Proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

Dear Users of the legal and judicial systems,

I would like to submit to you and friends, relatives, and colleagues of yours who have been harmed by wrongdoing members of the legal and judicial systems the proposal below as a means to expose wrongdoing and set in motion a process of legal and judicial reform that takes advantage of the electoral needs of presidential candidates.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest that you and they read the proposal and contact me to discuss ways in which we can work together in behalf of you, us, and We the People.

I offer to make a presentation of this proposal to all of you at a video conference or in person.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Proposal
for Presidential Candidates
to raise the issue of
unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong
in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from
the huge untapped voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

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

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 Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you, as presidential candidate, to raise an issue that can make you stand out in an overcrowded field of presidential candidates and draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc:

a. unaccountable judges who consequently engage in riskless wrongdoing(* >ol:224§A) for their own and their class’s benefit(ol:173¶93); and

b. the consequent dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems; they are among the 100 million parties to the 50 million cases(jur:8fn4,5) filed in the federal and state courts every year, plus the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases as well as cases deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided.

_________________________
* This article is part of the study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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.

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:311). _________________________

A. In practice irremovable, they are Judges Above the Law…and abusers too

In the last 226 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!(jur:21§1). Without fearing for their job or salary(jur:22fn12), judges wield enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives.

If you were in their position, would you abuse your power for your and your colleagues’ benefit?

Judges do so individually and, worse yet, in coordination among themselves(jur:86§§4-c). Hence, the dissatisfied users are so numerous and yearn for a champion.

B. Tapping on the dissatisfied and abused by asking for their complaints

There are no more resentful people than those dissatisfied users who feel abused and betrayed by judges, the very ones duty-bound to administer Equal Justice Under Law. For them, it is personal. They will be the most passionately committed supporters of a presidential candidate who raises the issue of judges’ wrongdoing and credibly promises to do them justice and hold judges accountable(jur:2fn1).

You can tap their voting bloc by asking them to submit to your website for the public to compare and search for patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:274) their complaints on a template(ol:306) or those that they filed with federal chief circuit judges, who dismiss 99.82% of them(jur:10,11; 24§§b-d), and with state judicial performance commissions.

C. Giving the media two stories to ensure the reciprocal reinforcement of your and their covering of your judges’ wrongdoing issue

You can also attract sustained media coverage, especially by journalists in quest of the scoop of a lifetime(jur:4¶¶10-14): At the root of judges’ wrongdoing lies connivance between the president who nominates people to the Judiciary, and the senators –including some candidates– who confirm them, who thereafter protect ‘their men and women on the bench’ by allowing them:

a. to hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors;

b. to keep complaints secret; and

c. never to appear at a press conference to explain their conduct so that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(jur:44fn71).

Secrecy is one of the circumstances enabling wrongdoing(ol:190¶¶1-7) in the Judiciary. The media will keep investigating them, thereby drawing attention to you and helping you stay on the stump with your judges’ wrongdoing issue, if you break two Trojan horse-like unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B):

a. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story was first pursued by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a), which suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets.

b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story will provoke a scandal graver than that caused by E. Snowden’s disclosure of NSA’s illegal surveillance because it points, not to a national security interest, but rather to a crass class interest: Federal judges approve up to 100%(ol:5fn7) of NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance; and the NSA uses its IT expertise and/or infrastructure both to transfer assets between illegal sources(jur:65§§1-3) and money laundering accounts(ol:1,2); and to intercept communications among critics(ol:227§A, ol:19fn2 >ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C) of wrongdoing judges(ggl:1 et seq.).

1. Ensuing question and request to redirect Campaign 2016 and American governance toward public accountability and transparency

Based on these stories and updating a historic devastating question, you can ask one capable of dominating Campaign 2016 and tarnishing presidential opponents as well as the other party and its top officers:

What did the President(jur:77§5),
Sen. Schumer(jur:78§6), and the justices(jur:26fn23b) and judges know(jur:71§4)
about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107a) and
tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and
other judges’(jur:105fn213) coordinated wrongdoing and
when(jur:75§d) did they know it?

You can follow up that question with an embarrassing request for transparency: that they support their denial of wrongdoing or explain their silence by releasing the three FBI vetting reports(jur:102¶231a.4-6) on Justice Sotomayor.

Although judges wield enormous power, they cannot retaliate simultaneously against all journalists and candidates critical of them without revealing their abuse of power to implement their unlawful motive of preserving their status and benefits, their duty to uphold the law notwithstanding.

On the contrary, they are the most vulnerable officers to the public exposure of their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).

Their resulting resignations, even of justices(jur:92§d), and impeachments will open vacancies that will allow the next president to “pack”(jur:23fn17a) the Supreme and lower courts.

D. Offer to present the judges’ wrongdoing issue in your political survival and the public interest

Your survival entails being invited to the next prime time presidential debates and not being demoted to the afternoon ones thanks to your courage in addressing an issue that threatens the wrongdoing powerful as it defends We the People’s birthright to ‘government by the rule of Law that ensures Equal Justice’.

Your courage can be rewarded with donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, particularly by the scores of millions of the untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the legal and judicial systems.

Therefore, I respectfully request you too the opportunity to present to you and your aides at a video conference or in person this proposal for using the judges’ wrongdoing issue as a means to survive in an overcrowded presidential field.

Indeed, the judges’ wrongdoing issue can make of a candidate like you the Champion of the Dissatisfied as well as of all the People who demand a new America of public accountability and transparency.

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

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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

Auditing judges to expose their wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform as a reasonable alternative to flying outside the box of reality to talk about a suit at ICC, under RICO, in a class action, creating an organization, marching before a courthouse, or pursuing a personal local cases

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/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

‘Outside the box of reality’: a suit in the International Criminal Court

The suggestion of a RICO suit against public officers comes from advocates with a box full of only good intentions

A well-meaning advocate lawyer made this statement:

A well-meaning layperson commented on it thus:

The need to think like a lawyer: attention to detail and stepping into the adversary’s head

Pragmatic considerations about a class action: very expensive and risky

Walking in front of a building will not chase away the wrongdoers inside

Advocates interested only in their personal local case cannot be expected to create an organization in the public interest

Thinking and proceeding strategically: auditing judges for patterns of wrongdoing and seizing the opportunity presented by presidential candidates desperate to stand out in an overcrowded field

1. Victims of the same wrongdoing judge joining forces to audit him for patterns of wrongdoing

From auditing a wrongdoing judge common to the parties in a group to developing a civic movement for judicial accountability and reform

Taking advantage of presidential politics to turn presidential candidates into unwitting allies in exposing judges’ wrongdoing

It is time to take action: Plans of concrete, feasible, and realistic action proposed to victims and advocates

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

‘Outside the box of reality’: a suit in the International Criminal Court

Filing a suit in the International Criminal Court is not an ‘outside the box effort’. It is merely an effort outside reality:

The United States is not a signatory to the ICC. Therefore, a judgment of the ICC has no legal validity in a U.S. court. It is unenforceable. Consequently, the effort to seek such a judgment is an exercise in futility.

Moreover, the jurisdictional scope of the ICC is very limited. It only entertains suits concerning genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Those are not crimes with which a reasonable, sober person would even consider charging the wrongdoers inside the courthouses and other federal buildings in front of which some advocates have proposed to walk with banners. By its own terms, the ICC was “established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”; http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx.

The suggestion of a RICO suit against public officers comes from advocates with a box full of only good intentions

It has been suggested that wrongdoing public officers, including judges, could be sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provisions or RICO(jur:111fn249).

NOTE: All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the only national jurisdiction and the models for their state counterparts:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:1)

* 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 740 pages and is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome:

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

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

A well-meaning advocate lawyer made this statement:

Thinking “outside the box” must not mean thinking outside the realm of reality. Nor can it involve a suit against public officers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), which is a highly technical law far beyond the scope of pro ses.

Do you have any idea of the elements of racketeering, not to mention racketeering enterprise, that must be proved to establish the charge? If you do not and your charge is found to be frivolous, the judge can impose sanctions (e.g. under FRCP Rule 11) and uphold the defendants’ request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and even punitive damages. They can ruin you just to teach you a lesson. Think ahead at how things can go badly for you!

Do you have the money to search, find, and analyze the evidence, and argue it against the team of the best and the brightest lawyers to whom public officers have access?

Do you think that the judges who were recommended, endorsed, confirmed, given donations, appointed, and held unaccountable by politicians, who are the ones who can elevate them to a higher court, are going to allow a RICO suit against those politicians and their friends to stand?(ol:158)

A well-meaning layperson commented on it thus:

Would like to suggest that your comments about RICO are a bit off the mark. While it is a complicated “civil procedure” [RICO is a criminal act, found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the title constituting the criminal code of the U.S.; its citation is 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.*; the fact that §1964(c) allows “any person” to sue for treble damages and attorney’s fees does not exempt that person from having to prove all the racketeering elements of the act and caselaw], the matter becomes a horse of a different color when defendants are “public servants” who have commandeered government office to commit crimes against citizens. When ‘government’ is the defendant, in my case, ‘state’ government defendants, there is a “contract” that comes into play — it is the “state constitution”. [The replier misses the point that RICO is a reference to the federal law, not to whatever may be its equivalent under state law.]

