Your contribution to exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse of power by either irrationally continuing the filing of suits in court or promoting the out-of-court strategy to inform and outrage a public that is intolerant of all forms of abuse

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

You may share and post this article non-commercially
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article is also at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:713

NOTE: This program irremediably changes the number of paragraphs and headings. Please excuse the abnormal result.

A. The precedent of The New York Times’ article on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its transformation of public attitude toward any form of abuse

  1. The publication by a national publisher of one or a series of my articles exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power could do what the NYT’s sexual abuse article of last October 5 unexpectedly accomplished: breach the taboo on the subject, set in motion a generalized media investigation of sexual abusers and abusees, and reveal public intolerance henceforth of that abuse.
  2. What the NYT article did is a realistic precedent: With surprising celerity, it gave rise to the MeToo!, TimesUp, NeverAgain, Stop School Shootings, and similar civic movements expressive of social transformation. People have broken their resignation to suffer abuse in silence and, on the contrary adopted a self-assertive attitude that courageously shouts against all forms of abuse a common and rallying cry:  

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

  1. If a national newspaper and/or magazine publisher dare publish one or a series of articles, such as mine, exposing judges’ abuse of power, there is the realistic possibility of achieving:

a. the intermediate objective of causing the media and the public to insert the subject of unaccountable judges’ consequent riskless abuse of power in the primaries and the mid-term elections and thereafter in the national debate; which can pave the way to…

b. the ultimate objective of compelling the adoption by politicians–even if only after a constitutional convention(†>OL2:517§B)– of judicial reform(*>jur:158§§6-8) that effectively holds judges accountable for their performance and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.

1. My already written articles on judges’ abuse are available for review by publishers

  1. I have the necessary academic and professional credentials(*>a&p:16) to offer for publication articles exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse.
  2. Many of the articles that I have listed in my query letter (below and at †>OL2:703) and am offering for publication are already written. They are included in my over 1,150-page study* † of judges and their judiciaries. So a publisher can examine what I have done rather than hope that I can deliver on what I offer to do.

That 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_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

2. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER for those who have the commitment and stamina to gain it

  1. The list of professionally researched and written articles will help empower those who recognize the pragmatic truth in the axiom “KNOWLEDGE IS POWER”. By reading and studying those articles, they can gain the knowledge that they need to confront the most powerful officers in our country: Judges Above the Law.
  2. The professional quality of the research and writing of an article and the concrete, realistic, and novel character of its ideas are the criteria that should determine whether it is worth reading by a potential Champion of Justice.
  3. The brevity of an article is the determining factor only for casual readers, judicial reform hobbyists, and pro ses self-improvised a lawyers. They cannot read anything longer than the offhand blurb of a blog, a mental hiccup digitally recorded as a thought scribble. Accordingly, they are likely to commit the gross dishonesty and incompetent advocacy of commenting on articles that they did not bother to read past their titles.
  4. Swapping blurbs with fellow group members is not a strategy for exposing judges’ abuse: It is a careless, often deceptive pastime.
  5. Blurb-only readers give us, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, a bad name. They cannot be expected to make the enormous effort necessary to amass the only power available to Advocates: the power of knowledge. That is the only power that we have to oppose to judges’ abusively exercised power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.
  6. Knowledge is what earns us the attention and respect of others.
  7. Knowledge can allow us to outsmart judges on our own terms. Outsmarting judges begins with recognizing that Advocates will never prevail over judges in court, their turf, where judges apply and disregard rules however they want and conjure up new ones as they go to exempt themselves from discipline and ensure their survival.
  8. Nor can blurb-only readers be expected to engage in the intense thinking process necessary to analyze what they learn, figure out the functioning of our judicial and legal system, and devise an abuse-exposing strategy that is sufficiently concrete, realistic, and feasible to have a chance at success.
  9. That is the kind of strategy that can catch the imagination, and lead to the participation, of those called upon to implement it, the Advocates; and persuade those asked to provide what is indispensable to any implementation: donors of money.
  10. The strategy must also be sufficiently novel to avoid the application to those who devise and implement it of Einstein’s aphorism: “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”. Doing so is irrational because it ignores the fundamental law of our physical and human worlds: cause and effect.
  11. I give this and the following criticism constructively and mean for it to be taken likewise. It would be an inappropriate reaction to be peeved, defensive, and lash out at me.
  12. Instead, this criticism should elicit reflection, reevaluation of conduct, and reorientation of effort toward a productive joining of forces that advances our common cause of exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse.

B. Exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse by either the irrational continuation of suits in court and appeals to judge-appointing officials or the reasonably calculated out-of-court inform and outrage strategy

1. The irrational, self-contradictory premise of suing judges in court in the expectation that they will uphold the law that they are charged with breaking

  1. The Federal Judiciary is the model for its state counterparts, providing the standard for their rules of procedure and evidence. It officially weights a case filed by a pro se as one third of a case(†>OL2:455§§B-D).
  2. Consequently, federal judges are not only authorized, but also expected not to waste more than a third of their time on a pro se case. A federal judge can have over 600 weighted cases in his or her caseload(*>jur36fn57).
  3. To think that by a pro se filing a case against a judge(†>OL2:709§2), never mind a group of judges(OL2:708§1), progress will be made in exposing their abuse is wishful thinking, driven by ignorance of the statistics(*>OL:275§1) and incapacity to draw their implications.
  4. A case that charges judges with disregarding the facts as well as due process and the equal protection of the law yet asks judges who are judging judges and therefore themselves to order their peers and themselves to stay within the limits, and comply with the provisions, of court rules-enabling legislation is self-contradictory. One need not be a lawyer to be logical.
  5. One only needs to think rationally: It is irrational to ask a bully to stop breaking the neighborhood rule against bullying because there is a neighborhood rule that prohibits bullying. The bully breaks that rule, not because he does not know that it exists, but rather because he is a bully and could not care less about that or any other rules but his own: the rule of abuse.
  6. The irrational premise of such a case will induce a judge to give that case less than a third of the attention that he or she gives the average case. The official statistics bear this out(*>jur:21§a).
  7. One does not enhance one’s credibility by advancing such an irrational premise.
  8. The same holds true for any proposal to ask the federal or a state department of justice to go against the very judges that the president or the governor nominated or appointed.
  9. Why would a justice department antagonize the judges that can retaliate by holding the president’s or the governor’s political agenda unconstitutional, not to mention holding that the president or the governor broke the law by, for example, colluding with the Russians or hiding assets to evade state taxes?
  10. Expecting people to work in one’s interest and against their own is irrational. It contradicts the instincts of self-gratification and -preservation.

2.  The out-of-court inform and outrage strategy that appeals to the people’s power to expose judges’ abuse and establish their accountability

  1. The strategy pursued through the publication of one or a series of my articles is reasonably calculated to achieve this:

a. to inform the national and state public about the issue of judges’ abuse, and so to outrage it at, judges as to stir up the public to demand that those running for public office and incumbents take a position on the issue on their political platforms and at every rally and townhall meeting.

  1. Only We the People, the source of all political power, can by wielding our voting, street, donation, and campaign volunteer power compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to launch the investigation needed to expose the full nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ abuse as the first step toward effective judicial reform.
  • The media, acting in its own commercial and reputational interest(†>OL2:696§3), is the People’s indispensable ally in this endeavor.
  • That is why we the Advocates must cause the media to publish an exposé of judges’ abuse. It can be reasonably expected to outrage a public now intolerant of every form of abuse.
  • In turn, that public outrage will motivate the media to jump on the bandwagon of the investigation of that form of abuse: Audiences flock to the publisher of scandal news. Scandal sells copy. All publishers must investigate and publish it on pain of being abandoned by their respective audience.

