrongdoing judge; bring them together to search for that judge’s patterns of wrongdoing; and on the strength of statistically significant pattern-based evidence affecting many people, rather than a personal, subjective, partiality-suspect anecdotic story, move to recuse or disqualify a judge, or persuade journalists that there is a story of judicial wrongdoing worth investigating because it can give journalists what all those who are ambitious want: a career-advancing scoop on widespread wrongdoing coordinated among judges and between them and other insiders.
33. The method for identifying other victims of the same wrongdoing judge and searching for patterns of wrongdoing has been set forth in the article at * >ol:274.

G. The strategy: to inform and outrage the public and place our issue at the center of the presidential campaign

34. The national televised hearings and the investigations conducted by journalists and presidential candidates into the nature, extent, and gravity of wrongdoing should expose judges’ wrongdoing as their and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi.
35. The institutional pervasiveness of wrongdoing in the judiciary and the circumstances enabling wrongdoing between conniving politicians and judges will cause the national public to realize the far-reaching reform necessary to detect, punish, and deter it, and scare politicians away from opposing reform and induce them to opportunistically support it.
36. Only after full exposure of wrongdoing will it make sense for us to advocate in earnest our proposals for reform.
37. Our initial strategy has two steps and for taking them we need journalists and politicians:

a. to inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing; and

b. to outrage the national public to the point where it forces politicians to take a stand in favor of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform or risk being voted out of, or not into, office.

38. The strategy’s intermediate objective is to turn our single issue into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating convention, and the presidential campaign and election; and cause politicians to call for nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform similar to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee.
39. The strategy’s long term objective is judicial reform that includes such measures as the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability empowered to publicly receive and investigate judicial complaints, and hold judges and their judiciaries liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing; and if the constitutional convention petitioned by 34 states is held, a key role in drafting the article on the judiciary.

H. The expected outcome of the video conference

40. We want to hold:

a business conference on the single issue of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy;

b. among people with skills and professional attitude;
c. on a concrete proposal studied by all, consisting of this white paper of common principles and the articles enlarging upon them at ol:190, 274, and 311; and

d. discussed constructively with the aim of agreeing on realistic action that recognizes that time is of the essence: We must not miss the special opportunity that the presidential campaign offers to advance our single issue.

41. The objective of the conference is to start the process of identifying a nucleus of people who can work together harmoniously and cost-effectively as the steering committee of a group dedicated to advancing our single issue with a view to developing a Tea Party-like national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
42. If thanks to our recognition of the imperative need to join forces and our self-discipline to work prudently and in the common interest we succeed, we all can become We the People’s Champions of Justice.
43. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
44. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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

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 accounts 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

Continue reading White paper on common principles for the video conference of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

A. The stages of dealing with a problem such as judges’ wrongdoing

1. In dealing with a problem, there are several stages. In principle, they can be identified as follows:
   a. recognizing a situation as a problem;

b. examining the problem to understand its nature, extent, and gravity;

c. devising a strategy to solve the problem (a proposed solution without a strategy is only wishful thinking);

d. implementing the strategy while ascertaining its effect to modify it as needed to solve the problem;

e. managing the situation resulting from a problem-solving strategy so as to maximize its benefit, prevent the recurrence of the problem, and forestall the emergence of new ones.

B. Judges’ wrongdoing analyzed in a study based on official statistics

2. As far as judicial wrongdoing goes, we have empirical knowledge of the nature, extent, and gravity of the problem. Many of us have experienced it first-hand. Some of us have paid a very high price for trying to expose it. All of us are victims of wrongdoing judges.
3. In addition, there is scholarly knowledge of the problem. It has been analyzed in my study of the judiciary and its judges, titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 780 pages and is more than 52 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

4. I gathered official statistics from the judiciaries themselves and analyzed them. While you are unlikely to read the hundreds of pages of my study, you can read its executive summary at page ol:190.
5. Upon the basis of such factual and self-incriminating foundation, the problem of judge’s wrongdoing can be traced back to four enabling circumstances: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination (among judges and between them and politicians as well as other insiders of the judicial and legal systems, including attorneys), and risklessness.
   
   C. At the stage of finding a solution through the process of strategizing
   
6. We are past the first two stages of identifying and examining the problem. More cases involving, or articles about, judge’s wrongdoing will only amount to cumulative evidence with no additional probative value.
7. We are at the third stage: Devising a solution and strategizing its implementation.
8. Many solutions have been proposed. However, a solution that does not come with a strategy to implement it is only an address in Fairy Land without directions for getting there. Laying down those directions must take into account the obstacles along the path.
9. “The devil is in the detail” applies here: Strategizing can show whether a solution is realistically attainable taking account of the interests and means against and in favor of any change in the current situation.
10. I have proposed two solutions accompanied with the details of their implementing strategy. They are mentioned below and laid out in detail at * >ol:274 and 311.
    
