A proposal to extend Reuters’s investigation of state judges, which found “hardwired judicial corruption”, to federal judges, who have institutionalized their abuse of power as their modus operandi, running the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise

Their exposure can so outrage a public intolerant of abuse of power that the public forces the issue into the 2020 campaign, leading to transformative change in the administration of justice and the current form of government

By

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

The link to this file is: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

Reporters Michael Berens and John Shiffman,
and editor Blake Morrison
Reuters, michael.berens@thomsonreuters.com, john.shiffman@thomsonreuters.com, blake.morrison@thomsonreuters.com, tips@thomsonreuters.com, editors@veteranstoday.com, “Veterans Today Managing Editor Jim W. Dean” <jimwdean@aol.com>, “VT Senior Editor Gordon Duff” <gpduf@aol.com>, Andrea.Januta@thomsonreuters.com, Caroline.Monahan@thomsonreuters.com, Corinne.Perkins@thomsonreuters.com, Isabella.Jibilian@thomsonreuters.com, Troy.Dunkley@thomsonreuters.com, Pete.Hausler@thomsonreuters.com,
and
all other reporters, editors, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

Dear Messrs. Morrison, Shiffman, and Berens, reporters, editors, and Advocates,

I read with interest your investigative report “The Teflon Robe”, published by Reuters on June 30, 2020, which “exposes hardwired judicial corruption” whereby “[t]housands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench” even though they “have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench…sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct”.

In fact, your “findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system”. Despite judicial conduct review commissions, “state and local judges have repeatedly escaped public accountability for misdeeds that have victimized thousands…the system tends to err on the side of protecting the rights and reputations of judges while overlooking the impact courtroom wrongdoing has on those most affected by it”.

Commissions may take years to start investigating a judge; have “special rules for judges” because “[m]ost states afford judges accused of misconduct a gentle kind of justice” while other “rules can leave lawyers and litigants fearing retaliation” so that they “intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint”; drop a complaint after having “raised questions about whether proper procedures had been followed”; and allow judges to ‘return to the bench virtually unscathed’, while ‘victims of judicial misconduct are left uncompensated’, ‘“really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about”’.

No charge sticks to judges. Their Teflon robes cloaks them in impunity…while the public is exposed to misconduct by the complained-against judge and all the other members of the judicial system. Judges are unaccountable. The public is at their mercy and their victims are uncompensated. And state judges are not the only ones to wear Teflon robes.

A. Proposal for a joint investigation of federal judges and its justification

1. This is a proposal for a joint investigation extending yours of state judges to federal judges, the only ones with national jurisdiction so that their decisions and orders are apt to affect and even harm everybody in our country. Hence, the audience for its findings is the national public.

2. The target of the investigation is not misconduct that can be explained away as limited to individual rogue judges, whose removal and punishment would suffice to deal with the problem.

3. Rather, the investigative target is forms of abuse of power so pervasive and necessarily coordinated among federal judges as to constitute their modus operandi: It is abuse so interwoven with their way of doing business that it has been institutionalized in the Federal Judiciary. Their motive is grabbing illegal gain and convenience. Given that their abuse is so organized and influences all aspects of their activity, federal judges run the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise.

a. In fact, no lesser a politician than Senator Elizabeth Warren dare denounce in her “I have a plan for the Judiciary too” the systematic failure of federal judges to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold shares in the company of one of the parties before them and resolving the ensuing conflict of interests by favoring that party so as to maintain or increase the value of their shares. Sen. Warren has identified the circumstance enabling federal judges to commit such abuse to be their unaccountability. She has named it abusive self-enrichment.

b. Federal judges’ self-enrichment by abusing their power necessarily entails the crimes of:

1)  concealment of assets

2)  tax evasion

3)  money laundering

4)  fraud on the parties through intentional frustration of judicial process predicated on fairness and impartiality

5)  breach of contract for judicial services entered into with no intention to perform it and thus, in bad faith

6)  breach of their oath and of public trust causing injury in fact.

c. Federal judges have the means of committing those crimes:

1) The Federal Judiciary has a nationwide computer network run by expert personnel. It maintains a database that stores hundreds of millions of briefs, records, motions, applications, letters, decisions, orders, etc., and carries out electronic filings, retrievals, docket entries, daily schedule updating, database searches, etc.

