The Federal Judiciary’s abuse of power by its judges dismissing complaints about them, which ensures their unaccountability, can be exposed through J. Kavanaugh and his peers’ dismissal of the 478 complaints about them, and your protest against the sham hearing on changes to the judges’ complaint rules and code of conduct

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 >OL2:773

 

Dear Deans, Professors, Students and Members of the Media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

I read with interest the articles in The Crimson and those written by others at Yale concerning then-Judge Kavanaugh and the power of law students to cause their deans to take a position on his confirmation, as well as the letters relating to him that more than 2,400 law professors and more than 2,000 Mothers in the Law Profession published in The New York Times(NYT).

This is a proposal for you, your professors and students, the media, and me to join forces, not to revisit the sexual abuse allegations leveled against him, but rather to use his case to insert into the national debate on the evaluation of judicial candidates’ fitness to serve what is more important: their service.

Indeed, the very politicians who put judges in office cannot thereafter turn around and investigate their appointees for lack of integrity and competence, lest they incriminate their own vetting procedures and skills for evaluating character and competence.

To evade their responsibility for exercising constitutional checks and balances on ‘our men and women on the bench’, politicians have delegated to judges authority to self-discipline. In the federal government, they have adopted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364; *> jur:2418a).

Thereunder, the only way for anybody to complain about a federal judge is by lodging a complaint in the circuit where the judge serves. There it is processed by precisely his or her peers, colleagues, and friends. They are required to submit the statistics of their processing of those complaints to Congress and the public in the Annual Report of the Director [who is appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice] of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO; 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); jur:2623a).

Those statistics(†>OL2:772§G) show that Judge Kavanaugh and his peers dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints about them lodged with their District of Columbia Circuit and reported in the annual official statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(OL2:748). They have abused their self-disciplining authority to grant themselves 100% exoneration from complaints regardless of the complained-about conduct’s nature, extent, and gravity.

Acting only in self-interest, he and his peers have left complainants and the rest of the public at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

Held by politicians and themselves unaccountable, life-appointed judges, in practice unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§a), risklessly abuse(*>OL:154¶3) for their gain and convenience their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives.

Their service is incriminated, not by an individual’s allegations and partisan opinions, but by their own non-partisan, verifiable, and official statistics. The latter’s analysis through “the math of abuse” exposes them as Judges Above the Law.

This novel statistics-based approach to judicial service evaluation is the product and distinguishing feature of my study of judges and their judiciaries, 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

Justice Kavanaugh now has the strongest personal motive to prevent any investigation into his and his peers’ abuse of power to secure his and his peers’ 100% exoneration from complaints about them. Such investigation can force the disclosure of the complaints, conveniently kept secret; the detection of patterns and trends of abuse; and the exposure of the organization and execution of, and benefits from, their cover-up.

Nor can Justice Gorsuch, who comes from the 10th Circuit, allow such investigation. There he, who so values camaraderie(†>OL2: 546¶¶4-6), and his peers dismissed 99.83% of complaints about themselves(OL2:548).

This explains why the 15 complaints about Judge Kavanaugh lodged in the last month that his peer, Judge Karen Henderson, referred to Chief Justice John Roberts, were in turn referred by him for processing to precisely the 10th Circuit.

The presumption of a whitewash would not be less justified if C.J. Roberts had referred them to the Second Circuit, the former circuit of Justice Sotomayor. While there, she and her peers denied 100%(jur:11) of petitions for review of dismissal of complaints about themselves (jur:65§§1-3). The percentage of complaints dismissed in all the circuits is 99.82%(jur:10, 12-14).

The exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and its cover-up by VIPs published by NYT and The New Yorker pressured C.J. Roberts into referring for sexual misconduct investigation Former 9th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who then resigned.

The almost 700 letters of complaint about abuse in the Federal Judiciary submitted to the C.J. caused him to admit to abuse therein and to set up a study committee(†>OL2:645). Its report has led to proposed changes to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules for processing complaints.

Only as recently as October 2 did the Administrative Office announce only on its website that the changes will be the subject of only one single hearing at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., rather than at each of the more than 200 federal courts.

How many people can afford to travel to D.C. at all, never mind do so the day before to be ready to testify at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, for only a few minutes?

Any request to be heard must be emailed by October 18 to CodeandConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov; for the first week, a ‘glitch’ prevented AO’s receipt of those emails; http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/10/02/judiciary-hold-public-hearing-proposed-changes-judges-code-and-judicial-conduct.

This has been an announcement pro forma about compliance in bad faith with the hearing requirement. It is a sham!

No change to the Code or the Rules will stop judges from dismissing complaints about themselves, just as the changes adopted in 2008 and 2015 did not.

Such dismissal is their institutionalized mechanism for enforcing the complicit agreement through which judges reciprocally ensure their unaccountability for their past abuse and the risklessness of their future abuse. Abuse of power is the modus operandi(OL2:457§D, 760) of Powerful Judges Who Can Do No Wrong.

Students have shown to have the power to draw public attention to abuse. You, law professors and students, and we lawyers have the duty to expose abuse by judges, the ones who run(OL2: 717) our profession and corrupt it by ensuring their impunity.

Your publication of this letter and one or more of my articles(OL2:755, 719§C) and your protest against the sham hearing can launch a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse of power akin to the one into sexual abuse sparked by NYT’s and The New Yorker’s publication of their exposés. Just days later, the MeToo! movement emerged. It has led to a historic societal transformation from silent sexual abusees to a national public that shouts:

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

That is precedent for the reasonable expectation that if we join forces to expose judges’ abuse of power using J. Kavanaugh’s dismissal of complaints as a test case, we may bring about a historic transformation:

We can insert this issue into the mid-term elections, the national debate, and the presidential campaign; and enable We the People for the first time ever to hold our judicial public servants accountable.

We may expose what will be a national scandal: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications to each other and to others –did you receive my previous ones to you?-, shown by a statistical study and verifiable by IT experts examining computers and servers (See the following article; also at †>OL2:775).

Thus, I respectfully request that you publish this letter and call me(*>jur:1) to invite me to make a presentation to you, school members, and media colleagues. Time is of the essence.

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

Subscribe for free to this 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