Exposing government interception of communications of critics of judges as an abuse of power that would cause a national scandal and launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless 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 >OL2:775

A. Statistics as the source of probable cause to believe that there is interception

There is reason to believe that the communications among critics of judges, including Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, and between them and third parties are intercepted, which is prohibited as provided for in the Criminal Code under 18 U.S. §2511(*>OL:5a13).

This is demonstrated through the statistical analysis(>OL:192 >‡>ws:58 §7) of communications(>ggl:1; †>OL2:476, 425, 405§§A-C) in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

Statistically, people line up in a standard normal distribution, which is a continuum that goes from one extreme of low values to the opposite extreme of high values of the variable in question. This continuum, when graphically plotted on an X,Y system of coordinates produces a bell curve. Most people bunch up on either side of the top –the crown– of the bell. Hence, it is abnormal and a sign of manipulation to see the values for everybody on only one of the two extremes.

Although I email to tens of thousands of email accounts directly and through hundreds of yahoogroups, hardly ever do I receive an email that is positive and encouraging.

Nevertheless, my website (this one at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org) has 24,700 subscribers and counting; it is built on the most widely used platform in the world, WordPress. When was the last time that you liked what you read on a site so much that you subscribed to it, although you and the rest of us suffer under information overload?

It is counterintuitive for people to subscribe but leave no comment. It is decidedly suspect for the number of subscribers, which had reached an average of 90 a day, with peaks of over 110, to drop to 0 in the space of a week and then pick up to only around 3 a day(OL2:604¶2).

To some emails I receive no reply at all. Practically every reply that I do receive is negative and critical of them. That is counterintuitive in a country as divided as ours, where at one end of the spectrum of everything there are people strongly in favor of it and at the other end people strongly against it. Cf. A rubric of one of the national TV networks, either CBS or NBC, is precisely “A Nation Divided”. Although I have communicated with some Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for years, I do not receive emails from them anymore. People email me, I reply to them with an encouraging message, but then I do not receive any more emails from them.

More than 2,000 Mothers in the Legal Profession and more than 2,400 law professors took out each an ad in The New York Times regarding J. Kavanaugh. I addressed them in the Subject: line of emails that I sent to tens of thousands. Despite that and although I too am a lawyer, and a doctor of law at that, I have not received a single reply from any of them. This is most suspect because we have harmonious interests(>dcc:8¶11; Lsch:14§§2-3). Those protected under the 1st Amendment(>jur:2312b), are “freedom of speech, of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

Moreover, requests that I make for membership in yahoogroups are approved only for my next posting to them to be rejected because I am told I am not a member.

1. Recent cases showing government interception of communications

The National Security Agency (NSA) engaged in a warrantless, indiscriminate, mass ‘dragnet’ collection of the metadata of communications of scores of millions of unsuspected people(OL2:395§B), as revealed by the secret documents that Edward Snowden leaked.

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her personal and work computers to spy on the status of her investigative reporting on the attacks by extremists on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three of his aides; and the fiasco Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which sold even assault rifles to track their way to Mexican druglords(OL:346¶131) and resulted in one such rifle being used to kill an American border patrol. Her articles were so incriminating that A.G. Eric Holder would respond to congressional demands for documents with entire pages blacked out. He was the first sitting member of the presidential cabinet to be held by Congress in contempt of it. Accordingly, he was forced to resign.

These cases show that the government, of which the judiciary is part, engages in illegal digital activity against those whom it perceives as a threat, such as a persistent investigative reporter, and even those who are suspected of nothing at all, such as those caught in NSA’s surveillance dragnet.

It is the judges of the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that approve up to 100% of the NSA’s secret request for secret orders of secret surveillance. Do they do so for the quid pro quo of the interception by the NSA of the communications of critics of judges? That is what the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation must determine(OL2:600§B).

B. Money and a scandal that focuses the media on judges’ abuse of power

Potentially, there is money to be made by suing the government for breach of constitutional rights and the right to privacy. More realistically, exposing to the national public that judges have abused their power to intercept their critics’ communications and prevent their ‘assembling to petition for redress of judges’ abuse’ would constitute a scandal far greater than that provoked by Snowden’s leak. It would shock America’s conscience and put you and your organization on the frontpage of every publication and at the top of every newscast, and on the list of Pulitzer Prize candidates.

C. What you can do to expose government interception of communications

I respectfully propose that you participate in exposing the interception of the communications of critics of judges by those who have the greatest interest therein: judges themselves. You can:

  1. widely share and post my articles with your address as the reply address to see what kind and number of replies you receive, which you can forward to me under an unrelated Subject: line;
  2. help finance IT experts’ examination of critics’ email accounts and computers, and servers;
  3. help organize presentations(OL:194§G) by me at law, journalism, IT, and business schools, pro se groups, and venture capitalists who may be interested in my business plan(OL2:563).

Consider this proposal in light of these principles of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL2:570§E, 475§D, 465§1):

  1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (we share the interest of defeating our common enemy).
  2. The friend of the friend of my friend may want to become my friend (which speaks to the indirectness of connections and a means of building alliances of result even if not of interests).
  3. People never work as hard as when they work for themselves. (Ask yourself: What interest of her own can the person that I want to persuade to do something advance by joining forces with me? Cf. Some such interests are to make herself and her group or organization known.)

Time is of the essence to insert the issue of unaccountable judges’ abuse in the mid-term elections.

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

Subscribe for free to these series of articles thus:
+ New or Users >Add New

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

Donate
to Judicial Discipline Reform’s
professional research and writing effort
to advance our common interest in exposing
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
at the GoFundMe campaign

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

I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly send your reply to this block of my email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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