    D. A business-like conference based on a white paper on common principles
    
11. Those proposed solutions can be discussed at a video conference of advocates of honest judiciaries who are willing and ready to transition from talking about the problem to taking concrete, realistic, and feasible action to solve it.
12. This video conference should be conducted business-like. In the professional world, meetings are held based on a white paper distributed in advanced, studied individually with due diligence, and orderly discussed in the group to achieve consensus for joint action that encompasses agreement on division of labor.
13. A meeting that has no concrete proposal as the basis of discussion is doomed to degenerate into a free-for-all, brainstorming session for dishing out half-baked ideas and jockeying for position. It leads to a frustrating waste of time, hurt feelings, and no action. Such fiasco would be the kind of meeting that only wrongdoing judges would applaud.
14. Advocates that make the effort and spend the time preparing for a business-like meeting give each other the first sign that they are serious about taking action and are reliable in their statements of the action that they commit themselves to undertaking.
15. For advocates to take joint action and for it to be effective, they must hold in common some principles that express their unity-building understanding of the problem, of a concrete, realistic solution, and of a feasible strategy to journey together from the former to the latter. The white paper below proposes those common principles.
    
    E. A conference aiming to build a movement for judicial accountability
16. We can prepare ourselves both intellectually and emotionally so well that we come to the conference determined to contribute our most to make it a success:

An inspiring, forward-looking meeting that elicits the best in each other so that we are willing to work hard jointly to turn it into the first of a series that leads to the building of a steering committee of a national movement for judicial accountability and reform. This is a realistic ambition whose precedent and model is the Tea Party. We can join forces and help each other become nationally recognized Champions of Justice.

17. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
18. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

Continue reading Principles for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to hold a video conference on becoming an effective group that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform and gives rise to a national movement for judicial accountability and reform

Messrs. Daniel Lewis, CEO; Nik Reed, CEE;
Adam Pingel, VP of Engineering; and Cory Bray, Director of Sales
Ravel Law
San Francisco, CA

Dear Ravel Law Management Team,

I read with great interest the article “Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age”[1] and reviewed your website[2], which was referred to therein. The article quotes you as saying that you hope to make analytical tools available that will allow “a lawyer to see how a particular judge has responded to certain kinds of motions in the past” and that you and Harvard will “share the entire underlying database with scholars that wish to develop specialized applications”. It also states that the rationale of your partner, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Winow, for opening HLL’s trove to the public is that “Improving access to justice is a priority”.

I am a scholar and my study of judges and their judiciaries is titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting[3].

If the official statistics collected and analyzed there(id. jur:65§§1-3) give you probable cause to believe that regardless of whether lawyers or pro ses^[4] access judicial decisions for free or for a fee judges do not read their briefs,

1. will you continue to be “passionate about delivering ground-breaking new products to the industry”, thus offering a product not fit to attain the intended purpose of enhancing ‘access to justice’ through better researched briefs; or
2. will you use your product in a different way reasonably calculated first to expose judges’ pervasive failure to read briefs and then to lead to profound judicial reform that ensures that access to a law database is added to several new steps(jur:158§§6-8) toward enhancing the chances of ‘accessing justice’?

This alternative confronts you with the choice between being a salesman of an ineffective product and a national Champion of Justice.

Indeed, the federal circuit courts –the model for their state counterparts– dispose of circa 75% of all appeals by reasonless summary orders^66a and up to 16% more by decisions so “perfunctory”⁶⁸ that the judges themselves mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”⁷⁰, thus turning them into arbitrary, secret, and ad hoc fiats of raw judicial power.

They risklessly issue such decisions because their chief circuit^22a judges dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints^18a against them; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b). So in the 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were on the bench on 30sep13¹³– impeached and removed is 8¹⁴!

If judges strained to read every brief and write excellent decisions in every case, they would not be rewarded with a salary increase or promoted by their chief judges, for those decisions are made by politicians and on other grounds.

Having no deterrence from deciding cases without reading their briefs or incentive to read them, judges skip briefs to work less and make decisions to grab material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93).

If you held your job for life with a salary that could not be diminished¹² and power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives, would you too abuse it for your own and your peers’ gain?

I wish to develop judicial decisions auditing. I have worked out several proposals in detail, from:

1. collecting even the unpublished 9 out of 10 decisions and using their analysis in litigation(ol:274); to
2. conducting academic research on them(ol:60, 115);
3. subjecting them to advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis to develop a high end commercial IT product(ol:42; jur:131§b); and on to
4. showing the need(jur:5§3) for judicial reform in the People’s interest in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law'(ol:201§§J-K).

I can make a presentation thereon at a video conference or in person. So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

__________________________________

[1] http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2015/10/harvard-law-library-readies-trove-of.html 

[2] https://www.ravellaw.com/

[3] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

This letter with all its ^footnote and (parenthetical) references as active links to their supporting or additional materials is found in the study at page ol:327. Just click on any such reference to jump to its corresponding material.

[4] In the Federal Judiciary, 52% of all appellants are pro ses; see footnotes ^{35, 38, 64} in the study. That percentage has been trending upward for years and is likely to find a parallel in the percentage of parties that appear pro se at all levels of the federal and state judiciaries because counseled representation has continuously become less affordable.

Moreover, it is highly more realistic to expect the users of your database to be pro ses rather than lawyers because the latter were trained at law school to use Westlaw and LexisNexis and realize the significant advantage of conducting research and writing with the guidance of their editorial enhancements, such as key numbers, headnotes, digests, synopses, encyclopedic overviews, analytical commentaries on points of law, etc. Lawyers can access those commercial databases, not only by a law firm or solo practitioner subscription, but also through their law schools and, on a reciprocity basis between schools, at other schools; court and public libraries; bar associations; etc.

However, at issue here is not which law database is more helpful, but rather whether the use of any database helps lawyers and pro ses in any way whatsoever to ‘force’ judges to read the briefs filed with them and make their decisions based on the statements of facts and legal arguments contained therein.