2) It has leverage over the intelligence agencies, which run more extensive and sophisticated networks and whose secret requests for secret orders authorizing secret surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be approved by its judges.

d. Would you and the rest of the public trust federal judges to care about administering to you “Equal Justice Under Law” although they have no qualms about breaking the law to ensure their abusive self-enrichment? ‘He who can do the more can do the lesser.’

4. The exposure of federal judges’ institutionalized abuse will have a substantial financial and journalistic impact. “Scandal sells”, and it can sell for years. Thus, it can render the investigation more cost-effective. Also, it can lead to a permanent increase in a media outlet’s audience and reputation.

5. Moreover, the exposure can provoke such public outrage as to insert the issue of judges’ abuse into the presidential campaign. By journalism having such impact, it can set in motion transformative change in both the administration of justice and the rest of government, as discussed below.

6. The proposed joint investigation of federal judges is based on an investigative plan with many leads that allow for it to be focused and cost-effective(infra 1132§F; *>jur:194§E); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_institutionalized_judges_abuse_power.pdf.

B. Proposal for the publication of one or a series of my articles

7. An investigation takes time and Election Day is fast approaching. The nominating conventions offer a national digital or physical venue where to force some politicians to address in their own defense the issue of judges’ abuse of power or to enable others to address it voluntarily to position themselves as leaders of those who demand that such abuse be detected, punished, and prevented and that the victims be compensated.

8. Since time is of the essence and to take advantage of the conventions, I propose that you publish upon payment to me one or a series of my articles exposing institutionalized abuse of power in the Federal Judiciary. They are written and available through the links hereunder for you to review.

9. The foundation of the proposed articles as well as of the proposed joint investigation is my two-volume professional study* of judges and their judiciaries. Its originality lies on its pioneering analysis of the courts’ official statistics and reports annually submitted by law to Congress, whose politicians have a vested interest in disregarding them, the detriment to the public notwithstanding. The study is titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting
*

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

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

i. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

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

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

10. Those statistics show that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.Code §§351-364, (the Act) entrusts federal judges with the exclusive authority to self-discipline. This means that any complaint against a federal judge must be filed, not with any alleged ‘independent’ judicial conduct review commission, but rather with the respective chief circuit judge, whose decision is reviewable only by his or her peers and colleagues in the circuit’s judicial council. All of them have abused their authority year after year by dismissing 100% of complaints and denying 100% of petitions to review those dismissals. They have turned their robes of Teflon into the wings of birds of prey to fly high above their bench and perch themselves as Judges Above the Law well above the people in the courtroom and everywhere outside it(*>jur:10-14; >OL2:548, 748); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_complaint_dismissal_statistics.pdf

11. Other forms of judges’ abuse of power provide the subject for proposed articles, hereunder reduced to blurbs(more details at >OL2:1097§G; and with articles downloadable through their respective links); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judicial_abuse_forms.pdf

a. How unaccountability corrupts and institutionalizes abuse of power(*>jur:49§4; OL:265)

b. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s denunciation of judges’ abusive self-enrichment(>OL2:1003); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-media_DARE.pdf

c. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme(*>jur:9; >OL2:614); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_how_fraud_scheme_works.pdf

d. How Covid has ushered in a new legal market(>OL2:1066); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_adapting_to_new_legal_market.pdf

e. How Covid-caused bankruptcies will allow judges to take advantage of, and aggravate people’s financial and emotional distress(>OL2:984); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Thomson_Reuters.pdf

f. “The math of abuse” demonstrates judges’ failure to read most briefs, each of which costs a party $Ks and even $10Ks to produce and becomes a compensable waste(>OL2:760); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_do_not_read.pdf

g. The sham hearings in the Federal Judiciary and Congress on judicial accountability, involving judges/politicians’ connivance and their fraud on witnesses and the public(>OL2:1056); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-reporters_clerks.pdf