For example, the standard of pleading RICO, which is usually governed by Twombly and Iqbal, is replaced by state common law standards, as 28 USC 1652 requires. In our state, by the express language of our state’s Supreme Court, Twombly and Iqbal standards have been rejected. Furthermore, ‘federal rules of civil procedure – such as 12(b)(6)’ are NO LONGER operative as they are customarily applied. [This is statement is at odds with the very nature of federal law, which is national law that applies uniformly throughout the nation, lest ‘equal protection of the law’ be denied; that statement can only mislead other pro ses into disregarding the federal procedural rules.] Here again, state constitutions must be argued because this forms the “contract” between plaintiff and defendant. A court rule procedure “could” and in my case ‘would’ eviscerate a number of our state constitutional provision that specifically address “governments role with respect to the individual and the general government oversight of the people.” This prohibition in using ‘court rules to abridge, modify or to enlarge substantive rights’ is spelled out in 28 USC 2072(b).

These elements in the pleading of RICO when state officials are defendants, have not been fully addressed with respect to the state constitutional provisions and the Code’s noted above. [RICO is federal law; by definition it is not subject to the provisions of state constitutions. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between federal and state law. In addition, the replier is failing to realize that he is unwittingly confirming the attorney’s point: RICO is too technical for pro ses to enforce; and those matter that “have not been fully addressed” only make it more difficult for pro ses to prosecute under it].

Sometimes lawyers are too handicapped by the indoctrination they receive from the very system that produces corrupt lawyers and judges. [A box empty of knowledge of the law always ‘unhandicaps’ pro ses, allowing them to become lighter and float into ‘fantastic’ statements of the law prompted by wishful thinking that only mislead other pro ses.]

The need to think like a lawyer: attention to detail and stepping into the adversary’s head

The lawyer above argued that non-lawyer pro ses do not have the necessary knowledge of the law to prosecute a RICO suit and illustrated his argument with three distinct points.

The layperson below responded with a general comment on how to sue public servants under some mismatch of federal and state law.

The layperson missed the point of the lawyer. This is a most frequent occurrence among well-intended pro ses who improvise themselves as lawyers:

They miss the points, or “elements of the cause of action”, that the law requires to be proved to make a case under the law in question.

They miss the fact that in addition to the code of civil or criminal procedure, there are also the rules of each particular court, which can add requirements and can differ from those general rules in reliance on a code rule authorizing variance by courts and even by “the judge in his discretion”.

They miss the implications of their own points, thus arguing inconsistently:

i) Pro ses accuse judges of being wrongdoers because they abuse their power to disregard the facts and the law of cases before them.

ii) Yet, in self-contradictory fashion, they expect those same judges to be fair and impartial in a suit where the defendants are precisely those public officers who sit in the legislature or in the executive branch and who are the very ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, donated to, the judicial candidates who are now the judges, whose turn it is to protect the defendant officers.

Being a victim of a wrongdoing judge is not a qualification for realistically challenging in court judges and the public officers with whom they connive.

A pro se’s wishful thinking about himself and the law, untrained legal research, and pinpointed legal knowledge riddled by logical gaps provide an inadequate basis for action in court.

Thinking like a lawyer begins with three years of training in law school after four years in college:

That training is necessary to force oneself to pay attention to the numberless, fastidious, and confusing details of the law and its procedural rules.

It also develops the indispensable habit of thinking as the opposing counsel to anticipate her arguments and maneuvers. Lawyering occurs in an adversarial context so that “A good lawyer carries his adversary on her left shoulder…when the lawyer is alone ‘on the right’, she talks crazy” Dealing with that adversary requires strategic thinking. That is shown in the two articles below.

Pragmatic considerations about a class action: very expensive and risky

A class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not only highly technical –read the official comments on it(jur:47§79)– but also extremely expensive and fraught with risk.

A class action is prosecuted on a contingency basis, that is, the lawyers earn money only if they win and the sum that they may win is never certain, much less the sum that the judge may allow them to earn…after covering considerable out-of-pocket costs.

To begin with, class action lawyers have to define the common legal and factual characteristics of the members of the class. Then they must search for all potential members and compose, print and mail a statement to notify them of the purpose of the action; and give them the opportunity and means to opt in or out of the class. All that work can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, depending on the size of the class.

Additionally, the members must be registered, whether they opt in or out; the in-members may have to be mailed several notifications during the course of the action; given access to pleadings and other relevant materials; afforded the opportunity to submit comments, objections, and other papers to determine their eligibility for any recovery and the amount thereof, if any; etc. Consequently, the costs of prosecuting the action add up very quickly for the lawyers.

Moreover, the lawyers must also convince the judge that they are capable of representing the legal interests of the class competently: They have to be certified as the lawyers for the class. If the judge does not certify them as such, whether based on fair or biased considerations, the lawyers are out of the action and out of the money that they have invested up to then.

Only people who indulge in wishful thinking can imagine a judge certifying pro ses as class action lawyers to represent the legal interests of all the members of the class even though pro ses cannot competently represent their own interests.

If you can provide at least $1 million as seed money and find lawyers willing to risk their time, effort, and livelihood suing wrongdoing judges and other public officers in a class action, you can sponsor the filing of such action.

To remain tethered to the ground, keep in mind the lawyers who took their 2,000,000 Walmart employee class action all the way to the Supreme Court only to be told by the justices that the class was improperly constituted by members with too divergent characteristics. The action was dismissed and they had to bear the loss.

Walking in front of a courthouse will not chase away the wrongdoers inside

Neither a few nor many people holding banners, chanting, and walking in circles in front of a courthouse or other federal building are going to achieve anything, for there will always be another group that will also walk for the opposite proposition. Indisputably, there will always be people in favor of, and against, Obamacare, gay marriage, elective abortion, bearing arms, police accountability, appointed guardians, NSA blanket collection of communication metadata, etc.

The public officers who abusively benefit from the system as it stands now are not going to give up those benefits simply because a group of their victims spend a couple of hours walking in front of a building with logos against them and thereafter go home to rest in their couch as they eat another bag of potatoes…and that’s it.

Advocates interested only in their personal local case cannot be expected to create an organization in the public interest

Only a sincere desire for honest judiciaries is not an adequate means to take on judges and their supporting public officers in the legislative and executive branches.

Mr. Andrew Kreig wrote insightfully:

Creating a brand new civic organization can be, as envisioned by the email I received, a very worthy effort. But a great deal of effort (as I’ve seen from leadership or membership in many groups) goes into the bureaucratic tasks of organizing, messaging, fund-raising, etc., with relatively little time and resources actually available to get the message out in effective ways.

There are more problems than just administrative and logistical ones. An organization cannot be set up and expected to function, never mind be effective, with advocates of honest judiciaries who only want to chat or debate ‘fantastic’ points of law against their background of sparse legal knowledge.

Nor can an organization be created by advocates who despite being 100% sincere only want to continue pursuing by rote in court their own personal, local case through the same failed method of suing judges(* >ol:158) and their conniving public officers.

The courts are the turf of judges, who there make rules as they go and disregard those in the books at will without fearing any adverse consequences. It is hardly the place where pro ses can force judges to hold other judges accountable.

What would be the winning record and survivability chances of an organization created to sponsor such suits? Moreover, no organization is needed, as shown in the Two-pronged Approach article(* >ol:248), to prosecute before the highest court of a state a test case requesting on grounds of due process and equal protection of the law that judges be officially and publicly supervised and held accountable and liable to compensate their victims. In the same vein, examine the template for properly arguing before an intermediate appellate court and, if need be, preserve the necessary issues to obtain leave to appeal to the highest state court(ol:244).

By the same token, it is wishful thinking for an individual victim or advocate to expect a lawyer to drop whatever he is doing to help her against the wrongdoing judge in her personal, local case and do so in another state and pro bono. That is outside the box of reason and reality.

Creating an organization in the public interest of exposing wrongdoing judges and advocating judicial reform can only be realistically envisaged after a group of victims and advocates have demonstrated by their sustained action that they are willing to contribute effort, time, and money to advancing the public interest rather than just their personal, local case.

By contrast, with people committed to advancing that public interest and who are able to think and proceed strategically(infra §F), even the termination of millennial impossibles(jur:xlv§§G,H) can be achieved.

With such people, I have proposed creating an organization: an institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5). It is part of my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(supra ¶5 NOTE).

