Month: May 2021

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

By

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

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

1. The formation by President Biden of his Commission to study ways of reforming the Supreme Court was announced on April 9, 2021 (discussed in an article hereabove and also downloadable). The biographical note on each of the 36 commissioners shows that they are former law clerks to judges and justices (herein “judges” includes “justices”, unless the context indicates otherwise), and/or current law professors.

2. As former law clerks, the commissioners are bound by the confidentiality agreements that they signed with the judges in order to be allowed to clerk for them. While clerking, they did whatever the judges asked them to do because that was the only way of obtaining the one thing that mattered to them more than anything else: a glowing letter of recommendation that would determine whether they could get any of the jobs for which they would apply at the end of their clerkship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Salient features of the unprecedented citizens hearings

1. The proposed citizens hearings are unprecedented because they will not be the traditional public hearings held in Congress or by another government entity, such as the Biden Commission.

2. Politicians are the very ones who after recommending, endorsing, nominating, and confirming judicial candidates to judgeships and justiceships, have connivingly protected them as ‘our men and women on the bench’ regardless of their abuse of power. Their sham hearings are pre-determined not to expose judges’ abuse and provoke their retaliation.

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

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

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

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

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

2. To that end, the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings will be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Some forms of abuse will reveal that judges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Some economic and institutional consequences of the citizens hearings

1. Judges’ abuse has harmed the parties that have appeared and that are currently appearing in their courts. Their abuse provides the basis for those who have appeared before the same judge or in the same court to form local chapters to jointly demand to be compensated by judges and their judiciaries.

2. As things stand now, any suit for such compensation will be dismissed summarily by application of the doctrine of judicial immunity that judges have conjured up in abusive self-interest, while holding accountable and liable priests, doctors, lawyers, politicians, police officers, their institutions, and everybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The citizens hearings can be an opportunity for their organizers, witnesses, and the national public to form physical and virtual (on the Internet) groups in the guise of Tea Party local chapters to demand the calling of a constitutional convention.

2. That is the kind of convention that since April 2, 2014, 34 states, constituting the two thirds of states required by the amending provisions of Article V of the Constitution, have petitioned Congress to convene.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The transformation can consist in a new form of government where the People assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power. As Masters of all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, the People can hold them accountable for the power entrusted to them and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse of it.

The citizens hearings can expose abuse of power to have become such an integral part of judges’ and their judiciaries’ way of doing business that the outrage and demand for compensation can turn reformatory measures that today appear inconceivable into ones whose adoption becomes unavoidable. But everything begins with informing the People thereof.

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

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

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

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

b. Post it to social media, such as:

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

Send this tweet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DONATE

to support the professional law research and writing, and

strategic thinking

of

Judicial Discipline Reform

by making a deposit or an online transfer

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

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

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

or
by mailing a check to the address below.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Leads to investigate abusive judges and their racketeering Judiciary

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

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

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

By

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

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

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

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

All other journalists and media outlets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§352. Review of complaint by chief judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) dismiss the complaint—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Sources of evidence of judges’ criminality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Examples of judges’ criminality

1. Abusive self-enrichment

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

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

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

2. Fraudulent filing and approval of financial disclosure reports

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

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

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

3. Judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme

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

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

4. Interception of emails and mail

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

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

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

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

5. Failure to read the overwhelming majority of briefs

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

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

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

6. Sham hearings on the Rules for Processing Complaints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65. present your letter at a press conference;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. My offer to present this article and its proposals

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

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

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

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

Facebook, Youtube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram,

Google plus, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, and

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

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

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

Donate to

Judicial Discipline Reform

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

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

or

by mailing a check to the address below.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.

Sincerely,

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

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

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