h. The Chief Justice’s presiding over Trump’s removal trial with disregard for “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” can on grounds of equal protection of the law and privileged communications be invoked by anybody as precedent for refusing discovery(>OL2:1040); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-parties_invoking_impeachment_trial.pdf

i. The abuse of power committed or tolerated by Supreme Court justices provides the grounds for petitioning President Trump to authorize the release of the FBI vetting reports on them (>OL2:1095§D). The petition will open avenues of investigation, not to mention any report released; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_abuse_by_justices.pdf

j. Judges’ interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics This is the form of abuse likely to outrage the People the most because it affects directly the largest number of persons and deprives them of their most cherished rights, to wit, those guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of “freedom of speech, the press, and to assemble [on the Internet or by letter] to petition the government [of which judges constitute the 3rd branch] for a redress of grievances”(OL2:1081, 781); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_intercepting_emails_mail.pdf

j. Other proposed articles are listed at >OL2:719 and suggested by the program of activities(OL2:978§E) for a multidisciplinary team(*>jur:128§4) to expose judges’ abuse of power.

C. Proposal for universities and the media to hold unprecedented citizen hearings

12. I also propose the holding of unprecedented citizen hearings(>OL2:1053§E; 1078§F). They are to be: https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_citizen_hearings-Professors.pdf

a. conducted jointly by journalists, professors, and other experts rather than the politicians who have connivingly elevated their judicial candidates to judgeships and justiceships and since then protect ‘our men and women on the bench’ despite the harm that they cause parties, the rest of the public, and the integrity of judicial process;

b. held at universities and media outlets;

c. intended for people to testify to the abuse by judges that they have suffered or witnessed;

d. broadcast nationwide through interactive multimedia so that witnesses and the public can participate inexpensively and in the largest number wherever they are; and

e. summited at the first-ever and nationwide conference on judges’ abuse of power, where the findings will be presented. The conference, which can be organized by university students (*>dcc:11, 31), can lead to events that bring about transformative change(>OL2:1069§E) in the administration of justice and the rest of government here and abroad:

1)  the grassroots formation of a constitutional convention, such as the one called by 34 states since April 2, 2014, thus satisfying Article V of the Constitution, but that the leaders in Congress have no intention of ever convening, lest they lose their position of power and privilege. In fact, the convention can run away from the given agenda as did the one called in 1787 only to amend the Articles of Confederation, but which ended up tearing them up and drafting the current Constitution of 1789. The convention can end up reasserting the People’s status as the sovereign source of all political power and the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, whom the People are entitled to hold accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse(*>jur:158§§6-8);

2)  the formation of local chapters -similar to those backyard groups of people fed up with high taxes, who became more structured in chapters, and coalesced into the national Tea Party, which in less than 10 years came to be unified enough to dominate presidential politics- where parties will collectively demand from courts and their judges the refund of court filing fees for services not rendered; compensation for wasteful briefs required but not read; punitive damages; etc.(>OL2:1074§C); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf

3) the organization of pro se litigants, who constitute more than 50% of the parties to appeals to the federal circuit courts of appeals(>OL2:455§B). Their cases are officially weighted as a third of a case regardless of the nature of the subject matter and the gravity of the conduct of the parties or its consequences. As a result, judges are both authorized and expected not to waste on a pro se case more than one third of the effort, time, and resources that they do on a case where both parties are represented by attorneys. While pro ses are not alerted to the fact the they will be given a third rate day in court, they are required to pay the full amount of court filing fees and produce expensive briefs(>OL2:781§A). The conference will provide a propitious venue for pro ses to join forces with public defender and civil rights entities; lawyers who volunteer hours every month to work with indigent parties; law school law clinics run by professors and students; and law firms that take cases pro bono(*>OL:131 and next article infra).