Thinking and proceeding strategically: auditing judges for patterns of wrongdoing and seizing the opportunity presented by presidential candidates desperate to stand out in an overcrowded field

Victims of the same wrongdoing judge joining forces to audit him for patterns of wrongdoing

A sincere advocate of honest judiciaries can advance her own interest in her personal local case by thinking and proceeding strategically(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C): She can identify other parties that have appeared or are appearing before the same wrongdoing judge as in her case so that together they can audit his decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing running through their cases.

Such patterns can provide a group of similarly situated parties verifiable, solid evidence that can replace each individual party’s mere allegations of wrongdoing by the judge in his or her personal case. The audit of their common judge can show that his wrongdoing is widespread, routine, and coordinated. That can provide persuasive evidence for the disqualification of that judge or the vacancy of his orders and decisions and the remand of their cases to other judges or the reopening of their cases.

The method for identifying such other parties and detecting the judge’s pattern of wrongdoing is described in the Auditing Judges article below(also at * >ol:274).

From auditing a wrongdoing judge common to a group of parties to developing a civic movement for judicial accountability and reform

To audit their respective wrongdoing judge, their victims need not create an organization. They only need to join forces in a group to detect and expose their common judge’s patterns of wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, the victims’ successful effort to audit that judge can motivate them to broaden the scope of their initial interest from only prosecuting their personal local case to sharing their experience with other victims to help them audit their respective common judge in the same court. Progressively, they may join forces to help others in other courts in the same city audit their respective judge; and later on reach out to victims in the courts of other cities, and subsequently in other states.

That is how a civic movement for exposing wrongdoing judges and advocating judicial reform that holds them accountable and even liable to compensate their victims(* >jur:158§§6-8) can develop. The precedent for such unimaginable, unintended, and eventually unstoppable development is found in the people who had had enough of being taxed and little by little formed the single-issue, now national, and politically unavoidable Tea Party.

Thinking and proceeding ‘outside the box’ need not be done in a world of fantasy. It can be done strategically on the firm ground of precedent and sound reasoning.

Taking advantage of presidential politics to turn presidential candidates into unwitting allies in exposing judges’ wrongdoing

The judge-auditing groups can bring to light verifiable evidence of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing that can outrage the public. Only an outraged national(* >ol:191§§A,B) public can generate the political pressure necessary to force politicians to take a supportive stand, albeit opportunistic, on the issue and even call for official investigations of judicial wrongdoing by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts.

Indeed, this is the most propitious juncture to join forces to audit judges as proposed: There is a presidential election campaign underway and it has an overcrowded pack of candidates: 21 and counting! We can take advantage of each candidate’s need to stand out of the pack.

The candidates can realize from the depth and breadth of the public outrage at judges’ wrongdoing that those dissatisfied with the legal system, particularly the victims of wrongdoing judges, constitute a huge (see the Business Proposal below; also at * >ol:273¶4) untapped voting bloc in search of a political leader. That bloc grew larger after the Supreme Court’s decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage.

This justifies the application of two principles of strategic thinking and proceeding: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, applied by victims and advocates; and ‘He who needs my help is my friend’, applied by candidates.

Candidates who voice that bloc’s complaints and call for the investigation of judicial wrongdoing can become its leader. Thereby they can earn free publicity from the media covering Election 2016, mount in the polls, and attract donations, volunteers to their campaigns, and invaluable word of mouth support. They can become the unwitting allies of the victims of wrongdoing judges and of all other advocates of honest judiciaries.

That can generate a business opportunity(Business Proposal; ol:271) and lead to a multidisciplinary business and academic venture(jur:97§1), which can be the precursor to the creation of the proposed for-profit institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(¶31).

It is time to take action: Plans of concrete, feasible, and realistic action proposed to victims and advocates

Therefore, to victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries who actually want to undertake an ‘outside the box effort’, I respectfully propose novel plans of action in the following two articles.

The action is concrete, feasible, and realistic. The plans are based on a strategy reasonably calculated to move forward our common cause of holding judges and conniving public officers accountable for their wrongdoing and even liable to compensate those whom they have wronged:

Recognizing the futility of suing judges in court, where judges will hold their defendant colleagues, peers, and friends harmless, an out-of-court strategy aims to inform the public about judges’ patterns of widespread, routine, and coordinated wrongdoing and to so outrage the public as to stir it up to force politicians when they are most vulnerable, while they are campaigning and desperately trying to survive politically, to investigate judges officially and hold them accountable and liable to their victims.

Hence, if you realize the importance of informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing, you can:

follow the steps in the Auditing Judges article below to identify other parties before the same wrongdoing judge that has victimized you; and join forces with them to detect instances of wrongdoing in your cases that form patterns of wrongdoing;

use the resulting verifiable pattern evidence and/or the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing contained in my study(* >jur:21§§A-B) to interest journalists and campaigning politicians in further investigating and exposing judges’ wrongdoing; meantime, share and post the article as widely as possible to induce many other victims and advocates to do likewise; and

network your way together with the other parties and through your and their colleagues and friends who have acquaintances who know people in any of the presidential campaigns, to put me in touch with their chiefs of staff so that I may offer to make a presentation, either at a video conference or in person, on how it is in the interest of their respective presidential candidate to stand out of the pack by voicing the complaints and thus becoming the leader of the huge untapped voting bloc (see the Business Proposal below) of dissatisfied users of the legal system, particularly the victims of wrongdoing judges.

The implementation of those plans calls for victims and advocates who are willing to pursue their cases reasonably and contribute their realistically assessed experience, skills, and knowledge to advancing the public interest; competent lawyers; and other professionals as well as students, especially those in law, journalism, business, and Information Technology(jur:128§4).

If we manage to join forces and think and proceed strategically, we can become nationally recognized by a grateful nation as We the People’s 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/

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

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

How you can contribute to appealing to the national public to inform it about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing by bringing to the attention of presidential candidates the huge untapped voting bloc of victims of wrongdoing judges, and helping litigants to audit the judges in their cases for evidence of patterns of wrongdoing, which can support a test case before the highest state court for holding judges accountable and liable to compensate their victims

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/

A. Dealing constructively with proposers of marginal ideas to propose that they join in reaching out to the national public and in its interest

I am not associated in any way whatsoever with people who spouse ideas that bar associations are the source of the legal problems in our country and that they are owned and controlled by foreign entities. Nor do I share the opinion of those who support conspiracy theories or the application of medieval and thus, foreign documents to solving our current legal and constitutional problems.
Their ideas and opinion can only appeal to tiny minorities of the public. Disproving them is a negative, destructive effort. It does not create conditions necessary to achieve my objective.
Far from it, I try to appeal to the national public. My objective is to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform. My strategy to attain it is to inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing and outrage the public at it(* >ol:236).

_________________________
* This article is part of the study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

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

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:292). _________________________

Only an outraged national public can bring to bear the condemnatory sentiment and demand for accountability that can generate the menacing pressure, eventually exerted with the greatest effect at the polls, to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to even if only reluctantly, unwittingly, and opportunistically:
a. expose wrongdoing judges and call for official investigations of judicial wrongdoing by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts; and

b. reform the judiciaries to ensure that they administer Equal Justice Under Law because its judges, as public servants, are held by the public accountable for applying the rule of law and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8).
It is with those who can reasonably be expected to support that objective that I associate, namely, the dissatisfied with the judiciaries, especially the victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries. I try to persuade them to adopt and implement that strategy in their own and the national public interest.
Consequently, I invest my efforts, time, and money in the positive, constructive endeavor of proposing reasonably calculated actions for advocates and victims to inform the national public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing, and bring about judicial reform(e.g., ol:244, 274, 231).
However, I treat politely and with professionalism everybody. With those who do not conduct themselves in a respectful way or diminish themselves by using foul language, I do not deal at all. I do not feel any compulsion to retort or have the last word. I move on.

1. A counter-proposal to welcome the largest number of contributors
To deal with well-meaning people who propose to me ideas that only appeal to tiny minorities, I make a counter-proposal: Join the effort to implement the inform and outrage strategy(ol:219).
We need the contribution of the largest number of people to the cause of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. So I invite everybody to join in advancing that cause even if they hold incompatible ideas among themselves. Eventually, if the judiciary is reformed, they will on their own appeal to honest judges to resolve their controversies.
It follows that do not take a position on any issue other than judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. That is part of strategic thinking and of strict intellectual and emotional discipline. All are welcome who support the single objective of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.
Accordingly, I respectfully encourage you to shift the totality of your acumen and efforts away from disproving ideas that you do not support and into accepting and contributing to the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy to attain that objective.