C. Attracting media attention by parties joining forces to demand from their court the refund of filing fees

  1. Courts offer “judicial services”(OL2:608) and demand a fee to file any case or motion paper. Yet, they are not materially capable of delivering those services(“The math of perfunctoriness” OL2: 609§A).
  2. Their judges do not even read the majority of briefs. Clerks, who need not be lawyers and lacking judicial discretionary authority can only mechanically apply fixed instructions, dispose of most papers through their use of dumping forms(OL2:609¶5).
  3. Such a form has its blanks filled out with the minimum information necessary to identify the paper being disposed of; the rest is standard reasonless, fiat-like orders that disregard the paper’s facts and law so as to engage in ad hoc arbitrariness for gain or convenience, and effortlessly dump the paper off of the judges’ caseload.
  4. Disposition of a paper through a dumping form constitutes false advertisement, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract as part of the judges’ filing fee fraud scheme(OL2:609§2).
  5. The recovery of filing fees provides a monetary incentive for parties in the same court whose papers have been disposed of through dumping forms to respond to Advocates contacting(OL:276§C) them.
  6. Acting as a group –or even a class– of parties similarly situated as victims of the same injury in fact they would assert a common interest in obtaining the refund of their filing fees.
  7. The recovery of filing fees provides a monetary incentive for parties in the same court whose cases and motions have been disposed of by dumping forms to respond to Advocates contacting(OL:276§C) them. Acting as a group –or even a class- of parties similarly situated as victims of the same injury in fact they would assert a common interest in obtaining the refund of their filing fees.
  8. The publication of my article on dumping forms and filing fee recovery can spark the formation of Refund the money! groups everywhere.
  9. Their suits can attract media attention because they do not require the media to assess the facts and law of each case. On the contrary, it would suffice to notice that despite no two cases being the same, all their cases were disposed of in the only near identical and perfunctory way allowed by a form.
  10. The scandal of ‘dumping form justice’ can lead to ever deeper journalistic investigations into the operation of courts by unaccountable judges who coordinate their riskless abuse of power into the most harmful form of structured abuse: schemes(OL2:696§3).

D. Asserting rights and making money by exposing judges’ interception of the communications of their critics

  1. I welcome the suggestion and invite you and all other readers to implement it: Post on social media, including Gab.ai, and Minds, my query letter(OL2:703) and other articles that I have written and will keep writing.
  2. Indeed, Google suspended my gmail account twice, doing so without giving me notice. Likewise, Dropbox and Microsoft disabled my accounts.
  3. The circumstances(>ggl) under which they did so, the harm to their commercial interest notwithstanding, provide probable cause to believe that they acted in coordination with those who benefit the most(†>OL2:582§C) from intercepting the communications of critics of judges and preventing their formation of a team(>jur:128§4) in violation of their 1st Amendment rights to “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130fn268).
  4. If we Advocates hired computer forensic experts and they established such interception and traced it back to federal judges, we could assert our rights and make money too(below ¶9.m.2); and OL2:705¶9.m.2)).
  5. The ensuing public outrage would be more intense than that provoked by E. Snowden’s NSA revelations(OL2:395§B) and most apt to expose judges’ abuse as a Nixon-like criminal enterprise.

E. You can contribute to implementing the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy by distributing my query letter widely

48.  Therefore, I respectfully encourage all readers to distribute the query letter below as widely as you can to all your friends and family and peers and, of course, to all those who are newspaper and/or magazine publishers and journalists, or are associated with them, including journalism school deans, professors, and students, who can benefit from the proposed investigation and its abundance of leads(OL:197§G).

  1. Let’s expose judges’ abuse by our taking advantage of the current public intolerance of any form of abuse and the mid-term campaigning. Join the distribution of the query letter below so that We the People, informed and outraged, confront politicians when they are most vulnerable and responsive: when vying for votes. They are answerable for having in self-interest put judges on the bench and connivingly(†>OL2:610§3) held them there unaccountable to the detriment of the People.
  • In that vein, I offer to make paid presentations and hold one-day seminars on the strategy for exposing unaccountable judges’ abuse(OL2:712§E).

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Put your money where your informed outrage
and your passion for justice are.

Donate here


or

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

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

(If a link does not open a webpage, copy and paste it into your browser’s web address box, and click ‘enter’.)

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
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

Published by

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., is a doctor of law and researcher-writer attorney. He is a member of the New York State Bar and lives in New York City. He earned his doctorate of law from the University of Cambridge in England, where his thesis dealt with the integration of the banking industry in the European Union. He earned a French law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, where he concentrated on currency stability and the abuse of dominant positions by entities in commerce, similar to American antitrust law. He also earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan, where he concentrated on the use of computers and their networks to maximize workflow efficiency and productivity. Dr. Cordero worked as a researcher-writer at the preeminent publisher of analytical legal commentaries, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, a member of West/Thomson Reuters. There he wrote commentaries on the regulation of financial activities under federal law. Currently at Judicial Discipline Reform, he is promoting the creation of a multidisciplinary academic and business team to advocate judges’ accountability and discipline reform. The need for such reform is based on his analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, who are the models for their state counterparts. That analysis is set forth in his study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts: Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you and your colleagues of the evidence of judicial wrongdoing so that you may learn how to join the effort to expose it and bring about judicial reform. Contact him at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net. Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it. * http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Leave a Reply