4) the drawing of the attention of talkshow hosts to their interest in forming the Coalition of Talkshow Hosts for Justice, intended to become the loudspeaker for victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, thereby turning the Coalition into a national TV-network-like political powerhouse. The conference can facilitate the hosts’ meeting in person or through video conference, thus boosting such formation; https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Talkshow_hosts_coalition.pdf

5)  a MeToo!-like worldwide movement can be launched that terminates the millennial impossible of holding judges accountable by eliminating their immunity as representatives of their appointers, “the king[, who] can do no wrong”, and subjecting them to the current reality that all other officers and everybody else are accountable for their acts and liable to compensation for even the accidents that they cause unintentionally, never mind their abuse, as are police and their departments, doctors and their hospitals, lawyers and their law firms, priests and their churches, journalists and their media outlets, pharmaceutical officers and their companies, etc.; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-International_Team.pdf

6)  the meeting with officers of academia, the media, and investors to discuss the creation of the institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(>jur:130§5). The plan is for the institute to be attached to a top university; staffed by professionals and students(jur:128§4) who execute a program of activities in education, litigation, research, etc.(>OL2:978§E); and carry on as the advanced stage of the multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§A); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_Institute_judicial_unaccountability_reporting.pdf.

D. Proposal to develop a website as a multidisciplinary academic & business venture

13. I have posted some of my articles to my website, to wit, Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have elicited such a positive reaction in its many visitors that as of this writing [on 26july20] 32,935 and counting have become subscribers(>OL2:Appendix 3). This calls to mind the business model of the Internet: give free access to attractive basic contents put on a website; when there are enough visitors sell them goods and services that you and advertisers offer; and provide access for a fee to advanced contents.

14. The posted articles are in long form. They are written for an educated audience accustomed to concentrating on what they are reading, particularly since my website has no pictures or videos. My site is akin to a professional journal, e.g., a law review, and the articles are similar to briefs submitted to a court of appeals by a law firm representing well-heeled clients. Thus, the subscribers to my site are likely to be professionals, affluent, and so willing to make an effort to understand my articles as to subscribe for more…like those who pay to read The New York Times Sunday Magazine.

15. A business savvy publisher or venture capitalists can invest in further developing The Judicial Discipline Reform website as proposed in my business plan(>OL2:1022), whose implementation is guided by the principle, “Making money while doing justice”. It can become, among other things: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Capital_Investors.pdf

a. a clearinghouse for complaints(>OL2:918) about judges by victims of, and statements of witnesses to, their abuse. Today they are held by judges secretly. However, they can be up-loaded for free by the victims and the witness exercising their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [by email and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including the payment of compensation]”(OL2:792¶1)

b. a research center that upon payment of a one-time or subscription fee enables users to audit (*>OL:274-280, 304-307) many complaints; judges’ annual mandatory filing of financial disclosure reports(*>jur:102§a), which are misleading(jur:105213b); and their decisions and other writings in search of the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns(>OL2: 792§A), trends(OL2:455§§B, D), and schemes(OL2:614, 929) of abuse of power. It will develop software for statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis of writings to ascertain authorship, biases, impeaching-inconsistencies, etc.(OL:42, 60, 115, 255; jur:131§b)

c. an investigative center that coordinates and conducts here and abroad library, digital, and field investigations of judges’ abuse and their connivance with politicians; and disseminates its findings through a tour of presentations(OL:197§G) that promotes the formation of a civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, compensation of victims, and reform.

E. Inserting the issue in the 2020 campaign and sparking transformative change

16. The above proposals aim to form that movement by implementing the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy: inform the national public of abuse of power risklessly committed by federal judges due to their unaccountability and so outrage the public as to stir it up to demand of every politician, whether incumbent or running for election, to take a stand on the issue at every digital or physical rally, townhall meeting, interview, and press conference.

17. That information can outrage We the People. They can insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse of power in the 2020 campaign as a decisive one, setting in motion transformative change: what emerges from the change is substantially different from what was initially subjected to it.

a. Until the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse has not been fully exposed, no discussion of what to change and into what to change it is opportune. The outrage provoked by the information about their abuse will turn change inconceivable today into necessary and unavoidable measures to ensure transparency, integrity, accountability, and liability.

18. The objective of inserting the judicial abuse issue into the campaign has reliable precedents:

a. The publication by The New York Times and The New Yorker on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively, of their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse gave rise in a matter of days to the emergence worldwide of the MeToo! movement.

b. The news about the killing of George Floyd by white police officers provoked that very night protest demonstrations nationwide. Since then an outraged public has forced politicians at the municipal, state, and federal levels to take a stand on police brutality and even debate the adoption of the federal Justice in Policing bill and its state counterparts.

c. The People, outraged at lack of progress in racial equality, are now taking down the statues representing racial abusers.

d. The People will be all the more outraged upon being informed that even if a Justice in Policing bill were enacted it would be still have to be enforced according to its letter and spirit by the police, the prosecutors, and the judges. However, these are interdependent actors that need each other for their electoral survival, physical protection, and judicial exoneration, such as that enjoyed in effect by General Flynn, Michael Cohen, and Paul Manafort.

19. These precedents show that the present time is the most opportune to expose federal judges’ abuse: There is no better time to publish than when the audience is expecting avidly what one has to publish. The public mood is receptive to the exposure of abusers. The People are shouting self-assertively the rallying cry: Enough is enough! We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.

20. Nobody has more power to abuse than judges, for they are the ones who issue the ultimate orders disposing of our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame our lives and shape our identities. Among them, federal judges have the most ordering and staying power:

a. Federal judges are the only officers in the country to have a life-appointment. Historically, it has ensured them of irremovability in practice regardless of their abuse(*>jur>21§a).

b. The Constitution, Article III, Section 1, forbids the diminution of their salary while in office.

c. Their power of retaliation is devastating: While in theory Congress could take back the self-disciplining authority that in the Act(supra ¶10) it granted federal judges and replace it with a mechanism that effectively held them accountable, it would never dare do so:

1) A single district judge suspended nationwide President Trump’s Muslim travel ban, and a three-judge appellate panel upheld that suspension nationwide, although two panel members would have sufficed to achieve the same result.

2) Federal judges can hold any law passed by Congress –and even any state legislature– unconstitutional. They can render null and void one after the other all the legislative pieces of the political agenda of a party who allows any of its members to do what is anathema to judges: ‘Don’t you ever try to hold us accountable!…If you need orders to force your political opponents to produce documents or appear to testify, don’t even think of asking us to issue them! They are already denied! denied! denied!’(OL2:546)

d. The corollary is that federal judges wield power of self-immunization: In fact, the Supreme Court has held, “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”(*>jur:26§d). The justices have arrogated to themselves and their peers what no person is entitled to in government by the rule of law: impunity. They have abused their power to strip Congress of its authority under the Constitution to apply checks and balances on the Judiciary and its judges.

21. Only one entity has stronger power than judges: an informed and outraged We the People, especially when voting at a presidential election and all the more so if assembled in a constitutional convention…or if the Judiciary loses its abusers in chief: the justices of the Supreme Court.

F. Beginning at the top: exposing the justices’ commission and cover-up of abuse

22. The proposed joint investigation, publication of my articles, citizen hearings, and the development of the website will enable initially one courageous and nimble media outlet, e.g., Reuters, and subsequently ever more outlets, to do what Congress not dare consider: Expose the abuse that the Supreme Court justices have committed since they were in the lower courts and continue to commit as justices and to cover up reciprocally as peers and as circuit justices allotted to the several circuits under 28 U.S.C. §42. Here applies the aphorism: “The cover-up is worse than the original crime”. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_abuse_by_justices.pdf

a. Those who ‘only’ have kept silent have become accessories after the abuse committed by the principal and which they knew or could have known about but for their indifference and willful ignorance or blindness(*>jur:90§§b, c), for they had a legal and ethical duty to report it -18 U.S.C. §3057; Code of Conduct for judges, Canon 3B(6) (*>jur:68fn123a)-.

b. They are accessories before the abuse that the principal or others will be encouraged to commit by the implicit or explicit assurance that the accessories by silence will not report them.

c. In either case, the silent judges contributed to the principal going unpunished while keeping the benefit of the abuse; the victim going uncompensated while suffering more abuse or its consequences; and the system of justice deteriorating through the erosion of public trust because “unchecked abuse festers” until it becomes the institutionalized modus operandi.

23. There are precedents supporting the expectation that an informed and outraged public can make holding on to office untenable, forcing resignations:

a. Public outrage at the conduct of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas forced him first to withdraw his name as a nominee to the chief justiceship; and because the outrage would not subside, he had no choice but to resign from the Court on May 14,1969(*>jur:92§d).

b. After the MeToo! movement erupted overnight and Chief Justice Roberts had received almost 700 letters from current and former law clerks informing him of the abuse that they had suffered or witnessed in their respective court, the Chief Justice was forced to take action by referring for investigation by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a judge who had been known for decades to be an abuser: Former 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. He chose to resign on December 18, 2017(OL2:645§A) rather than be investigated.

c. One report of abuse of power, i.e., that filed by the White House officer who blew the whistle on P. Trump’s Ukrainian quid pro quo affair, provoked such public outrage that it led the House to impeach the President and the Senate to hold a trial to remove him from office.

d. The Washington Post was the first to report on the break-in on June 17, 1972, at the National Democratic Convention located in the Watergate building complex in Washington, DC. Initially, it was derided as “a garden variety burglary by five plumbers”. But reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, supported by editor Benjamin Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham, kept digging in. Their findings pointed to political espionage and a cover up plotted and executed by top Republican officers working for the reelection of President Nixon. Soon every other media outlet was jumping on their investigative bandwagon. Then the unthinkable happened: For their participation in those crimes, P. Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, and all his White House aides were convicted and sentenced to jail.(*>jur:4 ¶¶10-14); http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Washington_Post.pdf

1)  A question asked consistently of every witness by Senator Howard Baker, co-chair of the Senate Watergate Committee, became a guiding and productive investigative tool and can be rephrased here thus: ‘What did the justices know about justices’ and judges’ abuse of power and when did they know it’?

e. The Catholic Church is an institution rooted in society and protected by the First Amendment state-church separation clause. Yet, due to its institutionalized condonation of abuse by pedophilic priests, it has had to pay its victims well over $2.2 billion in compensation. Outraged victims that had been left uncompensated by the running of the statute of limitations forced legislators in at least 15 states to enact lookback laws that allow the filing of sexual abuse claims stretching back decades. Some 5,000 new cases could force the Church to compensate the victims by paying them more than $4 billion. The Church runs the risk of going bankrupt.

24. The national public’s outrage at abuse of power by police and federal militias can become so exacerbated by information about institutionalized abuse in the Federal Judiciary as to force the resignation of justices and even the Supreme Court as a whole. The Judiciary, exposed as a racketeering enterprise run by a board of complicit abusers, can go morally bankrupt and face crushing financial claims. The justices may find it unavailing to attempt to brush away the outrage by simply invoking the doctrine of judicial immunity that they have self-servingly conjured up(*>OL:158). http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_no_judicial_immunity.pdf

25. A whole branch operated by judges abusing their personal and institutional unaccountability can be found so inherently defective as to warrant its dissolution. The form of government of which it is part can likewise be so defective as to need its replacement by a new form yet to be devised by We the People, the ones entitled to do so in “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82172).

26. Informed of, and outraged at, the abuse heaped on them, the People can bring about transformative change. They can ensure that justice is administered and government is operated by public servants who remain accountable and liable to them. They will be grateful to the journalists and the others who were instrumental in such transformation, honoring them with, among other things(*>OL:3§F), a Pulitzer prize, a bestseller, a blockbuster movie, the study of their feat at every journalism school, and the most valuable and enduring reward: historic recognition as Champions of Justice…not only of the People of this country, but of every country in the world(supra ¶12e) where they can spark a civic movement for judges’ abuse of power exposure, compensation, and reform.

G. My offer to present this proposal to you and your colleagues and publisher

27. I offer to make a presentation on this proposal via video conference or in person. To decide whether to accept, see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_video.mp4. and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_judges_abuse_slides.pdf(>OL2: 958).

28. To arrange for it, please contact me using the information in the letterhead above.

Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1125)…and you may enter it.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf

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

Judicial Discipline Reform

conducts law research and writing, and strategic thinking,
which have produced articles like the one below.

Visit its website at

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

Join its 32,935+ subscribers to its articles thus:

go to the site, <left panel ↓Register
or    + New   or   Users   >Add New.

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

Donate

through Paypal

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

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

From searching court decisions for citations to realizing the folly of appearing pro se before judges, to joining the formation of a movement to expose judges’ abuse of power, demand compensation, and force reform

By

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

The link to this article is:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_research_documents&sources.pdf

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

A. Finding pertinent quotations from judges’ decisions

1. You can easily cite quotations from court decisions like those that you read in any judge-written decision and attorney-written brief: You do law research in the books, called Reporters or Reports, that collect those decisions.

2. In their table of contents, they organize all the subjects of law alphabetically, like a dictionary, or chronologically, according to the procedural steps from filing a case in a trial court to enforcing a final decision from a court of appeals.

3. The subjects are organized under headings and subheadings, each of which is identified with a number, all of which form “the key number system”. With that number, you can find the same subject in any book of the same publisher, regardless of the main subject of the book; e.g., Witness k185 deals with the same subject, namely Attorney-client privilege, no matter where it appears in publications by Westlaw (see next).

4. You will be amazed by how easy it is to find quotations in paragraphs the length on average of this paragraph and frequently called headnotes. Those headnotes contain the gist of what judges have written on that very specific law subject, identified by its “key number”.

5. Those Reporters are published for decisions by the judges in the Federal Judiciary as well as each state judiciary –judiciaries are also referred to as jurisdictions-. The two main publishers are the following. Before clicking on the links below be aware that you only want to see the picture of their Reporters and Reports and read the description of their contents. Do not mind the price: you are not expected to buy any of them. They are sets of scores of volumes, not just one book. Thus, reporters are so expensive that only libraries and law firms can afford them.

a. Thomson-Reuters Westlaw:

1)  https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Reporters/Federal-Reporterreg-2d-National-Reporter-System/p/100000581

2) https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/search?r=13001&s=KEYWORDSEARCH&q=reporter >left panel under the heading –Jurisdiction.

3) The same law research principle described above applies to each particular subject of the law, e.g., the all-important area of court procedure, that is, what parties and judges do in court and in what order; https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Federal-Practice-and-Procedure-Wright–Miller/p/100028918?trkcode=recsbserp&trktype=internal&FindMethod=recs

b. LexisNexis:

1) All jurisdictions: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction

2) e.g., the Supreme Court: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/national-194/us-supreme-court-reports-lawyers-edition-cd47dvd-skuSKU7291/details

B. Learning by doing and doing it methodically: do not skip any step!

6. To begin your law research with an enlightening visual and tactile impression you could go to a still open public library with a law department or venture into the library of a law school or association of lawyers, called a bar association, and ask for permission to take a look at the Reporters. But due to Covid-19, those libraries are likely to be closed. Call them and find out.

7. Hence, plan B: You get that experience digitally by going to the websites of public and law school libraries that offer access to legal databases online, including those of Westlaw and LexisNexis, as opposed to their bookstores.

8. Today you can query those databases using natural language as opposed to Boolean operators, such as AND, OR, AND NOT. For instance, your write in the search box: “Can a landlord evict a tenant who cannot pay rent because he lost his job due to the Covid-19 lockdown?”

a. New York Public Library Science, Industry, Business, and Law (NYPL-SIBL), https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/search/C__Swestlaw__Orightresult__U?searched_from=header_search&timestamp=1593550493317&lang=eng

b. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law

9. The returns to your queries will contain headnotes, which are in essence the quotations that you are searching for. If you click the appropriate settings, your returns will contain the whole decisions of the judges as well as an abundance of other very useful information. Pay attention to detail and you will be richly rewarded. Practice, practice, practice for free there until you become familiarized with doing law research on a legal database online. Thereafter, if need be, you can take advantage of the 7-day free trial of Westlaw, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/forms/try-westlaw.

10. For more information on LexisNexis, go to page OL2:1066 in my 2-volume professional study* of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable for free thus:

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

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

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

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

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

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

C. Doing research only to be wiped out by judges: the alternative

11. In those two volumes of my study you will find an enormous amount of information about how the courts work. Click the binocular icon on the menu bar of each volume. In the search box, enter keywords that must appear in the text of the answer; this is not the type of box where to ask queries in natural language or with Boolean operators.

12. In that study you will find out what is so much more important to you than a nice quotation from a court decision: You will find out why a person like you, without a lawyer and thus called pro se, does not stand a chance of winning in court.

13. There you and scores of millions of other pro ses are wiped out by judges, who are unaccountable so that for their gain and convenience they risklessly abuse their power. Indeed, former Chief Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote belatedly: “Many judges are hostile to pro se’s, seeing them as a kind of ‘trash’ not even worth the courts’ time” (>OL2:932).

14. This means that if you do not know even where to find quotations from judges’ decisions, you have no business going to court as a pro se, never mind attempting to write a legal brief for the court and the opposing party. Here applies the legal aphorism: He who cannot do the least cannot do the more.

a. That aphorism applies to judges too: You will find below the references to the mathematical demonstration showing that it is impossible for judges or their clerks to read anything but a minimal number of briefs, regardless of who writes them. But if in addition they are written by pro ses, the chances that the judges will read them are practically nil. The judges have doomed your law research and writing effort and expense to be wasteful from the outset.

b. Quotations are not the equivalent, let alone a substitute for, legal argument. If you do not know how to “craft an argument”, even a string of quotations will not do it for you.

c. A quotation is only useful to support a legal argument. It is only meaningful if you know its context. To learn that context you need to do a lot of research even if you are a lawyer. You cannot skip three years of law school, where you learn that context, and simply jump to a Reporter to snatch some quotations and cobble together a string of them. You cannot improvise yourself as a lawyer after spending a few hours on a legal database online. It is intrinsically a folly.

d. The judges know it. Yet, they require the production of a brief with the inevitable incurrence of expenditure of effort, money, and time; take the pro ses’ court filing fees;…and DIT their briefs: Dump them in the Trash. It is the equivalent of a casino taking a bet despite knowing that the odds of the bettor winning are illusory. In that vein, judges’ conduct gives rise to the following causes of action and legal considerations:

1) concealment of a material fact

2) abuse of superior knowledge

3) intentional frustration of reasonable expectations

4) misleading advertisement of adjudicatory services

5) fraud in the inducement and the performance

6) breach of contract

7) invidious discrimination against a class of people, the pro ses

8) intentional infliction of emotional distress

9) denial of equal protection of the law relative to those parties whose briefs judges read

10) deprivation of due process by failing to “hear” the party whose brief is not read

11) judges’ unaccountability as the means for their abuse of power committed for the motive of grabbing gain and convenience at every opportunity upon a party taking someone or being taken to court.

15. Avoiding such waste and abuse foretold warrants the alternative: It is in your interest to read in this volume, which sets a strategy for forming a movement to expose judges’ abuse of power; jointly demand compensation for their victims, and bring about reform of the judicial and legal system through transformative change where We the People, the masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, hold them accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of power(>OL2:1133); https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Talkshow_hosts_coalition.pdf.

a. If you want to bring about change, you have to do things differently; otherwise, Einstein’s    aphorism applies: “Doing things the same way while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”. This is so because it betrays ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. This is in harmony with Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: bodies in motion tend to keep moving in the same direction and at the same speed; and bodies at rest tend to keep at rest until a force impels them to move. The force that you need to change your course of action comes from KNOWLEDGE [, which] IS POWER; and from the application of dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(>OL2:593¶¶15-16; dcc:8¶11).

16. I respectfully ask that you help make that article go viral by sharing, posting, and emailing it as proposed. See also the latest article posted to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

17. Life is a give and take. I have given. Now you can give back…and your giving will be in your own interest and that of your friends, relatives, and the rest of your fellow members of We the People.

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

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

Donate

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

Judicial Discipline Reform

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

through Paypal

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

or

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

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

                Dare trigger history!(>OL2:1125)…and you may enter it.
https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_Reuters_judges_investigation.pdf