B. Reaching out to the national public through presidential candidates
Right now your greatest contribution would be to network your way, through people who know people who know people, to the chief of staff of any of the presidential candidates to afford me the opportunity to make a presentation to the candidate, the chief, and their aides, on this:
a. How it is in a presidential candidate’s electoral interest to voice the complaints and support the demands for compensation of all those dissatisfied with the judicial system, especially the victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, because they form a huge untapped voting bloc(below and at ol:274¶4).
The candidate may become their standard-bearer and draw support from them in the nature of donations, volunteer work for the campaign, word of mouth endorsements, and votes in the primaries. That can make the difference between having to drop out of the race very soon and staying on it all the way to the nominating convention, through it, and winning on Election Day 2016.

1. Helping to make the case to presidential candidates by helping parties audit their wrongdoing judges

You can contribute to strengthening the presentation to presidential candidates by helping parties to lawsuits gather evidence of patterns of wrongdoing through the auditing of the rulings and decisions of the judges who have victimized them. To that end, you can help those parties implement the proposals in the Auditing Judges article(below and at * >ol:274)
Thereby you can simultaneously contribute to finding invaluable evidence in support of the test case that I have requested leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals on grounds of denial of due process and equal protection of the law by judges’ holding themselves unaccountable and not liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(infra, excerpt).
In the process, you can find guidance on what to look for in the evidence already gathered in my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(jur:21§A). That evidence finds concrete expression in two unique national stories that can attract national attention: the President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor story and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(ol:191§§A,B).

B. Retaliation will target mostly journalists and presidential candidates, rather than those organizing the presentation to them

There is justified concern about retaliation from judges and the politicians who put them on the bench. However, you can operate in the background, concentrating on networking to chiefs of staff of presidential candidates. I can make the presentation to them on how they can promote their own candidacy by exposing judicial wrongdoing and calling for official investigations of it.
Judicial wrongdoing can be exposed to the public by the candidates and their chiefs of staff together with their researchers of incriminating information on their opponents, and the journalists and pundits covering Election 2016. Since they will be the ones who will ‘let the cat of judicial wrongdoing out of the bag’ to run to the national public, they will become the target of retaliators.
In any event, by then it could be too late and risky for judges to retaliate. While judges, in general, and federal judges, in particular, are the most powerful officers in our country(ol:267§4), they are the most vulnerable to public criticism because their own Code of Conduct requires that they not only avoid impropriety, but also “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).
Judges’ abuse of judicial power to retaliate against exposers of judges’ wrongdoing is without doubt an impropriety. A much lesser impropriety forced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
You will hardly be of any interest to judges and politicians as the target of their retaliation. What is more, neither you nor your name need come to light as a result of your networking to a presidential candidate. But your contribution can be decisive in advancing our common cause.
It follows that the concern about retaliators breaking up the group by weighing down on individual members is not quite justified. The retaliators will accomplish absolutely nothing by going after any of us when they have to concentrate on their defense from the expository attacks by those with far more offensive power than us, that is, presidential candidates, journalists, and if they are successful, the authorities investigating them.
Nevertheless, here applies the axiom: There is no glory without sacrifice. If it were easy and riskless to expose wrongdoing judges, anybody would have already done it(jur:21§a). All the great socio-political achievements of mankind go to the credit of people willing to make sacrifices to expose abusers in power in order to bring about a more just society. Thanks to them, millennial impossibles(jur:xlv§§G,H) have become part the everyday reality that we take for granted…and enjoy every second of our lives.

D. New business can be the reward for the organizers of the presentation and supporters of the test case

In brief, you can take the concrete, realistic, and feasible actions of networking to the presidential candidates and the journalists covering them; and helping parties to audit their judges in search of pattern evidence of their wrongdoing.
By so doing, you can contribution to the ultimate objective of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform as well as to the intermediate objective of preparing the test case to the New York State Court of Appeals or the highest court of your state.
If you do so, there is something of significant material and moral value for you(ol:3§F): You may pioneer the news and publishing business field of judicial unaccountability reporting; and establish yourself in your state or in the nation as a consultant to, and representative of, victims of judicial wrongdoing seeking to have their cases revisited or be compensated for the harm that wrongdoing judges and their judiciaries caused them(below and at ol:271).
I hope that you will determine to become an advocate of honest judiciaries who is focused on being a positive, constructive force that courageously, imaginatively, and resourcefully drives forward our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

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/

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

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

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

A Strategic Thinking Analysis of The Idea Of Suing A Bar Association For Its Alleged Corruptive Influence Over the Courts and The Realistic Alternative of Auditing Attorneys and Judges In Search of Patterns of Malpractice or Wrongdoing

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/

The idea of suing a bar association may very well betray lack of strategic thinking and of knowledge of relevant facts.(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C). This is particularly the case when the bar association is charged with exerting a corruptive influence over the courts that leads judges to engage in wrongdoing detrimental to parties before them so that such parties, especially the pro ses among them, become victims of wrongdoing judges.

A similar analysis was made in a previous article(ol:284) that dealt with the idea that wrongdoing judges can be exposed by filing a suit in the International Criminal Court, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO), through a class action, by creating an organization or marching before a courthouse to denounce those judges, or by pursuing a personal local case where the trial judge is charged with wrongdoing.

The analysis of those ideas and of that of suing a bar association applies the same key analytical tool, namely, dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11; dcc:17¶1). This analysis looks for those who share an interest with others in doing the act in question, and those who have an interest in preventing others from doing it; and whether the former, with harmonious interests, or the latter, with conflicting interests, are likely to be stronger and prevail.

All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)

* 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 750 pages and is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:

Google Chrome:

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

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

Judges and their relation to bar associations

Judges were regular attorneys before becoming judges. They are likely to have been and still be members of bar associations. They may even have been officers of such associations.

Aside from other judges, most of their friends and colleagues are lawyers, who are members of bar associations.

Lawyers represent by far the largest number of contributors to the campaigns, and voters in the elections, of lawyers who run in state judicial elections and judges who run for reelection.

Lawyers and their bar associations are the principal evaluators of the competency of judges. Their evaluations are a key factor considered by politicians in nominating a judge for, or appointing him or her to, another term or a higher court.

In fact, the endorsement of a bar association is an important source of support for a lawyer who wants to run in a judicial race and for a judge who is pulling strings to be elevated to a higher court.

If after the expiration of his term or the loss of a judicial race a state judge wants to be hired by a law firm, the bigger and more prestigious the better, the judge needs to be in good stead with the legal community.

It follows from these circumstances that a state judge, who unlike his federal counterparts does not have life-tenure, has an interest in having lawyers on his side rather than holding a grudge against him and aiming at his back.

1. Pressure on the judge presiding over a suit against a bar association

After a suit is filed against a bar association, the presiding judge is likely to be presented with his IOUs held by the defendant association and lawyers with a close relation to it as well as all other bar associations. None of the latter will want to sit back and see an unfavorable precedent be established that can open the door to subsequent suits against any and all of them.

The judge will preside over the suit in such a way as to preserve his access to big and prestigious law firms after his judgeship is over, and to collect some IOUs from them that he may cash in when looking for a job again.

Why would a rational judge, thinking like a homo economicus rather than a man of integrity, risk his relation with the bar and his future prospect of landing a posh job for the sake of a one-off case among the thousands that he will deal with during his judgeship?

The above considerations are not enough to support a motion to recuse the presiding judge. They are equally applicable to all the other judges of his court, so they cannot be used to disqualify the court as a whole.

How much integrity must a prospective plaintiff ascertain in each of the judges of the competent court to be confident that whomever of them happens to be assigned to the suit against a bar association will preside over the trial fairly and impartially?

A suit against a bar association raises the suspicion that the judge will have a bias in favor of the defendant. Moreover, the association comes into court with its own specter: Bringing a suit against a bar association is a daunting undertaking because the association will have access to staff its defense team with the best and the brightest lawyers in town

Under those circumstances, who wants to spend the enormous amount of effort, money, and time required to sue a bar association? Hardly a prudent and successful lawyer will want to take on such a formidable defendant, let alone do so on a contingency basis.

Bringing a suit against a state bar association in a federal district court, where judges have a life-appointment, lessens the problem of judicial bias toward the defendant. However, it presents other substantial problems:

On what grounds will plaintiff argue that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit?

Trying to sue a national bar association only aggravates such problems: On what grounds will plaintiff assert personal jurisdiction over it to force it to come to the state court to defend itself or be subject to a default judgement enforceable across state lines under the full faith and credit clause?

Pro ses suing a bar association complete the trifecta of an exercise in futility

If the idea of suing a bar association popped up in the mind of a pro se and pro ses are the ones who will prosecute the case, then it figures: It is not that they are not thinking strategically; it is that they are either not thinking through their idea or not thinking at all. They simply had a knee jerk idea.

Just because pro ses can file a case in court does not mean that their naiveté, resentment and foolhardiness turn them into the equivalent of a knowledgeable, dispassionate, and prudent team of plaintiff lawyers. Much less do they become automatically the match for the team of top lawyers defending the bar association.

And then the pro ses must face the judge. The attitude of federal judges toward pro ses may very well represent that of state judges: In the Federal Judiciary, a case filed by a pro se is expressly(jur:43¶81) weighed for statistical purposes as a third of a case, whereas a capital punishment case is weighed like ten cases, that is, a 30 times weightier case. That means that a pro se case, regardless of its nature, is considered to deserve only one third of the attention and resources accorded to a run of the mill case represented by a lawyer, which is weighed as one case regardless of the merits of the represented case or the experience and competency of the lawyer.

As a result, when a federal judge sees a brief or a motion written by a pro se, she gives it the perfunctory attention that the official weighing of the case makes her feel justified in give it. The weighing works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because as the case came in for filing it was considered worth not even half of a case, the judge will do, not justice to it, but rather a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.

A pro se may decide not to file a suit against a bar association in a state court to avoid a judge biased by her interest in protecting the defendant and thereby herself. So the pro se files the suit in federal court where he finds a judge biased against him because the judge has no interest in dealing with the substandard briefs and motions that her Judiciary expects a pro se to write and argue. The pro se can pick state cyanide or federal arsenic.

A pro se plaintiff, as a self-improvised attorney that remains ignorant of the law and how to plead it, going against both a formidable foe, such as a bar of attorneys is, and a judge biased toward it and against him, that makes a suit against a bar association the trifecta for an exercise in futility.

Understanding the difficulties of suing a bar association with a realistic chance of success is like understanding anything else: The devil is in the detail. On the futility of suing judges, see ol:158.

A reasonably calculated alternative: auditing wrongdoing judges and malpracticing attorneys in search of patterns of wrongdoing or malpractice evidence

The article below( and at * >ol:274) offers a reasonable and more affordable alternative to suing a bar association. It can be applied to audit both judges and lawyers.

If a lawyer has dealt with a client irresponsibly and/or incompetently, it is possible that she has dealt likewise with other clients. To find those other clients, one can search her name in the databases of Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis as well as of the courts in which she may have practiced, beginning with those near where she lives. This should return all the cases in which she has appeared as the attorney of record.

Thereafter one can find the contact information of the clients as set forth in the article below. One can ask them whether they are satisfied with her representation of their legal interests. With all those who are not, one can join forces to search for commonalities that reveal patterns of the attorney’s malpractice or even wrongdoing.

That search will not be conducted with a class action in view because it is unlikely that there will be so many clients, not to mention dissatisfied ones, of the malpracticing attorney as to warrant a class action.

Rather, it can conceivably lead to a joinder of similarly situated parties who share the cost of suing the malpracticing attorney common to all of them and strengthen their case with strong evidence of patterns of malpractice or wrongdoing.

Auditing a lawyer is a more promising alternative than either one single client venturing alone into court with only her allegations against her former attorney or several pro ses cobbling together a case against a bar association in an effort to expose how they have allegedly corrupted courts and enabled unaccountable judges to engage in wrongdoing with no risk of liability to their victims.

On exposing wrongdoing judges through auditing, see below. On thinking strategically to:

audit judges in support of a test case grounded on due process and equal protection of the law to be appealed to the highest state court to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, see ol:296; and

turn into a business for lawyers and journalists the exposure of wrongdoing judges, see ol:271.

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/

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

NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

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

BLACK ROBED PREDATORS A Proposal for a documentary on two unique cases of wrongdoing at the top of government that expose how federal judges have become unaccountable in connivance with the other two branches and consequently, engage risklessly in coordinated wrongdoing by disregarding their duty, due process, and the rule of law to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty

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@cantab.net

RicCordero@verizon.net

CorderoRic@yahoo.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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

Federal judges’ wrongdoing has been shown through the analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements[*>ⁱⁱ] in the study of the Federal Judiciary –whose procedural and evidentiary rules are followed by its state counterparts, for which it is the model– titled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(*>jur:1) The analysis highlights their means, motive, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3) for judges’ wrongdoing.

*NOTE: See my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, titled:

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

http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8E3D78595FC3EBB8!156&authkey=!AMV7fOyVzLPJU6g&ithint=file%2cpdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx26luEuzfjgc1hiZXctZjdLQlE/edit?usp=sharing

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

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:

Google Chrome:

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

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

In the downloaded file, the blue text represents active cross-referential links that facilitate jumping to the corresponding references to check them..

If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let Dr. Cordero know by emailing him at Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net.

This article proposes its presentation in a documentary. It will emphasize its most outrageous and corruptive enabling circumstance: coordination(88§§a-c) among judges and between them and other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems[¹⁶⁹], politicians(77§§5-6), and government entities(ol:19§D).

It will show that wrongdoing(jur:133§4) is not the deviant conduct of individual rogue judges, but rather collective conduct that is coordinated to ensure that doing wrong is safer, easier, and more beneficial. That encourages further wrongdoing.

So does a judge who keeps quiet about his peer’s wrongdoing, becoming accessory after the fact concerning it and before the fact concerning all future wrongdoing encouraged by the expectation of his silence. Such implicit coordination corrupts the judge and his peers, putting them ‘in the same boat’ of mutually dependent survival due to complicity: The judge is their accomplice before and after the fact and the peers are wrongdoing principals.

Coordination has allowed judges to develop the most harmful form of wrongdoing, i.e., schemes, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[^{107ac, 213}], and a docket clearing scheme(43§1). Coordination has made wrongdoing so widespread and routine that it is the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190).

The documentary’ financial viability: its market is huge

Every year 50 million new cases are filed in the state and federal courts[^4,5]. To them must be added scores of millions of pending cases. Given that every case involves at least two opposing parties, at least 100 million persons and entities go and are brought to court annually.

In fact, many more do so because a party can be composed of more than one person or entity; it can even be composed of a class of hundreds of thousands of persons similarly situated.

To the parties must be added all those persons and entities that are more or less directly affected by their litigation. These include friends, relatives, employees, buyers, suppliers, investors, creditors, debtors, shareholders, landlords, tenants, even the store on the corner, who may see its business diminished because a party and others affected by it can no longer afford to patronize its store, etc.

Two unique national stories to expose judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and provoke action-stirring outrage in the public during the long electoral season

All those persons and entities actually form the national public. The documentary can make that public aware of how it is affected by judges who abuse their power to make self-beneficial decisions that with disregard for due process of law dispose of litigants’ and non-litigants’ rights, property, liberty, and lives. Thus, it can provoke in the public action-stirring outrage(83§§2-3).

That is what two unique national stories(ol:55) can provoke. They can also expose top Democrat and Republican politicians[^17a; jur:22¶31) who in their own interest and to the people’s detriment have allowed judges’ wrongdoing(5§3) to fester. These are the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story –she was his first nominee to the Supreme Court– and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story.

A realistic plan of investigation(ol:66) based on numerous leads and reliable evidence[^107a-c; jur:65§B) is available to pursue these stories through a Follow the money! investigation(ol:1) and a Follow it wirelessly! investigation(ol:19§D), respectively.

Such focused objective and advanced starting station facilitate the documentary’s production and reduce its cost and production lag.

A documentary that provides the dominant issue of the electoral season

The documentary can be produced in time to , and even provide the dominant issue of, the electoral season comprising the mid-term, primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns. It can do so to a greater extent than Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which earned over $200 million.

A documentary with apolitical, general public appeal

A documentary on judges’ wrongdoing will appeal to the national public regardless of any political affiliation or lack thereof, and independently of any or no intention to vote in any election.

Insatiable public demand for information about judges’ wrongdoing

Rather than exhaust its subject, the documentary will open the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. It will cause the public to demand to be informed about:

judges’ motive, means, and opportunity to do wrong(21§§1-3);

explicit and implicit coordinated wrongdoing among judges and with others(88§§a-c); and

the extent, nature, and gravity of judges’ past and ongoing unaccountability and wrongdoing, e.g., “demeanor, abuse of power, bias, conflict of interest, bribery, incompetence”(10,11).

Meeting a low standard can cause high-level resignations & impeachments

To be effective, the documentary only has to show that judges have violated the injunction in their own Code of Conduct “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[^123a]. Their “appearance” of lack of respect for legal and ethical provisions in their own conduct will detract from the required trust in their having respected them enough to apply them fairly and impartially to other people’s conduct.

This is reasonable and precedented: Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties, though they did not even amount to misdemeanors(92§d).

Thus, the documentary can cause a flood of motions to vacate judgments and hold new trials of cases argued to, or tried before, judges who appear to have committed improprieties. This flood and the chaos into which it will throw the Federal Judiciary –eventually having the same effect on the state judiciaries– will work as free advertisement for the documentary.

Launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges

The above developments will prompt ever more journalists and media outlets to jump on the investigative bandwagon of judges’ wrongdoing in coordination with other parties, lest their audience go elsewhere to satisfy their demand for news thereon.

Thereby the documentary will launch the first-ever, Watergate-like(4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary. Such ever-expanding investigation will provide a constant reminder of the documentary as its starting point and continuing point of reference.

The journalists’ investigation can be guided by a query that already(id.) proved to be devastating and that can be adapted as follows; and by a related query that finds its foundation in current events:

The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

What did the President know

about his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, being involved in both concealing assets –which The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) suspected her of doing, and which is done to commit the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– and abusing the Federal Judiciary’s and/or the NSA’s computer network –see story ii. infra–; but did the President cover it up and lie to the American 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 if so,

when did he know it?

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

To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(`)– 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 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crime(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(ol:1), and to cover up the judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crime(ol:5a.fn13)– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them; and if so, since when?(ol:69§C)

(See the statistical analysis supporting probable cause to believe that there has been communications interference(ol:19§Dfn2.))

The investigation guided by this query can generate distrust of top public officers and make improprieties –even criminal conduct[^{ol:7, 10}]– appear that lead to their resignation or impeachment.

Public demand for official investigations by the authorities

The intensifying outrage will stir up the public to demand official investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and an independent prosecutor. Their more intrusive powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and contempt orders, indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea bargain, hold public hearings, etc., will allow them to make findings that will further outrage the public.

From an outraged public that demands reform to a civic movement

The stream of outrageous findings during the electoral season will stir up the public to demand that both incumbents commence and candidates pledge to undertake fundamental judicial reform(158§§6-7). This can turn judges’ wrongdoing into an issue that shapes or even dominates the campaigns because it concerns the practical meaning and safeguard of a tenet of our republic:

We the People, the only source of political power in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[¹⁷²], are the masters who have hired public officers as servants, including judicial servants, to perform services in the People’s behalf.

We are entitled to subject them to ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:29) to obtain the information needed to dispel the secrecy(27§e) of their performance in order to hold them accountable and liable to the victims of their wrongdoing(160§8).

A documentary intent on causing the People to assert in practice this tenet can prompt the emergence of a civic movement(164§9) that demands a new We the People-government paradigm: the People’s Sunrise.

By empowering the People to reestablish themselves as the masters of government, the documentary will be endowed with unequaled moral force and inspire a sense of mission: To implement the principle that ‘in government, not of men, but by the rule of law’[^ol:6], Nobody is Above the Law, and ensure that judges and politicians are committed to delivering Equal Justice Under Law.

An outraged public can force politicians to amend the Constitution

The documentary can show how the three branches of government have connived to participate in, or tolerate, judges’ trampling underfoot the rule of law to squeeze out for expediency and their benefit the strictures of due process and dish out its residue: the lees of justice.

Nothing can outrage the national public as a showing thereof. No force can more strongly push for such convention than an outraged national public. Hence, provoking such outrage can constitute the necessary means to convince the public of the need for a constitutional convention and the content of the amendments.

The national public has the unique power to punish politicians who are insensitive to its mood and demands by withholding donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, and issuing the threat of defeat at the polls. The precedent for such popular conduct is the Tea Party, a civic movement that forces politicians to support it or risk having their careers terminated.

However, before a constitutional convention is convened on the strength of the 34 states that have called for it[^270>Ln:309], there must be exposed how those who claim the preeminent right to interpret the Constitution, federal judges, have become unaccountable in connivance with politicians and consequently, engage risklessly in self-beneficial coordinated wrongdoing by disregarding their duty, due process, and the rule of law to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty.

Such exposure will make it possible to determine the full extent of the constitutional amendments needed to ensure that judges perform(Lsch:10¶6) transparently and are held accountable, disciplinable, and liable to compensate their victims by We the People.(jur:158§§6-8)

Joining forces to produce the documentary and become Champions of Justice

Thus, I encourage you, the Reader, and all other advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces to produce this documentary. By exposing judges’ wrongdoing in coordination with politicians and others, it can play a key role in the coming electoral season, lead to government reform, and earn us any of many material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), such as becoming recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

You may share and post this article widely. Meantime, 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 >ol: 244; 240.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

RicCordero@verizon.net

Corderoric@yahoo.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email 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

Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

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

Making a documentary on the proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

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

Exposing abuses in the judicial system, not only in family court
1. I applaud your decision to widen the scope of your advocacy of honest judiciaries from family court to the judicial system as a whole. By so doing, you have widened the potential audience of your documentaries from a relative small one –parents with children in custody litigation- to everybody that has or has had anything to do directly and indirectly with the courts:a. The dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems are among the 100 million parties to the 50 million cases(jur:8fn4(jur:8fn,5)) filed in the federal and state courts every year, plus the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases as well as cases deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided. To them must be added their relatives, employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, etc., all of whom suffer indirectly the abuse that litigants suffer directly in court.
The twofold aim of your production company is justified by the facts. However, when you title your feature documentary The Monstrous Maze — Inside Family Court, you are drastically reducing your audience in practice.

Money! the most insidious corruptor and where it is found in the judiciary

The parties to close to one million new cases filed in the federal bankruptcy courts every year will not be attracted by your documentary. The amount in controversy only in the personal, as opposed to the commercial, bankruptcies is mind-boggling: hundreds of billions of dollars -$373 billion in 2010(jur:27§2)-.
The immense majority of bankrupts appear pro se precisely because they do not have money and cannot afford a lawyer. Consequently, they are easy prey of judges, bankruptcy trustees, auctioneers, accountants, warehousers, evaluators, etc., all of whom work as members of a wrongdoing, exploitative system(jur:xxxv).
The same holds true for surrogate/probate courts and their settlement of estates and appointment of guardians of incompetent adults. Wards of the court that are old and have accumulated money throughout their lives are the target of unscrupulous judges, clerks, guardians, accountants, etc.
Cases involving mergers and acquisitions, the launch of an initial public offer of shares, product liability suits, contract disputes between big companies, especially those involving the financing of large projects, inheritance among heirs to rich people, etc., call into play the most insidious corruptor of public officers: Money!

Money is not at stake in child custody battles in family court

Nowhere near that amount of money is at stake in family court, even taking into account the divorce of rich people where money can play a corruptive role in the partition of assets.
Adults with children are likely to be young people who are starting out in life and have little money to be stolen. Parents enmeshed in custody battles have kids and debts. The fixing of child support amounts is unlikely to be the source of corruption of judges and of all the people who are necessary, and who take a cut, for a parent to reach a judge.
How do parents and spouses corrupt public officers other than with the venom of their anger at each other, their mutual bitter recriminations, and the horrifying spectacle of love turned to corrosive hatred, the devastating impact on their children notwithstanding? What they corrupt is their moral standards.
If there is corruption in family court, it is not of the worst kind, namely, that motivated by money that can be used to bribe judges and other people and thus, to spread corruption. Consequently, a documentary on family courts is left begging for a motive for judges to do wrong.

Without the motive of money, what is left is the means without malice of abuse of power

Without being able to show the corruptive workings of money, a documentarist is unable to prove one of the three fundamental elements of a criminal charge: motive. The opportunity is obvious: the cases. Only the means is left to explore. The means for judges’ wrongdoing is judicial power of decision-making. Power is a potent corruptor too. In family court, the problem may spring from abuse of power. Judges would have to be shown to abuse their power because they go on an ego trip driven by the potent self-worth enhancer of all they can do and get away with.
But if that is what a documentarist will try to show, a key element necessary to elicit a condemnatory reaction in his audience toward judges will be missing: malice in the form of abuse of power to grab an unlawful benefit, such as money.

Abuse of discretionary power is very difficult to prove and very different from corruption

Worse yet, in a great number of cases, the alleged abuse of power falls within the discretionary bounds of judges’ adjudicatory function: What is in the best interest of the child may be assessed differently by the parents, who are too emotionally involved in the case, and by the judge and Children Protective Services officers, who are not so involved. The latter two have a wide margin for decision-making necessary to protect children in cases that are likely to be sui generis because each case has particular elements that distinguish it from all others.
Hence, it is very difficult to show in a documentary that there has been abuse of discretionary power. For instance, impugning a judge’s discretionary decision not to hold a plenary hearing in a case is extremely difficult. The effort will probably be unconvincing, especially if the complaint comes from a pro se who has little knowledge of the law, never mind of the standards for its application set by precedent, and the functioning of the courts.
And where is a documentarist going to find successful family court lawyers willing to stand in front of his camera to accuse of abuse of power family court judges before whom they have appeared and will continue to appear? Their doing so could amount to their signing their professional death warrant.

Logistics or budgetary cuts as the cause of alleged abuse of power

The state of New York has reduced so drastically the budget and the personnel of courts that it is very likely that there are not enough resources to do what should be done in its courts, such as holding plenary hearings in a timely fashion.
I know from experience that decisions concerning my practice had been taken by the judge but there was nobody to take them to the county clerk’s office in the same building to enter them there officially. When I complained to the director of the court’s records office, he asked me to come to the office and look for those decisions myself. I went there…and there were hundreds and hundreds of decisions waiting to be entered!…and so many empty desks in his office because many of the officers had been let go.
A serious documentarist aims to portray the situation in the courts in a fair and impartial manner so that his work is not dismissed as the emotional cry of protest of a biased party to litigation with a grudge against a judge. To that end, he must disclose the deleterious impact of budgetary cuts on judicial performance. That can reduce the situation complained about to a mere consequence of an underfunded court system in a state running short of money. That is not corruption at all.

Some ways of showing suspicious conduct that raises “the appearance of impropriety” and forces the resignation from the bench

Compare showing the consequences of judicial personnel shortage with suspecting a judge of concealing assets, as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) did Then-Judge Sotomayor, the first justiceship nominee of President Obama, now a justice of the Supreme Court. Imagine the pregnant questions that would be prompted after analyzing the documents about her financial affairs(jur:65fn107b) submitted by herself to the Senate Committee on Judicial Nominations and finding that more than $3.6 million is unaccounted for(jur:65fn107c).
How can it be explained that the annual mandatory financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) submitted by federal judges to peers(jur:105fn213a) on the Judicial Conference(jur:54fn91a) committee that handles those reports may show not variation year after year(jur:102§2)?
In the case of a judge who must run in judicial elections the focus of the investigation need not be a lifestyle or amount of assets inconsistent with her salary, which is a matter of public record. Rather, the focus may be how she afforded her election. What has the judge made possible her large donors to receive in exchange for their financing her campaign: undue information filed in court under seal; favorable decisions contrary to evidence and legal principles; commercial contracts through which kickbacks are transferred?
See the exposé in the New York newspaper Newsday, The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; by Reporters Sandra Peddie and Will Van Sant, and Editor Deborah Henley, sandra.peddie@newsday.com, will.vansant@newsday.com; editor@newsday.com; Saturday, 4oct14; http://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/. See also my proposals to them(ol:176, 214).
The above are example of how a documentarist and journalists can show that a judge or judges have failed to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). Nothing has to be proved to make that showing; the applicable standard is that of the opinion formed by a reasonable and unbiased person informed of the facts. But the consequences can be grave: even a justice of the Supreme Court can be forced to resign, as was Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine showed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d).

Using the easier to handle term “wrongdoing” rather than “corruption”

Corruption cannot be demonstrated through a court transcript. If one believes that it can, there is a problem with what one understands to be corruption, which involves bribery; using confidential information filed under seal for self-benefit; resolving a conflict of interests in one’s own interest; and similar acts punishable by law. Corruption involves criminal activity.
If a judge engages in a corrupt practice in open court where it can be recorded by the court reporter, he or she would rather be blatantly incompetent. Moreover, a judge can prevail upon a court reporter, lest the latter be fired without recourse(jur:31§a), to have her transcript cleansed of any passage “demonstrating” corruption.
Because corruption is such a technical term and a charge of corruption requires to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a more appropriate term to expose judges and bring about judicial reform is wrongdoing.
Wrongdoing is a negative term wider(jur:86§§a-c) than corruption and much easier to show; yet it can faster attain the main objective of removing wrongdoing judges from the bench. Proving a judge’s corruption by suing her in court(ol:158), where the judge will be judged by her peers, colleagues, and friends; and trying to impeach a judge in Congress(jur:21§a), where she will be judged by those who recommended, endorsed, and confirmed her, are protracted, cumbersome, and seldom effective methods of removing a judge from office.
Abuse of discretionary power, even the disregard of the law and the facts, is not corruption. It falls within the scope of wrongdoing.
A competent documentarist can show judicial wrongdoing. But how is he going to reach the widest audience possible?

The advertisers with the farthest reach: presidential candidates covered by a host of journalists

Making a documentary that is reasonably calculated to appeal to the public at large, never mind the national public, is only the first hurdle. Thereafter the documentarist needs to distribute and advertise it widely.
Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on President Bush and his alleged connection to 9/11 and Laura Poitras’ Citizen Four on Edward Snowden and his leak of NSA secret documents dealt with subjects that had captured national attention either as a national tragedy or a scandal. Consequently, their documentaries received free advertisement on the national newscasts for months, which not even money could have bought. If Moore and Poitras had had to pay to advertise their documentaries, it is hardly conceivable that they would have been as successful as they were. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the largest grossing documentary up to its time.

Taking advantage of presidential candidates and their coverage by journalists

Analyzing the above considerations through strategic thinking results in this:
Presidential candidates covered by journalists offer the most cost-efficient avenue for bringing to the national public a documentary on the issue of judges’ wrongdoing.
What presidential candidates stand to gain from exposing judges’ wrongdoing is this in brief: Proceeding opportunistically in a very crowded field of 22 candidates and counting –V.P. Joe Biden and even Former V.P. Al Gore may enter the race-, they can stand out of the pack, attract journalistic coverage, and draw support from the huge(¶2 above) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems, especially victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries(ol:311).
Moreover, particularly the governor and non-politician candidates can use the exposure to attack the opponents who at any time were members of the Senate, which confirms judges nominated by the president, bears responsibility for their oversight, and has in connivance(jur:23fn17a) with them disregarded the evidence of their wrongdoing(jur:26fn23a).
It follows that the emphasis of the strategy to reach the national public is on federal, not state, judges. Indeed, New Yorkers could not care less what California judges do and vice versa; the same can be said about the people of any one state concerning the judges of any other state.
Federal judges are the only ones who have national jurisdiction. The exposure of their participation in, or condonation of, wrongdoing in connivance with top politicians will provoke national outrage, especially during a presidential campaign. That reaction will translate into a higher demand for related and updating news, and consequently intense competition among media outlets for a greater share of that audience. The prospect of a scoop deserving of a Pulitzer prize will motivate journalists to jump on the investigative bandwagon(ol:250).
That chain of events will embolden journalists to investigate state judges and expose those engaged in wrongdoing. Upon demand and spontaneously, victims of wrongdoing state judges will share their complaints with those journalists and demand that also those judges be exposed.
This is a plan born of strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C), which also gives rise to the following strategic considerations.

Approaching each presidential candidate with an offer to make a documentary on him or her exposing federal wrongdoing judges through two unique national stories

The next Republican presidential debate will be held in only a few weeks’ time. It can sound the death knell for a candidate to be relegated again to the afternoon session or for one who participated in the prime time session of the first debate to be demoted to it.
Therefore, if they are to be enticed by the idea of exposing federal judges as a means of attracting journalistic and national public attention and attacking their opponents, they must be approached as soon as possible.
The proposal for them to expose wrongdoing judges will not be to tell them to go out and investigate federal justices, judges, and magistrates -2,217 were in office on September 30, 2013(jur:22fn13)- to see if they find some committing wrongdoing.
Rather, it is by directing their attention to the information already available on the two pinpointed unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:190§§A,B).
I trust you realize that a documentary on exposing wrongdoing New York lawyers cannot compete in journalistic national newsworthiness or presidential politics importance with those two unique national stories.

Networking to presidential candidates through The Independent newspaper

The way of approaching the presidential candidates, or more realistically, their press department and through it their chief of staff is through The Independent –assuming you meant the New York office of The Independent newspaper of England-.
Journalists and news editors of The Independent are likely to know directly or indirectly people in the candidates’ press department with whom to arrange a presentation by us to the respective candidate, chief of staff, and aides of the proposal for a documentary:
Why and how the candidate undertook investigating those two stories until he or she became convinced that they were legitimate and raised issues of national importance concerning the integrity of judicial process and of connivance between politicians and judges; and the steps that the candidate took that led to his or her breaking the stories at a press conference and subsequently including them as a key feature in his or her stump speech.
Therefore, I propose that at your earliest convenience we meet with your contacts in The Independent to discuss this strategy. You may share with them this email in advance or print it in its article version at ol:313.
In preparation thereof, I respectfully suggest that you read the presentation article at ol:190 and the letter addressed to presidential candidates at ol:311 and as many of its references as possible.

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/

How advocates of honest judiciaries can network, particularly with politicians

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol: 231

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

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

Networking for reform to meet the need for avowed and unwitting allies
Networking is essential to the work of advocates of honest judiciaries of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. We need to network in order to win over allies and people that will advance our objectives even if they do so only in the interest of advancing their own. The applicable principle of strategic thinking(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; jur:xliv¶C) is “The friend of my friend is my friend” (see also “The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ol:197¶¶37,38).

The networking target may have objectives that are ‘friendly’ to –that is, harmonious with(* >ol:52§C, Lsch:14§2; dcc:8¶11)– our own objectives of exposing judges wrongdoing and advocating reform (see also the analysis of conflicting interests, id.). Hence, we, advocates of honest judiciaries, want to treat them as our friends and give them the information that we have gathered so that they can use it to advance those ‘friendly’ objectives of theirs. That is particularly the case of politicians and journalists.

* Note: All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of institutionalized wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and its coordination among its judges titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)

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

http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:

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

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

The evidence and opportunity that we offer politicians
It is true that politicians are the very ones who recommended, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and who now protect “their men and women on the bench” by holding them unaccountable(ol:190¶¶1-7). However, now that the presidential election campaign dominates national politics, politicians’ first priority is to obtain donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, and straw poll votes. Worrying about judges can only be a secondary consideration.

The untapped voting bloc of victims of wrongdoing judges
We want to make politicians aware that there is a vast untapped bloc of voters out there: victims of wrongdoing judges among the 100 million parties to the 50 million new cases filed in the state and federal courts annually(jur:8fn4,5). Those figures do not begin to count the victims among the parties to pending cases and cases decided wrongfully by judges doing wrong in their own and their peers’ and cronies’ interest. Those victims are waiting for a champion to fight for them.

This opens an opportunity for politicians, who during the presidential election campaign need to appear sensitive to the public’s mood and demands. That mood is outrage at judges’ wrongdoing. The demand is for politicians to investigate judges officially and hold nationally televised hearings where they take testimony from the public and question judges under oath.

To Republican politicians in their races against Democrats
To Republicans, you offer evidence that they can use to expose how Democratic politicians, in general, and President Obama, in particular, lied to the American people in their own personal and political interest about the honesty of Then-Judge Sotomayor when they recommended, nominated, and confirmed her to become a Supreme Court justice(next; ol:191§§A,E).

To Democratic politicians fighting for their Senate leadership
To Democratic politicians, you offer the same evidence but highlight how it can be useful for their fight for their leadership in the Senate now that Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he will not run for reelection and has indicated his desire that Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from NY, be his successor.

Sen. Schumer was one of the key recommenders of Then-Judge Sotomayor to become President Obama’s first justiceship nominee as replacement of Retiring J. Souter. Together with his protégée and junior senator from NY, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, he shepherded Nominee Sotomayor through the Senate confirmation process(jur:78§6).

All the senators and other people who do not want Senator Schumer as the next Democratic leader in the Senate and those senators who want that job for themselves or for their friends can use the information of how Sen. Schumer knew that The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) had suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets; and how the FBI vetting report on her contained compromising information about her integrity that would have derailed her confirmation if published(jur:65fn107c).

Assets are concealed to evade taxes, launder money with dirty origin, and exclude them from marital and inheritance distribution.

Yet, he as well as the President and Sen. Gillibrand disregarded that information, vouched for Nominee Sotomayor’s integrity, and worked to confirm her as a justice of the Supreme Court. Thereby they all saddled this country for the next 30 years or so that she may serve on the highest court of the land with a dishonest and hypocritical person who forces the law upon others while she breaks it in her own interest and that of her peers(jur:65§§1-3).

How many other justices and judges engage in the same, similar, and other types of wrongdoing under the cover that they provide each other? Thus, the further(ol:194§E) investigation of J. Sotomayor is a Trojan horse into wrongdoing among federal judges that is so routine, widespread, and coordinated as to be the institutionalized modus operandi of them and the Federal Judiciary.

Advocates can bring to the attention of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, the P. Obama-J. Sotomayor query(ol:191§A) for further investigation by law enforcement authorities and congressional committees(ol:201§J; cf. the Federal Judiciary-NSA query, ol:192§B).

Journalists to pursue a story that can dominate the election campaign

The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor query(ol:191§A) can also guide journalists in their investigation of a unique national story (as can the Federal Judiciary-NSA query, ol:192§B). Networking with journalists is indispensable for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating reform(ol:199¶43).

What advocates can offer journalists is a story with the potential to make them a national name and advance their careers(ol:199§1): They can become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein(jur:4¶¶10-14). Thanks to their highly professional investigation of the Watergate scandal, they contributed significantly to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. Since then they are icons of investigative journalism.

Woodward and Bernstein were played in the blockbuster movie All the President’s Men by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. By whom would journalists like to be played today if they were instrumental in exposing judges’ wrongdoing that caused the resignation of Justice Sotomayor and other federal justices and judges? There is precedent for it: the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d).

Nothing will energize the further investigation of wrongdoing by both federal and state judges as the resignation of a Supreme Court justice who failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(ol:196§6). That is the fairly low standard that can easily be met for the investigation to have far-reaching consequences. That is why advocates want to set in motion a Watergate-like generalized and first-ever media investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(ol:200§I).

The requirements of networking effectively
Networking takes more than just sending yet another email, which may not even be opened because it is bobbing up and down in the incessant flow of junk emails that inundate our email boxes every day. That is an inefficient, trust-to-luck way of networking (as opposed to implementing the inform and outrage strategy: informing the national public by mass emailing it of judges’ wrongdoing and so outraging it at them as to stir it up to force politicians to investigate them(ol:219§B)).

Politicians do not even accept an email that one tries to send them through their website if one cannot state that one resides in their jurisdictional territory.

Knowledge is Power: learning the facts is the foundation of networking
Networking begins well before networking advocates contact the networking target. The first step is learning the facts so that advocates can identify the ‘friendly’ or harmonious interests that they and the target have. Knowing those interests is the foundation for thinking strategically (ol:197§1). That is the process through which advocates determine with whom they can network and on what grounds.

Once they knows the facts about the target, they need to understand the circumstances surrounding(ol:196§F) him or her so as to detect opportunities and obstacles.

With that knowledge, advocates can craft the strategy(ol:193§D) to present to the target on how both can advance their respective interests with mutually beneficial effects(ol:199§2). That includes a plan for taking concrete, realistic, and feasible action on the information presented.

Knowledge also allows advocates to handle effectively the target’s counter-arguments. That is another way for them to show the target that they know what they are talking about and should be taken seriously.

Thus, before advocates begin networking, it is crucial that they learn how judges’ wrongdoing manifest itself(ol:190¶¶1-7), its deteriorating impact on their moral fiber(jur: 50§b), and the injury in fact that it causes other people(jur:42§6). To that end, advocates can read the article(ol:190) that summarizes this study(jur:1) of judges’ wrongdoing and its(references).

For instance, not all wrongdoing judges actively do wrong as principals. They also do wrong as accessories after the fact by even keeping silent about the principals’ wrongdoing, thus failing their duty(ol:160§B) to denounce it to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and judicial process. By condoning their past wrongdoing, they encourage both principals to do more wrong and others to begin doing wrong, whereby they become accessories before the fact(jur:88§§a-c).

Those who want to effectively network cannot avoid doing their homework…because Knowledge is Power.

Contacting the network target in a professional way

If advocates do not know their target, they should first send him or her a professionally crafted letter that offers something of value –the opposite of begging for help-, with facts, sound reasoning, plenty of common sense, superior grammar, no typos, correct punctuation, adequate layout, etc.(e.g., to journalists: ol:176, 185, 186, 215, 223; to politicians: jur:ii; to others: ol:197¶¶39,41)

Advocates may print any of the articles herein and attach it to their letter(ol:146, 185, 219, 224).

The most effective way for advocates to network with friends or acquaintances is in person. If they cannot meet them, they should phone them to discuss the networking grounds and what each stands to gain from jointly advancing their respective interests(networking topics, ol:198§b).

If you successfully practice networking for judicial exposure and reform, then as people make up their minds during the long presidential race who and what will advance their and our country’s interest in honest judiciaries, they may nationally recognize you as one of We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§K; on Dr. Cordero’s offer to make presentations, ol:225§D).

I look forward to hearing from you. Meantime, kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.

I encourage you to share and post this email widely.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

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/

NOTE: When emailing Dr. Cordero, place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses (for evidence of interference with his emails see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ggl:1 et seq.).

Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

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

Month: September 2015

Proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

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

Proposal
for Presidential Candidates
to raise the issue of
unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong
in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from
the huge untapped voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

Like this:

Auditing judges to expose their wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform as a reasonable alternative to flying outside the box of reality to talk about a suit at ICC, under RICO, in a class action, creating an organization, marching before a courthouse, or pursuing a personal local cases

Like this:

Like this:

A Strategic Thinking Analysis of The Idea Of Suing A Bar Association For Its Alleged Corruptive Influence Over the Courts and The Realistic Alternative of Auditing Attorneys and Judges In Search of Patterns of Malpractice or Wrongdoing

Like this:

Like this:

Making a documentary on the proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

Like this:

How advocates of honest judiciaries can network, particularly with politicians

Like this:

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

Proposal for Presidential Candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from the huge untapped voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Proposal
for Presidential Candidates
to raise the issue of
unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong
in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from
the huge untapped voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems