Judicial Discipline Reform

A For-profit Business Plan for exposing how judges self-exempt from discipline by dismissing 99.83% of complaints against them, and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; and a proposal for public hearings conducted by Congress and/or a board of national media outlets on personal cases and the experience of litigants, lawyers, and others at the mercy of judges above discipline and their decisions by fiat

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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

This article may be shared and posted as widely as possible
non-commercially, in its entirety,
without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., and
indication of this website: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

To subscribe for free to the series of articles on this website go to:
+ New or Users >Add New

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your emails replying to my article on Judge Neil Gorsuch and his fellow judges (^†>ol2:546), and for letting me know about your projects and seeking my opinion thereon. Kindly consider the following comments on two projects that are representative of others.

† See my study of judges and their judiciaries as they perform in practice as opposed to the conduct prescribed for them in their codes of conduct and statutory rules. It is titled and downloadable as follows:

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

and

^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

You want to ensure that “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals” are appointed to the bench. Yet, they must also have the academic qualifications and professional experience needed to perform competently as judges so that they are acceptable to the nominators and confirmers; otherwise, you and the nominees are headed for an exercise in self-embarrassment.
The appointment of a judge, whether to the federal or a state judiciary, is a political act intended to assure that the laws enacted by the appointing party will be upheld as constitutional and interpreted as intended by their adopting party. A group like yours does not offer anything as important as that intended assurance. On the contrary, your demand for honest judges works against the interest of politicians:
Known for their double-talk and opportunism, not their principles, politicians have an interest in appointing people of their ilk, willing to play the power game. They have no use for the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.
Hence, your Washington sit-in will be an exercise in futility that will only waste the effort, time, and money of your group and cause through disappointing results an erosion of commitment.
Neither the President, a governor, nor a legislative body will ever nominate a person who is not a lawyer and a judge, or who does not have the qualifications to be a judge –Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge but was a lawyer and former dean of Harvard Law School–. The risk is too great that the lack of such qualifications may lead to public criticism of the nominee, embarrassment of the appointer, and the forced withdrawal by the nominee of his or her name.
You only need to remember the embarrassment of President George W. Bush when he nominated Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. She was roundly disapproved by even fellow Republicans as unqualified and had to withdraw herself from the nomination. Bush did not risk nominating even his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Instead, he went for a sure name, Then-Judge John Roberts, a member of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
This shows that what appears to advocates of honest judiciaries to be a good idea must be evaluated in the context of one’s resources, the facts, and other people’s interests to determine how to turn it into a reality. This calls for pragmatism enhanced by dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests underlying strategic thinking and resulting in a strategy(^†>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

Even if that circuit were broken up into two or more circuits, the judges that have been appointed for life would remain on the bench. Belonging to a smaller or a new circuit is not going to cause them to become “intelligent, honorable, morally and ethically correct individuals”, never mind political neutral and committed to applying only and always the rule of law. They will remain political appointees expected to rule along political lines.
That is shown by the politically motivated controversy in the Senate over the confirmation of Judges Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, nominated to the Supreme Court by Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively.
Worse yet, their respective interests favor maintaining the status quo: The politicians will not dare investigate for misconduct the judges for whose honesty they vouched, lest they indict their good judgment and vetting procedures and provoke the retaliation of all judges, for each could be investigated next. They will continue to hold them unaccountable and allow them to self-exempt from discipline, as shown by the analysis of the official statistics(ol2:546).
The judges will keep risklessly engaging in wrongdoing for their gain and convenience at the expense of everybody else.
Politicians and judges have a harmonious interest in frustrating the advocates’ conflicting interest in non-political judges. The Circuit break-up is not a strategy for judicial honesty. It is an effort that proves that in the absence of strategic thinking and its analysis of interests, there is only wishful thinking, amateurism, and improvisation that do not attain the intended objective.

C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

The first step to reform the judiciary is to show why it needs reforming: Judges abusively exempt themselves from 99.83% of complaints, are held unaccountable by their Republican and Democratic appointers, and risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3) harmful to everybody else.
For instance, circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., a mere ‘for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect’] by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(ol2:455§§B-E). These decisions are so “perfunctory”(*>jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”…in a legal system rooted in precedent –as opposed to a code of rules– to prevent arbitrariness and off-the-cuff decision-making, and promote predictability and thus, conformance by the man and woman in the street of his or her conduct to reliable legal expectations.
Circuit judges mostly affirm the decisions on appeal and deny motions raised in the appeals(ol2: 457¶26). District judges, who weigh pro se cases as 1/3 of a case and treat them accordingly(ol2: 45§B), know that most of their decisions will be affirmed pro-forma and act perfunctorily.
Their decisions, whether reasonless or cobbled together, are the ad hoc fiats of the judges of “the swamp of the Establishment”(ol2:453), for their life-appointment and in effect irremovability –only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789(jur:21§a) – make them the Establishment’s most established members.
So, We the People are at the mercy of judges who risklessly deny us due process and equal protection of the law, which are reserved for the 7% of decisions that, intended for public scrutiny, are reasoned, signed, and published.
If this information, based on official statistical facts, is made known to the national public -not just the passers-by at the time of a sit-in in D.C.-, it can outrage the People and cause them to demand that their senators and representatives, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call on Congress to conduct public hearings on the experience of the People at the hands of the judges that they hold unaccountably independent.

D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

You and other advocates should meet locally to discuss the above facts and out-of-court inform-and-outrage strategy before embarking on any trip. Even demonstrating at your courthouse has no chance at present of accomplishing anything: Your demands will not imperil legislators’ electability or even make it to the newscast; they will be ignored like those of most demonstrators.
Your focus should not be on your personal, local cases, which are of as little interest to anybody else as theirs are to you. Rather, highlight through the use of the official statistical tables accompanying the article on Judge Gorsuch and his peers^‡ how judges in your circuit abusively dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them, enabling their riskless wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) that harms and interests everybody else.
1. If your appellate attorney failed to disclose that his or her attorney’s fees would buy you a 93% chance of receiving only a reasonless 5¢ form decision, consider suing him or her for malpractice. If your doctor failed to disclose that he or she would charge you thousands of dollars for medical treatment that for 93% of patients was useless but caused 100% of them a lot of anxiety for months on end, what would you do?
Meet(cf. ol:274) with other advocates to use the table template (ol2:555) to draw up the table concerning your judges. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Gain and wield it to implement the inform-and-outrage strategy that can earn you public respect and attention, and make future demonstrations numerous and effective.
You and others can inform the public by distributing that article by email and social media and discussing it with local groups.
This will allow you to strategically pursue your and other people’s personal cases and share experiences involving wrongdoing judges by demanding that public hearings thereon be held with a view to judicial reform by Congress and/or a pioneering and potentially trendsetting entity: a board of national media outlets working in their commercial and public interest(ol2:558§§D,E).

E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

If you and your group are travelling for a demonstration to D.C. or anywhere else for free and without having to sacrifice time that you could or must use to earn a living, I would like to know how you have managed that feat. Such scenario is, of course, unrealistic.
Planning to travel there or just to demonstrate locally on a workday must have made you all realize that even the noblest objective requires effort, time, and money. Implementing any plan or strategy needs financing.
Thus, I have devised a for-profit business plan to pursue through strategic thinking the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform. Its table of contents is below. I welcome your ideas on how to raise the necessary investment capital to implement that plan. If you have any experience with Fund Me initiatives or access to individuals willing to put their money where their noble or business ideas are, I would appreciate your letting them and me know.
In this vein, I offer to present to you and your group by video conference or, upon your invitation, in person, why it is necessary and opportune to share and post widely the article that discusses judges’ official statistical facts; to implement a business plan that addresses the public harm caused by their unaccountable abuse of their power over your property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine your and everybody else’s life; and to hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, for they are not entitled to be Judges Above the Law.
Your contribution to informing We the People that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ they are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants; outraging the masters at their servants’ wrongdoing; and empowering them to hold their servants accountable can earn you the People’s recognition and turn you into their Champion of Justice.
So I look forward to hearing from you.

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 the series of articles on this website thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

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

Part I. OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
their analysis points to its judges’ arbitrary handling of caseloads that denies due process and equal protection of the laws

Sections A.-E(†>ol2:454, 546)

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

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

Table of Contents of
Part II. THE BUSINESS PLAN
for raising investment capital
to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
through a for-profit business
that caters to professionals, litigants, and
The Dissatisfied With The Judicial and Legal Systems

F. Executive Summary: Paying to acquire, and earning by providing, knowledge and services to counter judges’ power to harm by denying due process and equal protection of the laws and engaging in other wrongdoing

G. Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries: the foundation for the for-profit business of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

1. The publication of the study and the formats of publication

H. Dr. Cordero’s website: the storefront for the public to look in and the billboard to attract clients

I. The targeted segments of the market

1. The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

2. The market of professionals

3. Professors and students as a pool of employees

4. The market of pro ses

J. Activities to be financed to enable the offering of services

K. Formation of the team of professionals to pursue the multidisciplinary and business venture and its evolution into the institute of judicial accountability reporting and reform advocacy

1. Desirable association with a prestigious academic institution from early on

2. The key members of the team or officers of the institute

3. The logistics of setting up and running the office

L. Key profit points of the business plan

M. What investors can provide in addition to investment capital

N. Conclusion: This is the most opportune time for a business intended to help “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”

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

How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccountably independent Judges Above the Law

Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:

«An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».

Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate; they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.
The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy, but whether anybody protects us from them:
UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING
The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties that he and his peers have dumped out of court

NOTE: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(^†>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
In particular, you may send it to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.–

After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9^th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the federal Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9^th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!’
J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand: Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?

NOTE: The file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546 and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:

the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10^th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.

This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable 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

A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:

‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.

B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a member of a three-judge appellate panel 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(^†>ol2:455).
The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(^*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They are the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice.
The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.

C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.

D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words in practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
To that end, send this article to your senator – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/– and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/– and share and post it as widely as possible. .

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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., 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.

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

Table[1] of Complaints[2] Against Judges in the 10^th Circuit, where Judge N. Gorsuch[3] sits, showing how he and his peers systematically dismiss 99.83% of them to exempt themselves from any discipline, thus protecting their unaccountable independence and becoming Judges Above the Law

NOTE: A better presentation of the table and its endnotes is found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

and

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:548

Line	Data of the Judicial Council[4], 10^th Cir., filed with AO¹	‘06[5]’	‘07[6]	‘08A[7]	‘08B[8]	‘09A[9]	‘09B	’10[10]	’11[11]	’12[12]	’13[13]	’14[14]	’15[15]	’16[16]	totals
1.	Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 of preceding year *	2	14	7	–	0	52	18	26^♦‡	8	9	11	17	12	176
2.	Complaints Concluded					0	–
3.	Complaints Filed[17]	49	37	17	58	[18]–	73	62	64	33	59	33	37	51	573
4.	Complaint Type/Source
5.	Written/Filed by Complainants	49	37	17	58		71	61	64	33	59	33	37	51	570
6.	On Order of/Identified by Circuit Chief Judges	0	0	0	0		2	1	0	0	0	0	–	0
7.	Complainants^♦♦
8.	Prison inmates				50		47	26	37	13	27	15	22	13	250
9.	Litigants				8		23	33	19	25	25	16	11	20	180
10.	Attorneys				0		0	0	1	0	7	3	4	2	17
11.	Public Officials				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
12.	Other				0		3	2	7	0	0	0	0	4	16
13.	Judges Complained About **
14.	Circuit Judges	24	18	3	29		21	10	12	3	28	1	4	14	167
15.	District Judges	40			27		43	34	35	22	16	23	29	22	291
16.	Bankruptcy Judges	2			0		3	1	2	2	1	0	0	3	14
17.	Magistrate Judges	8	12	7	2		6	17	15	6	14	9	4	12	112
18.	Nature of Allegations
19.	Erroneous Decision				2		46	50	57	30	53	16	28	46	328
20.	Delayed Decision	1	7	4	1		5	10	1	4	7	4	6	0	50
21.	Failure to Give Reasons for Decision				0		1	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	4
22.	Improper Discussions With Party or Counsel				4		9	6	6	6	8	7	2	0	48
23.	Hostility Toward Litigant or Attorney				0		7	6	7	3	6	14	4	1	48
24.	Racial, Religious, or Ethnic Bias	14	19	13	28		2	3	9	0	1	3	4	3	99
25.	Personal Bias Against Litigant or Attorney				3		13	20	21	7	14	18	5	10	111
26.	Conflict of Interest (Including Refusal to Recuse)	2	4	1	0		7	4	5	1	4	10	2	3	43
27.	Failure to Meet Financial Disclosure Requirements				0		2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	3
28.	Improper Outside Income				0		0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
29.	Partisan Political Activity or Statement				0		4	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	7
30.	Acceptance of a Bribe				0		0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	3
31.	Effort to Obtain Favor for Friend or Relative				0		0	1	0	0	0	0	1	4	6
32.	Solicitation of Funds for Organization				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
33.	Violation of Other Standards				0		1	1	2	1	0	10	0	1	16
34.	Other Misconduct				57		48	23	28	14	23	0	25	40	258
35.	Disability				5		5	0	7	0	0	0	2	10	29
36.	ACTIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS
37.	Concluded/Terminated by Complainant or Subject Judge/Withdrawn				0		0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	3
38.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals
39.	Complaint Withdrawn with Consent of Chief Circuit Judge				0		0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0
40.	Withdrawal of Petition for Review				0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
41.	Actions by Chief Circuit Judge
42.	Matters Returned from Judicial Council/or Judicial Conference Committee				0		0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
43.	Complaint Dismissed ^♦in Whole or in Part				32		78	51	75	33	57	26	42	37	431
44.	Not in Conformity WIth Statute/Not Misconduct or Disability				1	0	4	4	3	5	0	2	4	2	25
45.	Directly Related to Decision or Procedural Ruling/ Merits Related				30	0	74	43	68	30	49	21	35	33	383
46.	Frivolous				1	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	0	0	18
47.	Lacked Factual Foundation/Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence				30	0	46	43	61	18	32	19	32	36	317
48.	Allegations Incapable of Being Established				0	–	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	3
49.	Filed in Wrong Circuit				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
50.	Otherwise Not Appropriate				1	–	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
51.	Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part				0		8		2	0	0	0	2	2	14
52.	Informal Resolution Before Complaint Filed				0		0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0
53.	Voluntary Corrective Action Taken				0		4		1	0	0	0	0	1	6
54.	Action No Longer Necessary Because of Intervening Event				0	0	4	0	1	0	0	0	2	1	8
55.	Appropriate Action Already Taken				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
56.	Complaint Withdrawn				–	0	–		–	–	–	–	–	–	0
57.	Subtotal				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
58.	Special Investigative Committee Appointed/Complaint Referred to Special Committee				0	0	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	4
59.	Actions by Special Committees					–
60.	Matter Returned from Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	0	0	0		0	0	0
61.	New Matter Referred to Chief Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0		0	0	0
62.	Judicial Council Proceedings
63.	Matter Returned from Judicial Conference				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
64.	Complaint Transferred to/from Another Circuit				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
65.	Received Petition for Review[19]	–	–	–	0	–	58	13	43		0	23	13	26	176
66.	Withdrawn					0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0
67.	Action on Petition for Review				0	–									0
68.	Dismissed Complaint[20]/Petition Denied				21	–	54	19	45	17	37	18	16	15	242
69.	Matter Returned to Chief Circuit Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
70.	Matter Returned to Chief Judge for Appointment of Special Committee				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
71.	Ordered Other Appropriate Action /Other				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
72.	Received Special Committee Report/Special Committee Reports Submittted to Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	2
73.	Remedial Action Taken/Action on Special Committee Report				0
74.	Complaint Dismissed				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
75.	Not Misconduct or Disability				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
76.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals
77.	Merits Related				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
78.	Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
79.	Otherwise Not Appropriate				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
80.	Corrective Action Taken or Intervening Events				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
81.	Referred Complaint to Judicial Conference				0	0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0
82.	Remedial Action Taken				0	–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
83.	Privately Censured				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
84.	Publicly Censured				–	0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
85.	Censure or Reprimand				0	–	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
86.	Suspension of Assignments				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
87.	Directed Chief District J. to Take Action (Magistrates only)/Action Against Magistrate Judge				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
88.	Removal of Bankruptcy Judge				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
89.	Request of Voluntary Retirement				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
90.	Certification of Disability of Circuit or District Judge				0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
91.	Additional Investigation Warranted				0	–	0
92.	Returned to Special Committee				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
93.	Retained by Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
94.	Actions by Chief Justice							0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0
95.	Transferred to Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	–	0	0	–	0	1	1
96.	Received from Judicial Council				0	–	0	0	–	0	0	–	0	0	0
97.	Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action
98.	During 12-month Period Ending Sep. 30 of reported year	37	48	24	0	0-	96	50	83	33	57	47	40	36	551[21]
99.	Complaints Pending on Sep. 30 [end of reported year]				26	0	29	30	7	8	11	18	14	27	170
1.	Data of the Judicial Council, 10th Cir., filed with AO	‘06	‘07	‘08A	‘08B	‘09A	‘09B	‘10	‘11	‘12	‘13	‘14	‘15	‘16	totals

[These notes are in the original.]

^♦Each complaint may involve multiple reasons for dismissal.

^♦♦Number of complainants may not equal total number of filings because each complaint may have multiple complainants.

^♦^‡Revised

Note: Excludes complaints not accepted by the circuits because they duplicated previous fillings or were otherwise invalid filings.

* Each complaint may involve multiple allegations against numerous judicial officers. Nature of allegations is counted when a complaint is concluded.

Each complaint may involve multiple allegations. Each complaint may have multiple reasons for dismissal.

ENDNOTES

The above article is supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries, titled:

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

The above table collecting all the statistics on complaints against federal judges filed in the 10^th Circuit between 1oct06 through 30sep16 together with its source, namely, the official tables presenting the statistics of the complaints filed in all circuits between 1oct96 through 30sep16 are found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf

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

[1] This table is based on Table S-22 in the Annual Report, 28 U.S.C. §604(a)(3), submitted to Congress as a public document, §604(a)(3), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), §§601-613, which includes the statistics on complaints filed against judges and action taken, §604(h)(2). On AO, see also http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:21fn10.

Each of the 12 regional federal judicial circuits and the national courts must file its statistics on complaints against its judges with AO for presentation on the statistical tables in its Annual Report. The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep97 and since have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/statistics&tables/statistical_tables_complaints_v_judges.pdf. Hence, readers can conveniently download that file and prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.

The above table for the 10^th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals. That constitutes the foundation for the assertion that the judges have proceeded to abuse the self-discipline power granted to them under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to exempt themselves from discipline, placing themselves beyond investigation and above any liability.

Judges hold themselves unaccountable by arrogating to themselves the power to abrogate in practice that Act of Congress. By so doing, they harm the complainants, who are left with no relief from the harmful conduct of the complained-about judge and exposed to his or her retaliation. Likewise, they harm the rest of the public, who is left with judges who know that as a matter of fact they can rely on the protection of their peers to abuse their power and disregard due process and the equal protection of the law, for their are in effect Judges Above the Law.

[2] Any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge under the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§351-364; ^‡http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf.

The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion where a person comes in contact with a judge and for complaints against her to arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.

In any event, the complaint must be filed with the chief circuit judge of the circuit where the complained-about judge sits. The chief and the complained-about judge may have been colleagues, peers, and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years or more. If they hold life-appointments, as circuit and district judges do, they are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. If she is a bankruptcy judge, she was appointed for a renewable term of 14 years by the respective circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §152. If she is a magistrate judge, the respective district judges appointed her for a renewable term of 8 years under 28 U.S.C. §631(a) and (e).

The very last thing that they want is a peer holding professional and personal grudges against them for their rest of their lives or even for a term of years for failure to dismiss the complaint and insulate her from any discipline. Actually, appointing-judges who hold an appointee of theirs liable for misconduct or incompentence indict their own good judgment and the quality and impartiality of their vetting procedure.

Think of all the criticism that has been heaped on President Trump for having appointed General Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor allegedly without having found out during the vetting of him that he had had meetings with the Russian ambassador; and for demonstrating a dishonest character when he lied thereabout to the Vice President. The President fired him less than a month after appointing him.

Worse yet, finding that a judge behaved dishoneslty or incompetently casts doubt on her character and professional capacity. This provides grounds for every party that has appeared before her to file a motion in his own case for recusal or disqualification, to quash her decision, to reverse and remand for a new trial, for leave to appeal…’Why bother!’, shout the judges handling the complaint. ‘It suffices for me as chief circuit judge to dismiss the complaint by signing a decision with boilerplate text alleging that it relates to the merits of the case or lacks any evidence; or by us in the judicial council having an unsigned 5¢ form issued that disposed of the petition for review of such dismissal with one single operative word: Denied. That’s how we avoid all the hassle and the bad blood that comes with it.’

And then there is the self-serving consideration of reciprocally ensured survival: ‘Today I dismiss this complaint against you, and tomorrow, when I am or one of my friends is the target of one of these pesky complaints, you in turn dismiss it’. By so doing, the judges assure each other that no matter the wrongdoing they engage in, their “brothers and sisters of the robe” will exempt them from any discipline and let them go on to do ever graver wrongs.(* >jur:68§§a-c)

The result is the same: Complainants are left to bear the dire consequences of the misconduct and wrongdoing of judges, and the rest of the public is left at the mercy of a judicial class with ever less integrity and regard for the strictures of due process and equal protection of the law, for the class is composed of Judges Above the Law.

[3] Judge Neil M. Gorsuch received his commission to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit on August 8, 2006; https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-neil-m-gorsuch. Thereafter he may have served on that Circuit’s judicial council; on the administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary functions of judicial councils see ^‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

However, the website of the 10^th Circuit does not provide information on its judicial council, let alone on its current membership, much less on its members in previous years. The members of the judicial council are the ones who systematically denied petitions from complainants to review the dismissal by the chief circuit judge of their complaints against judges in the circuit.

[4] On judicial councils see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/28usc_Judicial_Code.pdf >28usc§332(g).

[5] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2006

[6] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2007

[7] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2008

[8] The adoption on March 11, 2008, of new rules for filing and processing complaints against judges caused the complaints filed from 1oct07 through 10may08 under the old rules to be reported in Table S-22A in the 2008 Judicial Business Report; and those filed under the new rules from 11may-30sep08 to be reported in that year’s Table S-22B. The same applies to the corresponding 2009 tables.

[9] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2009. While the 2009 Judicial Business Report covers only the fiscal year that started on October 1, 2008, its table on complaints against judges includes the complaints filed under the new rules during May 11 through September 30, 2008. This period alone is reported in Table S-22B of 2008.

[10] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2010

[11] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2011

[12] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2012 >Complaints against judges,

Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2010-2012 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2012/09/30

[13] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2013 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2013 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2011-2013 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2013/09/30

[14] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2014 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2012–2014 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2014/09/30

[15] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2015 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2015 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2013-2015 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2015/09/30

[16] http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2016 >Complaints against judges,

http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/complaints-against-judges-judicial-business-2016 >Table 10 Judicial Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 >Table S-22, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/s-22/judicial-business/2016/09/30

[17] Over the years, the judges have added some headings and removed others to and from the table for reporting the statistics on complaints against judges. This explains why some cells have no values, which is indicated by an unobstrusive hypejn – so that it may not be misinterpred as a failure to include the correspoinding value. In the same vein, this is a composite table that aggregates all headings and entries and place them in the most logical position in the series of headings and entries.

The most significant addition and removal came when the new rules for processing these complaints were adopted in 2008. The use of the new rules became mandatory on May 11, 2008. Since then a new reporting table with more numerous and detailed headings and entries has been used to report the statistics on complaints filed under the new rules.

Although the new rules for filing complaints against federal judges provided more numerous and detailed causes for complaint, the systematic dismissal of them and denial of petitions for review of such dismissals by judges protecting their own as well as themselves –‘I protect you today, and if tomorrow I’m or any of my friends is the one complained against, you protect me or them- continued unabated.

The new rules was a ruse by the judges to dissuade Congress from taking action to correct the fact that the judges had applied for over 20 years the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 in such a way as to render it useless so that judicial discipline was as inexistence as it had been since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, a period during which there was no formal mechanism for complaining against judges; see the history of, and a comment on, the new rules at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/8-4-3DrRCordero_new_rules_no_change.pdf.

[18] Table S-22A(stat:28) for the fiscal year 1oct08-30sep09 deals only with the action taken on the complaints filed under the old rules up to and including May 10, 2008. By definition, none of those complaints could have been filed during that fiscal year. Consequently, that table does not report any complaint filed.

[19] The table(cf. stat:24) used to report complaints about judges filed under the old rules did not report the number of complainants’ petitions to the judicial circuit to review the unfavorable disposition of their complaints, which consisted in their systematic dismissal without any investigation. Accordingly, it did not report on the disposition by judicial councils of such petitions.

The table(cf. stat:26) used for reporting under the new rules began reporting both the number of petitions for review and their disposition. This explains why the number of “Received Petitions for Review” is 176(L65), yet the number of “Petitions Denied” is 242(L68). This illustrates that the circuit and district judges on the judicial council of the respective circuit overwhelmingly disposed of those petitions through their systematic denial. Thereby they attained the same objective: their self-exemption from discipline to ensure their unaccountability as Judges Above the Law.

[20] Cf. stat:28. The entry “Action on Petition for Review: Petition Denied” under the heading Judicial Council Proceedings” first appear in Table S-22B of 2009(stat:30).

[21] To the 551 «Complaints Concluded/Terminated by Final Action»(L98) there have been added the 1 «Complaint Dismissed»(L74) and the 14 «Complaints Concluded in Whole or in Part»(L51) to arrive at the total of 566 complaints terminated before and through final action.

How the Women’s March, One Day Without Women participants, and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment can seize the opportunity of P. Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” and “transfer power from the Establishment to the people”, and his nomination of a judge to the Supreme Court to set in motion an investigation of connivance between politicians and the wrongdoing judges that they nominate and confirm, whose findings can so outrage the public as to provide the necessary impetus for the Women and The Dissatisfied to “move forward” to a new constitution under which they need not march to beg for permits from the Establishment, but rather in which they assert all the rights of the sovereign source of all political power: We the People

[NOTE: If you agree with this open letter and its supporting article below, copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and share and post them widely.]

Ms. Tamika D. Mallory
Ms. Carmen Perez
Ms. Linda Sarsour
Ms. Bob Bland
Women’s March Co-Chairs and
National Committee Members

Dear Misses. Bland, Sarsour, Perez, Mallory, and Committee Members,

I would like to praise your values and objectives, as expressed by Ms. Perez and Ms. Bland in their interview on PBS Newshour on January 20; your superb organization of the January 21 Women’s March; and the principles that you have stated on your website.

We have harmonious interests that make us advocates of a common cause: to enjoy, assert, and acquire the rights of women, of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, in general, and of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system, in particular, and of everybody else who makes up We the People.

Therefore, I want to join forces with you.

To that end, I bring to the table a concrete, realistic, and feasible answer to the question that you asked on your website:

We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

I respectfully submit this answer: We “move forward” to a new constitution.

This answer is realistic: 34 states have demanded Congress since April 2014, to convene a constitutional convention.

A new constitution is a concrete rallying cry.

More importantly, a new constitution is the embodiment of an inspiring ideal as well as of the foundational terms of a new relation between the people and their government to emerge after breaking with the Establishment:

We “move forward” to a new constitution under which people need not march to beg the Establishment for permits, but rather in which We the People assert our status as the sovereign source of all political power and as such the masters of government, who hire public servants to safeguard and facilitate our enjoyment of what are our rights, and who retain and exercise the power to hold our servants accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

The “move forward” to a new constitution is feasible by applying the inform and outrage strategy. I developed it in my study of judges in connivance with politicians, which is titled and downloadable 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

The inform and outrage strategy is non-partisan, non-denominational, and non-violent.

It is the product of strategic thinking: We analyze the interests of people and entities to determine who has harmonious and conflicting interests(^†>ol2:465§1), which if strengthened or weakened can allow us to form or break up explicit or implicit alliances so that we may become stronger or clear the way to advance our cause(*>ol2:445§B, 475§D).

Strategic thinking allows us to obtain in practice support from unwitting sources that we need not approve and are not part of.

A public dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment; a President who has promised to “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment” and to transfer power from the self-enriching Establishment to the people, whom it has harmed; and the two thirds of the states that have formally demanded Congress to call a constitutional convention, are our main ‘allies’. Their interests are harmonious with ours. They render us stronger; render the concrete goal of the “move forward” to a new constitution realistic; and render the inform and outrage strategy to attain it all the more feasible.

I offer to make a presentation on the “move forward” and the strategy to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip.

The article below previews my presentation. It shows that my answer to your question is indeed concrete, realistic, and feasible. Just as my above-mentioned study, it also shows my thoughtful commitment to our common cause and the value that I can add to your effort to advance it. We are implicit allies; my presentation can contribute to turning us into explicit allies.

Consequently, I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, for the most opportune occasion for launching the strategy to “move forward” to a new constitution is during the investigation of the justiceship nominee that the media will naturally launch upon President Trump announcing his or her name on January 31.

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

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

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

How the Women’s March and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment
can “move forward”
thanks to a concrete, realistic, and feasible strategy
in the context of P. Trump’s justiceship nomination
by informing the public about
two unique national stories
of swamp politicians conniving with
life-tenured federal judges ‒who
are the most established of the corrupt Establishment and
unaccountable and consequently engage risklessly in
routine, widespread, and grave wrongdoing‒
and so outraging the public as to
increase the ranks of Marchers and The Dissatisfied and
make them strong enough to
force Congress to call the constitutional convention that
has been demanded by 34 states since April 2014, and
to emerge therefrom with
a new constitution
under which people need not march to beg the Establishment for permits,
but rather in which We the People
assert our status as the sovereign source of all political power and
as such the masters of government,
we hire public servants
to safeguard and facilitate our enjoyment of what are our rights, and
we retain and exercise
the power to hold our servants accountable and
liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

[NOTE: If you agree with this article and its cover letter above, copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and share and post them widely.]

**A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world**

Proposing that the Women’s March and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment “move forward” to a heavily amended or formally new constitution may appear right now inconceivable, the product, not of strategic thinking, but rather of wishful thinking.
However, hundreds of years ago, the 13 colonies also deemed inconceivable having a constitution. But they managed to give themselves one. It required them to wage a war.
Giving ourselves a new constitution that corresponds to the demands of a radically different world requires us to devise and implement a reasonable strategy. Its objective is not to take up arms or become partisan supporters of a person or an entity. Rather, it aims to form or break up explicit or implicit alliances of result that in effect advance our cause.
More importantly, the objective of the strategy requires a justification, that is, a theoretical explanation of why we need a new constitution. The justification must convince the mind and inspire people so profoundly that they commit their soul and body to achieving the objective. It must motivate people to coalesce into a movement that they energize and that energizes them. Reason and passion are indispendable to realize a great objective. That way it becomes an inspiring ideal.
Without the inspiring ideal of freedom and self-determination that found its expression in the motto ‘not taxation without representation’, we would be paying taxes to the queen of England for the tea that we drink.
We, Women’s Marchers and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, also need and want an ideal: We want a country where instead of having to march with our hands stretched out begging the King-like Establishment to give us permits , we “move forward” to give ourselves a constitution that is the expression of the rights that we the living today, assemble in a constitutional convention, decide that we have in today’s radically different world.
We want to give ourselves a constitution where we assert and which reflects the fact that:

a. We are the People in reality, not merely a character in a bookish description of democracy.

b. We are the sovereign source of all political power. We do not draw our power from any constitution. We are not subservient to the constitution that we received from the past. We are not bound to preseve its future existence at the cost of the life that we want to live in the present. We hold the sovereign power, not Congress or the states, to decide when the time has come for us to change or do away with an old constitution in order to give ourselves a new constitution.

c. In our new constitution, we will assert our status as masters. We will exercise the fundamental right to hire public servants to safeguard our rights and facilitate our enjoyment of them. As masters of all our public servants, we will retain the right and provide for the way to hold all our servants accountable for the service that they render and fail to render and everything else that they do that affects the service for which we hired them, and therefore, we will hold them liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

By giving ourselves a new constitution, we will throw over board a constitution imposed upon us by the male Establishment of 228 years ago, i.e. 1789, when

a. women could not even read, never mind vote on a constitution, and could only live to raise children and work in the kitchen or their husbands’ farms;

b. only white men with property could vote; and

c. nobody could or would have dare think of rights concerning abortion, illegal immigration, universal health care, gun violence, same sex marriage, minorities voting, LBTG, equal pay, criminal reform, campaign financing, environmental protection, public education, big corporations, indigenous people, stalking, consumers, emancipation of slaves, workplace safety job security, drugs, living wages, overincarceration, feminism, deceptive advertising, truth in lending, balanced budget, reverse discrimination, admission quotas, equal opportunity employment, anticompetitive practices, overregulation, redistricting, entitlements, term limits, social security, the Internet, digital profiles, unaccountable judges’ consequent riskless wrongdoing, etc.

As a result, since then nine unelected, Establishment-appointed, politicized, and unaccountable justices form a standing constitutional convention where even as few as five of them routinely amend that constitution of the past for a long gone world by reading into it whatever they fancy necessary to adapt it to a radically different world and protect the privileges of the faction of the Establishment that they represent.
That is why We the People living today want to give ourselves a new constitution where we assert the rights by which we want to live our lives in today’s world.

B. A demand by 34 states for a constitutional convention is before Congress, whose members have disregarded it in the interest of preserving their power and privileges and avoiding accountability and liability for their wrongdoing

Realistically, we can “move forward” toward a new constitution given that since April 2014, the constitutional requirement of Article V that a constitutional convention be demanded by two thirds of the states -currently 34- has been met.
But the members of Congress have disregarded that demand because the Establishment abhors a process that is bound to escape its control and strip it of its privileges and, worse yet, expose its wrongdoing. Only if forced to will politicians cause Congress to vote to convene a convention.
That is the justification for the inform and outrage strategy: the public, informed of the routineness, extent, and gravity of politicians’ and judges’ wrongdoing, will be so outraged that it will be stirred up to “move forward” in an unconventional, imaginative way to force politicians to do what they and Congress abhor.
To that end, the inform and outrage strategy provides that we should confront politicians with the only “concern and fear” that they respond to, i.e., that the public, informed of, and outraged at, public wrongdoing, may vote those politicians out of, or not into, office, if they fail to condemn, investigate, expose, and punish such wrongdoing. We play on politicians’ paramount “concern and fear”: their political survival.
The precedent for this tactical element is the “concern and fear” that caused politicians in the 2012 presidential campaign to reject reasonable compromises and embrace extremist positions, lest they be terminated politically by the Tea Party supporters.
The confirmation of this “concern and fear” came in the 2014 mid-term primaries in Virginia when no less prominent a politician than House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by a newcomer, Dave Brat, for supporting positions on immigration and other subjects that though seemingly reasonable, outraged the Tea Party.
Consequently, from now on, we “move forward” to generate in politicians “concern and fear” that they may not survive next year’s mid-term election if they do not support our demands in their public statements, in practice, and effectively.

C. Informing and outraging the public by taking advantage of President Trump’s nomination of a justice on February 2

1. This is the most opportune time for implementing the strategy

The inform and outrage strategy takes advantage of the fact that Trump ran his presidential campaign on the promise to “drain the swamp of corruption of the Establishment”.
What is more, in his inaugural speech, he berated both Republicans and Democrats as abusers of their position for self-enrichment at the expense of the people; and promised to transfer power from Congress to the people. Thereby he announced that he does not feel committed to protecting and covering up corrupt politicians even if they are Republican. He will govern in effect as the president of a third party: the Trump Populist Party.

2. Informing of wrongdoing through the investigation of two unique national stories of politicians’ and judges’ wrongdoing that can outrage most intensely

The first step of the inform and outrage strategy is for us:

a. to seize the opportunity of P. Trump’s nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court and the investigation of the nominee by the media that will naturally follow;

b. to call a press conference and/or discreetly make private presentations to journalists to persuade them to investigate the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA, described below, which will reveal politicians conniving with judges engaged in wrongdoing(ol:154¶3; jur:5¶3) so that:

c. the public:

1) composed of:

a) the millions who participated in the historic and indepensable Women’s March on January 21, 2017;

b) the scores of millions of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment who elected Trump president;

c) the segment thereof that is dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system and made up of:

(1) the more than 100 million people that every year go or are taken to court(jur:8fn4,5);

(2) plus the scores of millions who are parties to lawsuits pending or deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided,

(3) plus the scores of millions of related people, such as their family, friends, peers, employees, customers, employers, etc.; and

d) the rest of We the People;

2) informed through the media and us of:

a) politicians who for the benefit of their own political careers and the avoidance of judges’ retaliation, have condoned and held unaccountable

b) “their men and women on the bench”, who for their own gain and convenience abuse their power to dispose of the property, liberty, and all the rights that litigants and the rest of the public have;

(1) To understand judges’ abuse consider this: If you had power to dispose of the property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape the life of everybody in the Women’s March, would you be tempted to abuse it for your benefit if you could do so risklessly? If instead you were so abused by the co-chairs of the March, would you be dissatisfied?

(2) Federal judges do wrong because they know that they are unaccountable: Whereas 2,293 of them were in office on September 30, 2015, the number of them impeached and removed in the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789 is 8!(jur:22fn13, 14). This historic record shows that once a person becomes a member of that Judiciary, he or she can do any wrong without risking any adverse consequences. They do wrong with the assurance of impunity. This makes it understandable why judges dare wield abusively their decision-making power.

3) outraged, the public is stirred up to take further action.

The second step is for us to lead an outraged public to force Congress and the Department of Justice, and/or persuade the media themselves ‒which is unheard of but would be no less effective‒ to hold nationally televised hearings on those two unique national stories, in general, and on judges’ wrongdoing experienced or witnesses; and thereby

a. the public is

1) further informed of such depth and breadth of the swamp of corruption of the Establishment, especially of its most established and powerful segment, the life-appointed federal judges, that the public

2) becomes further outraged at conniving politicians and wrongdoing judges and so convinced that politicians cannot legislate against their own wrongdoing and that judges cannot apply the law against themselves; so that the public is stirred up to take further action.

The third step is for us to lead the public in:

a. demanding that politicians call a constitutional convention as the only process that will enable We the People to assert our status as masters who hold all our public servants accountable for rendering honest service and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing; and

b. generating the “concern and fear” in politicians that they will be punished at the polls unless they satisfy the demand.

The fourth step is to:

a. develop a draft new constitution(cf. jur:158§§6-8);

b. present it to the public;

c. persuade, organize, and raise funds for, Women’s Marchers and The Dissatisfied to run for delegation to the constitutional convention; and

d. lead our delegates so that we become the dominant bloc that causes the most provisions of our constitution to be adopted.

This “move forward” will benefit from any disruptive chaos and aggravated dissatisfaction generated by President Trump. We must be able to turn them into transformative chaos and the necessary passion and commitment to convert what is unthinkable and inconceivable now into what is inevitable and unavoidable: a constitutional convention where We the People give ourselves a new constitution.
Implementing the inform and outrage strategy is the first step and cannot be skipped: We must begin by exposing the depth and breadth of the swamp of corruption so that the drastic measures necessary to drain it become apparent and unavoidable. Drafting a new constitution now is inopportune. A full diagnose of the gravity of the ailment is a precondition to the acceptance of drastic treatment.

D. The “move forward” to a new constitution must from the beginning expose the scope of wrongdoing, and cause the resignation, of swamp judges, lest they declare it “unconstitutional” or interpret it protect their interests

In the same vein, if the swamp of the most established of the Establishment, the life-appointed federal judges, remain in place, they will strike down the new constitution as “unconstitutional” or apply it to ensure the preservation of their status as Judges Above the Law and the continuation of their consequent riskless wrongdoing for grabbing benefits.
Therefore, as many of those judges as possible must be forced to resign, removed or fired (see as precedent the Midnight Judges confirmed under the Judiciary Act of 1801 but removed by the Judiciary Act of 1802).
That is the objective of investigating the two unique national stories (see below): just to show, rather than prove, that judges have violated Canon 2 of their Code of Conduct, which enjoins them to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) by acting:

a. either as principals who have engaged in wrongdoing;

b. as accessories after the principals’ wrongdoing that they learned about but in self-interest covered up through their silence(jur:88§§a-c), whereby they violated Canon 1 requiring them to “uphold the integrity of the judiciary”; or

c. as accessories before their peers’ next wrongdoing that they encouraged with their explicit or implicit promise of silence.

Accessories are as culpable as principals, for instead of upholding the integrity of the Judiciary and judicial process by exposing or preventing their peers’ wrongdoing, they too have contributed to the festering of such wrongdoing. Due to them as much as the principals, the Judiciary operates as the safe haven of wrongdoers.
Swamp judges must leave the Judiciary, whether by resigning because the outrage at them makes their holding on to their office untenable –the precedent for this is the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d)‒ or because they are impeached and removed; otherwise, they will turn the “move forward” to a new constitution into Sisyphus’s uphill climb of futility.

E. The immediate steps that we can take to “move forward” together to a new constitution

1. My offer to make a presentation to you

I offer to make a presentation on this strategy for you to “move forward” to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip.

2. Share and post this email

You can share and post this email in its entirety and its recipients and readers can do likewise so that many Women’s Marchers, the Dissatisfied With The Establishment, the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal system, those given hope by Trump, his supporters, and the rest of the People may join in the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy and the “move forward” to our new constitution.

3. Our presentation at a press conference and privately to journalists

You can take advantage of the clout of the Women’s March to call the media to a press conference or individual journalists to a private and discreet presentation by us of, in general, the goal of the new constitution, and, in particular, the two unique national stories(§4 next) for implementing the inform and outrage strategy.
The nomination of a new justice on February 2, will focus public debate on everything judicial. As a result, these stories can be of considerable interest to media outlets and journalists because through their investigating some of them will be able to:

a. offer a different angle on the subject that attracts audience away from their competitors and to themselves;

b. win a Pulitzer Prize;

c. enhance their reputation in the industry; earn a higher salary; receive a promotion in their corporate hierarchy; or secure a job at a more prestigious media outlet; and

d. attain the status that every ambitious journalist aspires: to become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and Editor Benjamin Bradlee. They broke the story of what appeared to be a mere “garden variety burglary by five plumbers” at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. They were most instrumental in pursuing the story until it developed into a generalized media investigation that provoked a historic scandal(*>jur:4¶¶10-14). It led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974. Subsequently, Congress passed laws to increase public accountability and transparency(jur:65fn107d).

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

4. Our demand for the investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA

By making a presentation on those two unique national stories (§§F, G below), the Women’s March and I can set rolling a Watergate-like investigative bandwagon that can propel us through the steps laid down in §C above. This can afford us the opportunity to keep the objective of a new constitution on the frontpages and the top of newscasts for a long time while growing our membership, assertiveness, and reputation.
We all can demand at the press conference, the private presentations, and when sharing and posting this email:

a. that President Trump, the media, and citizen and professional journalists(jur:xxxvi§§H,I) expand the investigation of the justiceship nominee to include the operation of the Supreme Court(jur:47§c) and the rest of the Federal Judiciary(jur:21§§1-3), and do so pin-pointedly and cost-effectively by investigating the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA;

1) The investigation of these stories can work as Trojan horses into the circumstances(*>ol:190¶¶1-7) of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness that enable wrongdoing by appointed judges in connivance with their appointing politicians to attain such routineness, extent, and gravity that wrongdoing has become the Federal Judiciary’s modus operandi.

2) Congress receives annually and disregards in self-interest the official statistics on the federal courts’ caseload showing that the circuit courts dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions on “procedural grounds, by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”(^†>ol2:455§§B-E) so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) or wrongful that the judges deprive them of precedential value…in a common law legal system based on precedent. The majority of those decisions are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”, mere ad hoc, arbitrary, reasonless fiats of the judicial swamp.

^† http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

b. that P. Trump release the three secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor(§G below) to the district, circuit, and Supreme courts so that the public may be informed of what the FBI, exercising its power of subpoena and search and seizure, and President Obama(jur:77§5) and Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, who shepherded her through the confirmation process(jur:78§6), knew or learned about her wrongdoing before and after the series of articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) that suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets(jur:65fn107c);

c. that Congress and the Justice Department and/or the media hold nationally televised hearings on how the Establishment has allowed federal judges to abusively self-exempt from any liability by dismissing without investigation 99.82% of complaints against judges, which must be filed with their peers, and deny up to 100% of petitions for review of those dismissals(jur:24§§b-c).

1) Establishment politicians have been informed of, but have disregarded, such grab of impunity for over 35 years since 1980, when politicians passed and enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act(jur:24fn18a) authorizing complaints against federal judges and requiring the annual publication of statistics(jur:10-14) on their nature and handling. Connivingly, politicians have allowed the illegal abrogation in effect of an act of Congress intended for the first time in history to bring relief to complainants and bring down Judges Above the Law;

d. that Congress, the Justice Department, and the media investigate the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(§H below), which can lend credence to P. Trump’s distrust of the security Establishment if it reveals the interception(^†>ol2:425) by the NSA of communications of critics of federal judges and/or the use of its Information Technology expertise and network to conceal assets of, and launder money for, judges in exchange for the judges granting 100% of the NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance(ol:5fn7).

1) The precedent for government interception of communications of its critics is the current case of Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who broke the Fast and Furious gun-running debacle story; and revealed embarrassing details about the killing of the American ambassador and three other officers at Benghazi in Libya. She is suing the Department of Justice for hacking her office and home computers; and demanding $35 million in compensation(*>ol:346¶131; ^†>ol2:396§3).

These investigations can give rise to a constitutional crisis among the three branches and a crisis of trust between government and We the People. The crises can dominate the headlines for months or years to come, as the investigations of the Watergate scandal and 9/11 did.

F. Requested action
Therefore, I respectfully request a meeting with you either here in New York City, at a video conference, or elsewhere on a paid trip, so that I may present to you my strategy for the Women’s March to “move forward” and answer your questions.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, keeping in mind that P. Trump announced his nominee to the Supreme Court on January 31.

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

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

The Two Unique National Stories of
President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and
Federal Judiciary-NSA

that through journalistic and official investigations can inform the public of judges’ wrongdoing and so outrage it as to stir it up to demand that Congress heed the states’ call for a constitutional convention where We the People can give ourselves a new constitution in which we are the masters who hold all our judicial public servants accountable and liable for their wrongdoing

By Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

[NOTE: The following two unique national journalistic stories have as their background the article and cover letter above. You are kindly invited to read them too, and if you agree with them, to copy and email them to the Women’s March co-chairs at tamika@womensmarch.com, carmen@womensmarch.com, Linda@womensmarch.com, bob@womensmarch.com, sisters@womensmarch.com, and to share and post them widely.]

G. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

What did President Barak Obama(*>jur:77§5),
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand(jur:78§6),
and federal judges(jur:105fn213b)
know about the concealment of assets
by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor
(jur:65§§1-3) –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets,
which entails the crimes(*>ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c)
and money laundering–
and when did they know it?

This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:194§E).
Its investigation can determine whether they covered up for Then-Judge Sotomayor and lied(ol:64§C) to the American public by vouching for her honesty because President Obama wanted to ingratiate himself with the people petitioning him to nominate to the Supreme Court another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress.
The investigation includes a call on President Donald Trump to release unredacted all FBI reports on the vetting of J. Sotomayor as federal district, circuit, and Supreme Court nominee, as well as on J. Sotomayor herself to request that she ask him to release those reports.
The release of those FBI vetting reports can set a precedent for the vetting of judges and other candidates for office.
The investigation can reveal how routine(jur:21§1), grave(jur:27§2), and widespread(jur:28§3) wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by federal judges is(jur:71§4); and the circumstances(ol:190¶¶1-7) of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness that enable their wrongdoing(jur:5§3).
It can expose wrongdoing so outrageous as to force justices and judges to resign(jur:92§d), or be impeached and removed, for having violated their own Code of Conduct, which enjoins them both to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) and “uphold the integrity of the judiciary”.
‘Showing the appearance of impropriety’, not the commission of a crime, thus becomes the standard for the investigation and the publication of articles. Responsible, unbiased, and ambitious journalists can easily meet it.
Only in a criminal case in court is it required that the jury apply the most exacting standard of ‘proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ to reach its verdict. But even there the introduction of each piece of evidence by the prosecutor is not subject to that standard; and the jury can base its verdict on circumstantial evidence, the totality of circumstances, and reasonable inferences drawn from them.
The Follow the money! investigation is a journalistic activity; it is not a prosecutorial effort to obtain a conviction. By ‘showing the appearance of impropriety’ by a justice or a judge it can bring about his or her resignation. That is how the investigation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas by Life magazine provoked such public outrage at his improprieties that he resigned on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
Judicial resignations will open the door for the Federal Judiciary to be ‘packed’(jur:23fn17a) with people transparently found capable of rendering honest services and worthy of being entrusted with the power to dispose of our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape our lives.

All (blue text references) are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s 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 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

H. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

To what extent do established, life-tenured federal judges
abuse their vast computer network and expertise
–which handle hundreds of millions of case files(*>Lsch:11¶9b.ii)–
either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA
(National Security Agency)
–up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret orders of surveillance
are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7)
by the federal judges of the secret court established under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811; ol:20fn5)–:

a) to conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1) in a money laundering operation intended to wash money of the taint of its illegal source; and

b) to cover up their interception of the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14)– of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges’ wrongdoing?

This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:194§E).
At stake in it is contents-based interception, that is, activity aimed at finding out what the participants in the communication said to each other so that the interceptor may determine whether to interfere with, or prevent, that and future communications.
Contents-based interception constitutes a deprivation of the 1^st Amendment rights to ‘freedom of speech, of the press, to assemble peacefully, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances’(jur:130¶276b).
A statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(^†>ol2:395, 405) give probable cause to believe that contents-based interception is going on(ol2:425).
It is reasonable to assume that the people who have the most to lose due to such criticism and the most to gain by interfering with it, namely, judges, are the ones conducting or who have instigated others to conduct on their behalf such interception.
The revelation of contents-based interception will provoke graver outrage than that resulting from Edward Snowden’s leaked documents revealing the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications, that is, only telephone numbers, names of callers and callees, calls’ time, duration, frequency, and location, etc.
Public outrage will be driven to its paroxysm if it is shown that judges are behind the contents-based interception, not in “the national security interest”, but rather in the crass self-interest of preventing the exposure of their wrongdoing and preserving the flow to them of illegal or improper material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93).

**H. Judges’ wrongdoing and abuse of power with the connivance of politicians warrants the People giving themselves a new constitution**

Routine, widespread, and grave wrongdoing and abuse of power will constitute evidence that honest service by judges cannot be obtained either by giving them self-disciplining power under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(jur:21§1), which judges have abused by self-exempting from liability(jur:24§§b, c), nor by Congress and the president exercising constitutional checks and balances on the Judiciary, a function that they have failed to perform in the self-interest of avoiding retaliation from judges(jur:23fn17a).
As a result, judges harm litigants and the rest of the public by wrongfully and abusively disposing of their property, their liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape their lives. Connivingly, politicians have condoned and covered up their harmful conduct.
Consequently, the People are justified in demanding that a constitutional convention be called where they can give themselves a new constitution in which they assert their status as the sovereign source of all political power and as such, the masters in “government of, by, and for the people”(jur:82fn172) who hire public servants, including judicial public servants, and hold them accountable(jur:158§§6-8) and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Dr. Cordero offers to make a presentation to you and your colleagues here in New York City or at a video conference or elsewhere on a paid trip, on these two unique national stories and his inform and outrage strategy, set forth in the email above and on his website^‡, for the Women’s March to “move forward” to a new constitution.

^‡Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

Federal judges with life-tenure are the Establishment by definition. Will President-elect Trump drain the judicial swamp or let it fester on the advice of the Establishment insiders that he is bringing into the White House and his cabinet, and to avoid judges’ retaliation against his 70 pending business lawsuits, thus leaving exposed to judges’ continued abuse The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, who elected him, and the rest of We the People?

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://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

President-elect Trump has stated that what follows in importance a president’s declaration of war is a Supreme Court nomination.
Indeed, until the Court upholds the constitutionality of a law, it is little more than a set of wishful guidelines envisaged by the 535 members of Congress and the president and expressed in black ink on white paper. Where would Obamacare be today if the Court had held it unconstitutional? In a footnote in the chronicles of the Obama presidency.
P-s Trump also campaigned on the promise “to drain the swamp of corruption of Washington insiders”. The latter constitute the Establishment. He accused Sec. Clinton of being its representative so that if she won the presidential election, she would protect the swamp and its corruption would continue festering. It stills festers although in 2006, Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, before becoming Speaker of the House, famously declared that “Washington is dominated by the culture of corruption” and vowed “to drain the swamp”(*>jur:23fn16). She miserably failed to do so because she was part of the Establishment.
By contrast, P-e Trump is an outsider. He is not tied, and does not owe his election, to Establishment members. Far from it, those who got him elected are precisely The Dissatisfied With The Establishment. However, in light of his nomination of Washington insiders for his White House and cabinet, how concerned should The Dissatisfied be about his becoming domesticated on those insiders’ advice to the Washington ways so as to become used to the continued festering of the swamp, in general, and its most harmful portion, the judicial swamp, in particular?

A. The abused powers that generate the judicial swamp

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 3, 1887.

The status of unaccountability is at the source of the capacity to turn power into absolute power that ends up forming a swamp of corruption.

1. Judges’ power to stay established: life-appointment and irremovability in practice

Federal judges are appointed for life. Worse yet, they are irremovable in effect: While 2,293 federal judges were in office on 30sep15, in the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:21§1).

The above statistics originate in the official ones that the Federal Judiciary must submit by law(28 USC §604(d)(3); (h)(2); *>jur:26fn23a) , to Congress every year. They are analyzed in my study of judges’ performance in practice as opposed to as prescribed on rules printed on paper. It is titled and downloadable thus:

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

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

^† Vol. 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

All the materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in that study.

Several justices have been on the Supreme Court for around 25 years, such as JJ. Thomas (29), Kennedy (28), Ginsburg (23), and Breyer (22). J. Scalia was in office for 30 years. That does not count at all the years that they spent in the circuit and district courts.
For instance, while J. Sotomayor has been on the Supreme Court only since 2009, she has been in the Federal Judiciary since 1992, when she was appointed a federal district court, followed by her appointment in 1998 to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Hence, she has already been in the judicial Establishment for 24 years.
It is a matter of fact that the Federal Judiciary is the quintessential Establishment. Its judges are established in power forever no matter the quality or quantity of their performance or conduct.

2. The power of connivance between appointing-politicians and their appointed judges

Federal judges are recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed by politicians. For the latter, judges are “our men and women on the bench”. They stand in an appointer-appointee relation(ol2:488¶¶3-6).
Politicians hold judges unaccountable in the expectation that they will hold the laws of their legislative agenda constitutional(jur:23fn17a) and not retaliate(Lsch:17§C) against the thousands of lawsuits that the government files every year.
Neither of the other two branches dare check that judges “shall hold their Office during good Behaviour” only, as provided for under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution(jur:22fn12). The relation of power between these branches is out of balance, but only due to pragmatic considerations, not because the Constitution holds the Judiciary superior to the other branches. Far from it. Nevertheless, the result is that judges neither fear nor respect politicians.

3. Judges’ vast power of the office

Judges act as a standing constitutional convention, for they give content to the mere labels of the Constitution(jur:22fn12b), such as “freedom of speech, freedom of the press”, “due process”, “equal protection of the law”. They even read into it new rights never imagined hundreds of years ago by a rural, religious, and mostly illiterate society and even diametrically opposite to its beliefs.
Judges interpret the meaning and scope of application of any piece of legislation enacted into law by Congress and the president. By exercising that power in its many forms(ol:267§4), they dispose of the property, liberty, life, and all the rights and duties that shape what people can and cannot do from before their birth, throughout their lives, and after their death(jur:25fn25, 26).
Judges abuse their power by the way they make decisions: The analysis of their official statistics shows that the 12 federal regional circuit courts dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds, by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”. They are so perfunctory that the overwhelming majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”(ol2:453), mere ad hoc, arbitrary, reasonless fiats of the judicial swamp.
Individually and collectively judges wield the broadest, farthest-reaching, and most substantial power of any public officer, including the most corruptive: the power ‘to tell what is good and evil’, that is, what is legal and illegal.

4. Judges’ power to grab benefits

Judges abuse their power to grab the social, material, and personal benefits within their reach(ol:173¶93) and for sheer convenience.
The opportunity to use power to grab can hardly be passed up under the influence of the most insidious corruptor: money!, lots of money!
In the calendar year 2010, the bankruptcy judges alone ruled on the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). The only ones watching with power to do anything about the disposition of such money were the circuit judges who had appointed them and they and the district judges who could remove them(jur:43fn61a). With them as their overseers, bankruptcy judges could do just about anything, except being too greedy and ungrateful(jur:42fn60).
In addition, there is all the money subject to judges’ decision involving probate matters, contracts, alimony, mergers & acquisition, product liabilities, initial public offerings, taxes, etc.

5. Judges’ power of growing well-connected
The arguments that militate in support of the two-term limit for holding the presidency, and of P-e Trump’s promise to push for legislation limiting the number of terms for members of Congress apply to judges too: The longer a person serves in public office, the more entitled they feel and the more their public office becomes their personal one. That feeling of entitlement is exacerbated for federal judges, who do not have to run for reelection and need not fear in reality being removed. They and their public office become one and the same.
Moreover, as public officers deal with ever more people, they become ever more powerful through the IOUs that they have collected from people who needed their help; and the more indebted they become to others whose help they needed to get their way. Hence, to an ever greater extent they move from doing the public’s business to ‘dealing for their own account’.

6. Judges’ power of camaraderie
To be in good standing with the other judges, a judge only needs to engage in knowing indifference and willful ignorance or blindness, which are forms of culpably looking the other way(jur:88§§a-c) and carrying on as if nothing had happened or will happen.

‘Keep your mouth shut about what I and the other judges did or are about to do, and you can enjoy our friendship.’

‘I will protect you today against this complaint and tomorrow you will protect me or my friends when we are the target of a complaint.’

That is how judges implicitly or explicitly ensure for decades their social acceptance and their self-preservation through reciprocal protection. They know from the historical record that nobody will charge them with accessorial liability after the fact that they kept quiet about or covered up, and before the fact of the next wrongful act that they encouraged others to do with their promise of passive silence or active cover-up.
By contrast, a judge who dared expose another judge’s wrongdoing would be deemed by all the other judges an unreliable traitor and cast out their social circle and activities as a pariah.
Such interdependent security(Lsch:16§1) gives rise to the judicial class mentality. It is similar to that found among police officers, doctors, priests, sports teams, sororities and fraternities, etc. It trades integrity for the benefits of membership.
The more time judges spend in the Judiciary, the more they transition from peers to colleagues, to members, to friends, and to co-conspirators(ol:166§§C, D). So instead of administering justice to We the People, they run their swamp as a private enterprise to make it ever more profitable, efficient, and secure for themselves.

7. Judges’ power of self-disciplining

In its Article III, the Constitution only creates the Supreme Court. All lower courts thereunder are created by Congress, which can also create tribunal-like administrative agencies under Art. II, Sec. 8; and appoint judges directly or by delegation under Art. II, Sec. 2.
The Constitution does not grant judges, not even those of the Supreme Court, the power to determine themselves what constitutes “good Behaviour” during which they can “hold their Offices”. Yet, politicians have relinquished that significant ‘check and balance’ to the judges by allowing them to exercise the power of self-disciplining(jur:21§1).
With the connivance of politicians, judges abuse that power by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against them filed by parties to cases and any other members of the People, as well as denying up to 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:24§§b-d).
The relation of political protectors-judicial protégés is anathema to the objective analysis of complaints against judges and the fair and impartial treatment of complainants. That is why judges have no inhibitions about abusing their self-discipline power to arrogate to themselves self-exemption from liability.
Complainants have no other source of relief. They are left to bob with their complained about harm in the middle of the swamp.

8. Judges’ power to show contempt for We the People and our representatives

It was We the People who, as the masters in “government of, by, and for the people”(jur:82fn172), hired judges as their public servants to deliver the service of administering justice according to the rule of law.
But judges need not serve the People to stay established in office. Voters neither elect nor reelect federal judges. Judges stay even when they disserve the People. There is no downside to disservice, for they can neither be demoted nor have their salary reduced.
To enjoy their lifelong stay on the bench, judges only need to serve their constituency: each other. If they stand together, nobody can bring them down…unless their swamp is drained through exposure, as proposed below.

9. Judges’ power to retaliate

Judges’ power to retaliate is not limited to declaring each of the pieces of a president’s or party’s legislative agenda unconstitutional.
Judges have a panoply of ways to engage in chicanery: They can:
1. sign search and seizure warrants broader than they should be, narrow them or refuse to sign them altogether;
2. grant, deny, or impose punitive, bail;
3. admit or exclude evidence, evidentiary and expert witnesses, and their testimony;
4. uphold or overrule objections and raise others on their own motion;
5. alter the dates on the docket of documents and events;
6. lose and misplace documents and make them reappear at will;
7. grant or deny hearings and leave to appeal;
8. meet with some parties in the absence of other parties;
9. grant or deny the sealing and unsealing of documents and leak sealed information or profit from it;
10. ignore, or grant more or less than, the relief requested;
11. enter judgment consonant with, or notwithstanding, the verdict;
12. grant a reduction or increase in the amount of compensation; etc.(Lsch:17§C)
Judges’ power to retaliate has an important limit: They cannot retaliate simultaneously against a large number of professional and citizen journalists participating in a concerted effort to drain their swamp through investigation and exposure, especially if the effort was launched by the president to deliver on a campaign promise. Such massive retaliation would unmask their actions as coordinated abuse of power to conceal their liability for, and preserve, their swamp benefits.

B. Judges’ unaccountability is the key corruptive component of their swamp
Unaccountability is the attribute that distinguishes judges individually as public officers and collectively as a class, the judicial class, a privileged one. Their privilege is at once the source and the result of their powers, which they leverage to preserve and exploit their privilege by adopting a black robe first mentality and letting it guide their professional and personal “Behaviour”.
Judges’ privilege is the product of corruptive components:
1. a sense of entitlement to their office for life;
2. the assurance of being held unaccountable by others and the capacity to assure themselves their self-exemption from discipline, never mind liability to others, which give rise to a sense and the reality of impunity; and
3. the most corruptive of all powers: the power to decide what is lawful or unlawful and thereby make anything either right or wrong…or simply go away. .
So, people are not merely elevated to the federal bench. Because they are allowed, and manage, to do from there whatever they want without being worried about its adverse consequences regardless of the nature and quality of their behavior and performance, they are given access to a status that no person is entitled to receive or grab in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6): Public Servants Above their Masters -We the People- and their Law.
Conferring a federal judgeship amounts to issuing a license to engage in wrongdoing for profit as a member of an independent, sovereign, and most powerful corrupt organization. Since P-e Trump wants to drain the Establishment swamp, he must begin by draining the one that dominates it: the judicial.

C. P-e Trump owes his loyalty, not to the judges of the swamp, but rather to The Dissatisfied With The Establishment who elected him
No federal judge has ever been nominated by P-e Trump. None of them owes him any loyalty. Instead, he owes his loyalty to the people who elected him, The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, and to the promises that he made them, such as the promise to drain the swamp of the Establishment.
The Dissatisfied encompass the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form a huge untapped voting bloc.
In fact, every year, more than 100 million parties take others or are taken to court in the more than 50 million cases filed in state and federal courts(jur:8fn4,5). To them must be added the scores of millions of parties to cases pending or deemed to have been decided wrongly or wrongfully as well as the additional scores of millions of affected related persons: their families, friends, employees, suppliers, shareholders, etc. But they are as unaware of forming a voting bloc as the Dissatisfied were until Election 2016.
The majority of them have been hurt profoundly, for nothing can so deeply offend people and commit them to fighting back with passion and unwavering determination as to feel that they were abused to be taken advantage of. When the abusers are the public officers hired to afford them due process and the equal protection of the law, that feeling is aggravated by a sense of betrayal.
Thus, if P-e Trump undertakes to drain the judicial swamp, he can count on the passionate support of all those dissatisfied with the judicial system and the legal system that works hand in hand with it.

D. P-e Trump’s first step: a press conference to call on the public and the media to expose the corruptive judicial powers and the resulting swamp
P-e Trump can call a major press conference(ol2:489¶¶10-11) to state that the system of justice that he accused of being rigged in favor of Sec. Clinton is actually rigged against We the People and that it is a swamp whose depth must be plumbed as the prerequisite to his nominating Justice Scalia’s successor and ushering in a fair and impartial system. Thereby, he can become the People‘s Champion of Justice.
In that vein, he can:
1. make an Emile Zola-like I accuse!(jur:98§2) denunciation of politicians/judges’ connivance;
2. ask the public to submit their judicial complaints(ol:311¶2; 362¶4) and the decisions of the judges in their cases(ol:274, 304) to his website for the public to examine them in search of the most persuasive evidence: commonalities forming patterns of wrongdoing;
3. call on professional and citizen journalists to investigate the two unique national stories (ol2:440, 480¶¶2-3) of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA.
  a. Judges are required by their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).
  b. Therefore, journalists only have to show, rather than prove, that judges appear to engage in improprieties, never mind criminal conduct, such as concealing assets to evade taxes and launder them of the taint of unlawful origin(jur:65fn107a,c). Such showing will cause outrage so intense in the public(ol2:461§G) as to provoke resignations among judges(jur:92§d);
4. announce nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing conducted by the Department of Justice with the assistance of its FBI to determine the nature, extent, and gravity of the corruption, and the needed reform(jur:158§6-7); (jur:xlv§G on millenial impossibles that are nonetheless part of today’s reality);
5. demand that Congress convene the constitutional convention that 34 states have formally called, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement of Article V for amending the Constitution, and advocate the adoption of term-limits for judges and the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and liability to compensate judges’ victims(jur:160§8);
6. encourage top universities to join forces with the national media and journalism schools, advocates of honest judiciaries, and groups of victims of wrongdoing judges to:
  a. organize a national conference on judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(jur:97§1); and statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing research techniques(jur:131§b);
  b. publish print and/or digital journals on judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:97§1) with articles for scholarly and general audiences;
  c. devise and disseminate templates for the public to report judicial wrongdoing as one of the sources together with statistical research(ol:42, 60) for compiling the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America(jur:126§3); and
  d. create an institute(jur:130§5) of judicial accountability and reform advocacy.
  
  E. The action that you can take to ensure the drainage of the judicial swamp

donations@donaldtrump.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, leadright@gop.com, email@gop.com, info@nrcc-mail.org, teamtrump@trump2016.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, corderoric@yahoo.com, info@ourrevolution.com, contact@firedupconservative.com

50. I offer to make a presentation of this article in person or by video conference upon request. Contact me using this bloc of email addresses:

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of letters and articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

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

How Trump can use chaos to expose judges’ wrongdoing if he harnesses his chaos and that of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment

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
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

This open letter may be shared, posted, and republished by non-commercial entities, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dear Mr. Trump,

It has been written that “Trump did not create chaos; chaos created Trump”¹. That chaos has generated your base in the dominant segment of the national public: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

This is a proposal for you to secure your base’s support by showing that ‘the system is rigged’ in that part of the Establishment that counts the most: the Federal Judiciary.

You have recognized that nominating candidates to the Supreme Court is the most important decision that a president can make after that of declaring war. Appointments to the Judiciary are so important that they were the subject of the first question of the third debate.

Indeed, one federal judge can hold a law enacted by the 535 members of Congress and the President unconstitutional and five justices can declare it null and void.

So politicians put judges on the bench and then hold them unaccountable to avoid retaliation that can doom their legislative agenda. They spare judges criticism, never mind investigation, let alone prosecution. Consequently, in the last 227 years, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14)²

Additionally, judges are the only public officers that have a most dangerous privilege: They have life appointment, and with it comes a very long memory and time to act on grudges.

The result of the corruptive ‘live and let live’ self-preservation scheme is that once on the bench, federal judges -of whom there were 2,293 in office on 30sep15- do whatever they want sure that they will suffer no adverse consequence.(jur:21§§1-3)

Their power is in fact absolute, the kind that “corrupts absolutely”(jur:27fn28).

Though supposed to ensure that ‘our government is, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, for their own benefit judges abuse their power over your and our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape our lives. They disregard due process and the equal protection of the law(^†>ol2:453)². That is how they allow themselves to issue arbitrary, ad-hoc, reasonless fiat-like decisions(†>ol2:453) that make a mockery of judicial process.

Unaccountable judges wreak chaos in the application of the law, thus provoking public dissatisfaction with a system of justice rigged with institutionalized wrongdoing(jur:49§4).

That is how judges cause profound dissatisfaction in the more than 100 million parties to the more than 50 million cases filed in the state and federal courts every year(jur:8fn4,5). This does not begin to count the scores of millions of cases pending or deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided.

But chaos can compel the change toward a more equitable society that President Obama promised but failed to deliver, for he became part of the Establishment.

Chaos engendered by We the People’s rebellion against the Establishment, as your and Sen. Sanders’s supporters demand, can bring about that change or nothing but exacerbated dissatisfaction.

Chaos you have added; more you will cause. But if you can harness your chaos and that of the People, you can use chaos as the only force capable of both exposing the full extent, routineness, and gravity of the corruption(jur:65§B) that festers in politicians/judges’ connivance, and imposing change in the unaccountability of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(jur:158§§6-8).

Sec. Clinton is a member of the Establishment, the beneficiary of continuity, the loser in the event of change, the opposer of chaos, the sworn enemy of even harnessed chaos, which is potentially more effective and thus more of a real menace.

Then-Senator Clinton confirmed nominees to the Federal Judiciary only to protect them as unaccountable judges. Hence, she cannot afford to have judges’ wrongdoing investigated and thereby have wrongdoing judges exposed and end up herself incriminated as an accessory(jur:88§§a-c). Her self-preservation is the interest that she prioritizes over exposing the judges’ abuse of power that so profoundly harms the People.

You can portray her as one of the connivers, who will not usher in any change in the safe haven for wrongdoers, the Federal Judiciary.

At a press conference and rallies, you can denounce(jur:98§2) the rigged Judiciary and ask professional and citizen journalists to expose it by investigating the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol2:440)².

Their findings of widespread judges’ “appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) will suffice to set the chaos of change on the Judiciary itself.

I want to contribute to exposing Judges Above the Law and bringing them down to be held accountable by your base of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment and the rest of the People(jur:160§8).

Consequently, I also submit this email as an application to become a paid staff(cf. ol2:483) in your transition team, administration, and/or the building of your TV station, particularly its investigative(ol:194§E) newscast.

The latter is discussed(ol2:500§G) in my skit in the following article that has you and Sec. Clinton addressing the recent charity gala. Imagine if you had delivered a skit that made you come off so gracious, humorous, and witty as to turn you into the one who stole the show and endeared himself to the public. I can write such a skit for you(id.).

To present this and other proposals³, and discuss this application, I⁴ respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Subscribe to this series of articles at + New or Users >Add New.

DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com

NOTE : Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq., 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.

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

ENDNOTES

Jonathan Rauch, How American Politics Went Insane, The Atlantic, July-August 2016; http://www.thirteen.org/programs/pbs-newshour/is-this-syndrome-causing-american-political-dysfunction_clip/, aired on September 19, 2016.
.
The statements preceding, and the materials corresponding to, the (blue text references) are based on, and found in, respectively, 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* †

The study runs to more than 985 pages and is divided in two volumes:

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

^†Vol. 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

The text of this email is found in letter form(^†>ol2:489) together with previous letters to Mr. Trump, and supporting materials, all of which lay out more proposals appropriate for exposing politicians-judges’ connivance and wrongdoing, in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

@DrCorderoEsq

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus:

www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

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

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

How Sec. Clinton stole the show at the charity gala, causing Mr. Trump to concede that “She’s such a naspy, naspy woman”

A two part skit

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

******* Part 1 of 2: At the charity gala *******

Everybody knows that the third presidential debate between Mr. Donald Trump and Sec. Hillary Clinton was yet another display of personal animosity between them. It was there for everybody to see before they even uttered a word, as both entered the stage, walked up to their respective podium, and stayed put. They did not shake hands then, let alone at the end of the debate.

Thereby they reflected the disunity that has split our country into not just two factions, but rather several bitterly opposed factions incapable of budging toward each other to meet at or near a democratic, pragmatic, and constructive center for the benefit of all of us, We the People.

What few know is how each of the candidates could have thought of transforming the animus of that occasion into the theme of a strategy that would reunite the country behind her or him and lead to a win on Election Day.

The first opportunity to do so came the day following the debate, Thursday, October 20, at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a charity gala intended to bring in money to help poor children in New York. This is an occasion for self-deprecating humor, not for mean-spirited, acerbic criticism of an opponent.

It was Sec. Clinton who understood it to be such. Chance had determined that she would take the podium first. When she did, she seized the opportunity to do something that nobody had ever done. Normally, at such an occasion, laughs are drawn by one joke after another, as stand-up comedians do. Instead, she embarked on one single “Hillyarious” story in length, content, and tone. It brought the house down. It brought her up on their shoulders. This is what she said when she went to the podium.

“Coming tonight to this uplifting event is in itself very uplifting after the third presidential debate that we had last night. It gives me, and I’m sure Donald too, the opportunity to continue the very congenial atmosphere in which we exchanged so many substantive ideas.

“I was so positively excited at the end of it. He finally convinced me of how much I mean to his campaign and how admiring of me he is by not letting even two minutes go by without talking about me with effusive comments. You have grown on me. I felt the two of us came closer than ever before to being on the friendly terms that we had put so much effort to establish between us.

“Our friendship has a bright future. When you, as it is likely to happen, win and go to the White House, you won’t be alone, feeling lost without me inspiring your every sentence, with nothing left to do but improvise the details of how to govern. I’ll be there…again, for I was there for 8 years, as the first woman in the seat of the presidency. You only have to call on me for guidance and I’ll jump to your side to hold your hand through every step, however difficult the case may be, even the not so simple matters of what to say and where to say it. Don’t worry, I’ll be prudent, letting you appear to be governing, just as I did when Bill was said to be the president.

“This explains why last night, I slept restfully in the warm embrace of that reassuring prospect of our distribution of labor. It goes to your credit, Donald, that you elicited it with your praise-laden characterization of me as “Such a…” Oh, Donald!, I’m so thankful and fond of you.

“So much such that I would like to share with you and all of you gathered here tonight the dream that I had last night. We may be able, I so hope, to continue it tonight.

“Indeed, I had a dream. In my dream, I had moved back to my little hut in the suburbs after I had been trounced at the election and had to decide whether to concede my defeat or to run once more to the courts to mount a ballistic attack. As you know, I am not afraid of filing lawsuits. I have sued people left and right, well mostly left, not as of right.

“But I was rather depressed. I had just learned that while I was campaigning, thieves had broken into my home and stolen everything, including my most precious possessions: my jewels by Microsoft and Apple. I feel so exposed when I am not wearing them.

“In addition, I felt lonely. Bill was again running after some mothers…and fathers too, looking after their needs at our soup kitchen foundation.

“Then the telephone rang. But I was not in the mood to talk. But it kept ringing. But I still was not in the mood to talk. But the telephone kept ring. I thought it was yet another marketer trying to sell me another package of psychiatric counseling for people in suicidal situations.

“Then it hit me that perhaps it was Chelsea asking why the pictures of my grandchildren that she had emailed me had bounced. She has sent me more than 33,000. I adore each one of them, the pictures, that is, not those little wet brats running around, crying, and disrupting my attention to guarding state secrets.

“So I picked up the phone. You can’t believe who it was! Go on, take a guess. Come on, guess. Wait, have you fallen asleep? The one with the dream is me. You’re supposed to be awake and listening!

“O.K., I tell you: It was Donald! He was so consoling and empathetic, as he always is with everybody, especially those weaker than him, so everybody. He was what I needed. He said”

“I don’t claim to know what you’re going through because I have never been crushed in an election as you just were by me.

“Moreover, I have fired more people in my life than I have hired and I could read their pain in their faces. I can only imagine how you feel after President Obama commented on your defeat saying that he knew you would be flattened at the polls because you had turned out to be his worst appointment ever and the most incompetent secretary of state in the history of our nation, a disgrace, a total disgrace. He said for good measure that he was firing you retroactively. That hurts, I guess.”

“Donald then offered to send me the clip of the President’s utter repudiation if I had not seen it. He is such a generous man!, he is. In fact, you won’t believe what he then said to calm me down.

“I know I am about to move into your former home in D.C. and that every time you’ll picture mentally your living room, I’ll be there; and every time you’ll picture your kitchen, I’ll be there; and every time you picture your bedroom, I’ll be there with somebody.

“So I would like to make it up to you: I’m inviting you to my victory party at Trump Tower. You’ll have the opportunity to see the campaign headquarters that I have been running there as a circus and that beat you into the dust. Tonight, we will have special performances by my closest friends.”

“That was a fantastic invitation, Donald, and so timely. I was really chocking in that hut in the suburbs. A high tower is what you need when you are suffocating and contemplating suicide. At least you catch some fresh air on your way down.

“So he sent his private 747 stretched-out jet to pick me up on my doorstep. In no time, we landed on the roof of Trump Tower. It was all worth it. The show was fabulous, as was the company.

“Although Trump has pulled off so many stunts in this campaign, he surpassed himself with a new one: He swung from chandelier to chandelier over his dinner table, dropped at the end of it before Melania’s plate, opened his arms, and sung to her Al Jolson’s “Mammy, forgive me!” as Gov. Pence and Campaign CEO Stephen Bannon played the old tune at https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=684n8FO68LU since Donald is such a big fan of historical facts and accuracy.

“Then it was his best friends’ turn:

“Putin danced with one after the other of his Russian dolls in a ballet set ever dangerously closer to the fireworks of a sparking Internet switch.

“Turkish President Erdogan lassoed sheep, rabbits, and chicken dressed as ghosts as they scurried and fluttered over the circus’s rings in his number “I catch you ‘cause I can”.

“President Xi Jinping vaulted the Trump Tower using as a pole a T-beam made of Chinese steel borrowed from Donald’s warehouse.

“For my entertainment, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks worked his magic by bringing from the dead my deleted emails. I’m so grateful to him for all he has done to reunite me with my loved ones!

“It was so much fun! I just couldn’t believe I was dreaming. But Donald assured me that I wasn’t, saying

“This is how things are in reality. Here at headquarters, I run a campaign as highly coordinated and in sync as a three-ring circus. It is how I will run government. And I want to assure you that however busy I will be recouping the money that I invested in the campaign, including a salary for me as a candidate for the people, the doors of the White House will always be open for you whenever you want to crawl in begging for a favor.”

“I was so excited. What a generous man, Donald is. So now that we are here and awake, a least I am, I would like to beg the first favor of you, Donald. After we are done with these boring speeches, can I come tonight to your Circus at the Tower?”

Trump, always the gentleman to all ladies, in general, and babes, in particular, stood up and replied with his customary wide open smile, “Yes, my dear, come to tonight’s performance.”

Hillary was overjoyed. As she always spreads inviting warmth to everybody around her, she blurted, “Can I bring over my friends, please?”

With open arms, Trump said in his raspy voice of a circus master of ceremonies, “I grant your second begging. The friends of Hilly are my friends. Yes, bring all of them over.”

It was the first time that he had called her Hilly. She was ecstatic !

“I am so grateful that you have come to appreciate me enough to call me Hilly. I long to learn more about you as a person, Donald the Man, not just the wise statesman.

“The fact is Donald is a very modest person and talks little about himself and even less about his issues…or ours. He has this amazing capacity to summarize in only 140 characters what others would need a programmatic platform book to say it.

“It is as if every character were a coded message. I must admit, I’m not clever enough at decoding; but I’m sure all those among you out there who have a doctorate in disencryptology and access to a supercomputer get the richness of Donald’s one forty wisdom.

“That’s why I so loved the debates: Even in what little was left in his two-minute answers after praising me, he could concentrate on the issues so much insightful information. You could see it even without an electronic microscope. He is just so skilled at sharing information, actually wisdom. When I grow up…in intelligence…I want to be like him, my intellectual hero.

“As for now, I rejoice at the opportunity to get to know Donald the Man in the protective company of my friends.” So she slowly pivoted on her feet as she kept repeating: “You heard him, my friends, you all can come with me tonight to see Trump in his Circus at the Tower.”

All were as exhilarated by the prospect of the extraordinary things that they would see at his circus as they had been by the phantasmagoric things that had appeared in his campaign.

Hillary, who is so forward looking to anticipate the consequences of her acts, said to her friends: “After I’ll take you there, Donald’s assistants will be exhausted from running after him to clean up after his acts. We should bring them some entertainment of our own.”

She looked around and shouted: “Bill, Bill, where are you? Bill Gate, stand up so we can see you.”

Bill Gate stood up. She asked him, “Can you bring your video games?” Bill nodded.

Then she called out: “Goldman, Goldman Sachs, where are you?”

The people at a table stood up somewhat hesitatingly. She asked them, “Can you bring your monopoly and your new game ‘Pay to Play’?” Though they looked timid, they too nodded.

She went on, “Marco, where are you, Marco? Please step up so somebody can see you.”

Marco Rubio stepped on the table and she asked him, “Can you tell your story of survival tonight? It is going to be so uplifting to Donald’s senior staff in its first part and to him in its second part. I mean your story, “The Dwarf In Influence and his Seven Snow Whites?”

Marco grinned affirmatively.

“You’re great!”, said Hillary. Then she added:

“We can follow your act with two more that are sure to be a hit. Rosie O’Donnell, that old flame of Donald’s, can sing the song that made the couple famous back in the days when Donald was starting off as one of his father’s construction workers, ‘I left my heart in the tower’ ”.

Rosie stood up, raised her right arm and her middle finger as if it were the torch of the Statute of Liberty, and with her left hand she held, instead of a tablet with the Declaration of Independence, her fork, stabbing it up and down.

Hillary turned to the person sitting next to Trump, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

“Father Dolan, you are Donald’s spiritual advisor and have been so successful in instilling in him the Christian values of generosity, compassion, and humility. We would be so strengthened in our faith in humankind and the future of American politics if you came with us and had your choir children perform your latest choreographed mass, “Angels Dancing under a Pinhell”.”

The Cardinal nodded as he flashed his endearing avuncular smile.

Hillary turned to the table where Trump’s children were sitting and signaled to them to stand up. They did slowly, unsure of what was to come. She said,

“I love you so much! More than my grandchildren: No messy pampers and all that. So, we’re going to bring you a gift. I know you have everything. But do you like a big surprise gift?”

Trump’s children nodded somewhat embarrassed. But Hillary said with that confidence-inspiring demeanor that is her trademark, “We’re going to bring you puppets!”

Lastly, Hillary addressed Trump again. “We all are going to have so much fun tonight. Thanks to your penchant for inclusiveness, the whole of us will be with you at your circus.”

Then she turned to the house: “All the babes will be there. Babes, stand up. You’re going to enjoy yourselves safely with all of us who love and respect you. Yes, babes, you know who you are, please, stand up.” As she insisted, a few of the most beautiful young ladies stood up.

“You’re gorgeous! and you too, all the other babes, stand up, you’re always babes to somebody. Boys, boys, let’s give our babes a loving and respectful round of applause!”

As the men began to applaud, more and more women began to stand up bashfully. Yet, their faces were flushed with gratitude and joy.

“And all the Hispanics, stand up. You are coming with us to the circus tonight.”

Now the women began to applaud as men also stood up.

“You, the Muslims, you are joining us, stand up! Let’s go together to the circus.”

More people kept standing up and the house was shaking with a thunderous applause.

“You, the Blacks, stand up, up up up, you want circus with us! Yes, we want circus!”

The house was overtaken by a frenzy of joy as everybody began to chant, “We want circus!, We want circus!”

Hillary had to shout to make herself heard:

“You, the people with disabilities, stand up, roll with us, let us take you to the circus with us!, for we all want circus! We want circus! We want circus!”

Hillary was alone at the podium, but she stretched out her arms as if she were reaching out to hold hands with people next to her and then began to swing her arms to and fro.

Soon everybody began holding hands and swinging their arms. At a round table where the men were wearing small caps as headdress, that is, kippahs or yarmulkes, they and the women began to lean to the right as they held hands and then to the left until they fluidly began taking steps to one side and then the opposite side; soon they were circling their tables, their eyes, their hold bodies twinkling with carefree amusement. Their dancing spread as if embers of a bonfire carried by a twister of irrepressible joy were igniting it at other tables.

Those sitting at the rectangular long tables, the high tables, began to sway sideways with cheerful abandon.

At other tables, people laughed and giggled and rhythmically let out high pitched cries to match the creaks of their knees and hips as they bobbed up and down while swinging their handheld arms in the opposite direction.

The house kept chanting with furor as their paroxysm rose in unison, “We want circus!” We want circus! We want circus!”

As soon as Hillary sensed that exhaustion was taking over, she began to talk loudly and slowly to calm people down. Gradually, ever more puffing and panting people began to stand still. They were sweaty, their throats were sore, their arms were barely attached to their sockets, but all were brimming with the emotions unleashed by a totally unexpected, spontaneous physical manifestation of the joy of sharing an unimaginable and unforgettable experience.

“Since the third debate, I have relished Donald’s novel characterization of me. He said I was “Such a naspy woman”. I don’t quite know what ‘naspy’ means. But I know one thing: If he said that of me, then it must be a heartfelt compliment, for he is the kindest, sweetest man I know.

“I guess with ‘naspy’ he summarized in even less than 140 characters what he said at the second debate, that I was a determined person that never quits and keeps going at it no matter what. I hope that it also means what I have shown tonight: I am the Reunifier of Americans.

“Thank you for calling me naspy. It has inspired me a lot and I hope many other women and men too. Whenever you open your mouth, you become my ace card, my Trumpy! Friends, let’s express our appreciation to Trumpy with the strongest and above all sincere round of applause.”

She began to clap and chant and everybody followed in her train, stamping with every strike of their hands the earnest message of the joy of togetherness that they were sending to their addressee:

“Trumpy! Trumpy! Trumpy!”

Trump stood up and, as he always does, humbly bowed to the house. Soon Boehner tears flowed to his eyes, for deep down, as his best friend and under-the-skin connoisseur, Elizabeth Warren, put it, “Trump is an outwardly secure, yet big-hearted, emotionally grabbable man”.

As soon as he began to compose himself, he walked to the podium. By then, Hillary had been scurried away by Huma Abedin, her Campaign Vice Chairwoman, who had come to share with her the good tidings of yet another miraculous Resurrection of Clinton’s Emails and had taken her to offer thankful prayers and make a plea for the salvation of her soul and her campaign. It was Trump’s turn to roast himself and, respectful of all traditions and customs, he did.

“Dear my friends of mine. I realize that to follow…her…Hillary…Hi…Hilly’s act opens a great opportunity for me. The skit that I prepared is, of course, the most self-deprecating and the most gracious toward an opponent in the history of all charity galas since the Last Supper. However, I clearly anticipate, because I always do it all, that if I were to do my skit, I would so outperform Hi…Hilly that it would be embarrassing…for her, I mean, of course.

“That would not be in keeping with the gentleman that I am and have always been since Adam took the blame for Eve eating the apple, because nobody is more of a gentleman than I am to all women, whether they eat apples or way too much. It follows that I want you all to come to my Three Ring Circus at the Tower tonight.

“There will be ice cream and hot chocolate; peanuts and pumpkins; salty crackers and sweet potatoes; and all sorts of treats and plenty of tricks and even more ghosts and rattling shackles because with me it is every day and night Halloween! and you never know what you’re going to get…I myself don’t know what I’m going to give. But it is going to be spooky, believe me!

“And you don’t have to worry about overindulging in believing or eating because I am going to have my personal doctor over there, the wonderful Dr. Ben Carson. If any of you feels sick to your stomach with what you had to swallow in my circus, I will have him give you what he has been offering to give me since he gave himself one with such enlightening effect that he dropped out of the primaries to support me: a lobotomy, better than Obamacare, no ever higher annual premiums, just one shot at it and you’re forever a healthier person .

“I haven’t taken Ben up on his offer because I have been too busy with my charity works, the main one of which is, of course, my participation in the presidential campaign to relieve the American people of its hunger for a reasonable, knowledgeable, and reassuringly reliable leader.

“In any event, rest assured that during my exhaustive preparation for the debates, I read a yellow sticky on medicine and now I know more about medicine than all doctors, including Dr. Carson. So I myself will give each of you a lobotomy if it turns out on November 9 that you failed to grant my friend Hilly her only and consuming wish: to go back full time to her true calling as an email specialist. She’s such a naspy woman!”

As soon as Hillary’s Campaign Manager, Robby Mook, heard those words, he seized the opportunity to give the signal to his assistants at his table. As one man, they jumped up, climbed on their chairs, and began chanting at the top of their voices:

“We want naspy! We want naspy! We want naspy!”

In every corner of the house, people popped up and joined them in chanting. In no time, the whole house had turned to where Hillary had taken a seat next to her adoptive spiritual father, Cardinal Dolan, who had played such a decisive role in her conversion to the credo of One Message, One Truth. Graciously, Hillary took the Cardinal’s arm and raised it as if it were that of Sen. Kaine. The room went crazy, chanting at the top of their voices:

“She’s a naspy! She’s a naspy! She’s a naspy!”

Still at the podium, Trump took it all in with great satisfaction, spreading his arms wide open, like Nixon bidding farewell at the door of the helicopter after resigning on August 9, 1974. He was basking in the as yet unspoken, self-congratulatory claim that it was thanks to his effort for years that a person had been born right there among the people: Hilly the naspy!

By contrast, Trump’s Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, had instantly grasped the gravity of the situation: With her event-appropriate, self-deprecating, and Trump-complimentary skit, Hillary had stolen the show. She would be portrayed by the media as charitable toward her opponent, gracious in style, and surprisingly “Hillyarious”.

For his part, Trump had managed to place himself at the opposite, negative end of his bipolar assessment of everything, which admits of no degrees between the extremes of a simple dualistic set of best ever and worst ever. Hillary had played him.

That had been Hillary’s sole objective: to turn the charity gala into her show. However, even before she, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and her top aides had left the Waldorf Astoria hotel where the gala was held, they had the effervescent sense that not only had they attained that objective much better than expected, but also an unexpected window of opportunity had opened on the term Hilly the naspy!

They felt that the immensely enjoyable and favorable gala experience was a situation-changing event: It gave them momentum. But they could not yet realize that if they worked with it strategically, they could turn it into the material for an October surprise.

What they did realize by instinct and experience was that while on the premises, never mind within earshot of anybody else, they should not discuss the matter. Since they possessed the required personal and professional discipline to proceed in accordance with their realization, they acted around the other attendees as if only sharing a moment of levity. So they kept their excitement bottled up.

********** Part 2 of 2: Strategizing **********

A. How their vans exploded soon after they were turned on

Once Hillary and her party got on their two vans and began driving to headquarters to pick up their cars, they could not repress their excitement anymore. They exploded. It was the mad chaos of a triumphal mood. Everybody was laughing and shouting and sputtering their comments and observations at once. Nobody could understand a word of what the others were saying. It did not matter. This was not a moment for reflection; it was for unrestrained celebration.

At the end of the gala, attendees were stepping over each other to reach them, shake their hands, embrace them, and kiss them as they thanked them for a marvelously funny and entertaining evening. Now in the vans, each of them had to share with the others the compliments that had been poured on them. The torrents of reporting to the others what they had been told quickly converged into a maelstrom of confusion that whirled all the more powerfully because as soon as they got in each of their vans, they turned on their tablets, smartphones, and laptops to communicate via Skype with those in the other van. Instantly, they became Babels on wheels:

“The first skit of its kind, bound to set a new standard. Fireworks of wit. Punch lines flying like darts to the bull’s eye. Gracious and elegant. The debut of a storyteller. The combination of masterful diplomacy with incisive psychology. The magical transformation of dread of a debate-like confrontation into surreal conviviality. Give it like this to Congress and you’ll have a shot at your legislative agenda. A cathartic experience. An unimaginable night when the spirit soared on the wings of laughter. Humor to change hearts. The bliss of a wonderful counter-expectation. A victory for the joy of togetherness. I laughed so hard, I did it in my pants!” and on and on in sheer amazement at Hillary’s gift for humor never before suspected. Hilly had emerged from nowhere.

B. Thinking strategically to craft the strategy for the final stretch

As they were getting close to headquarters, Sen. Kaine managed to usher in a measure of sanity by asking repeatedly, “We’re arriving, people. What next?”

Robby noted that the events of the night would be highlighted by the media the next day and they had to be ready to add momentum to the favorable press that they would receive. So Hillary asked them to come in to do something whose meaning they understood right away: to think strategically about the new situation.

Indeed, they had discussed on several occasions the concept of strategic thinking that they had found at *>ol:52§C in the study by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.:

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

By thinking strategically to analyze the new situation and devise a plan of action as described in that study, they reached a valuable initial determination. The event at the gala and the imminence of its becoming known nationally presented them with a new option for the final stretch of the campaign: to leave the nastiness of the campaign behind and take a kind, uplifting, and joyful high road to victory led by a funny and gregarious reunifier capable of bringing the best in everybody for the common good: Hilly the naspy!

C. Defining “naspy” as the positive core of their new theme

The “Such a nasty woman” characterization that Trump had thoughtlessly hurled at Hillary as he unraveled the deeper he got into the third debate and the thinner his self-discipline wore, would be transformed into a term of their own. The Hillary campaign would not ask people to swallow their distaste of everything nasty and nevertheless proclaim themselves nasty as a cry of defiance and self-assertion.

Instead, they would coin “naspy”. They would define it as a positive, complimentary term meaning not only determined and ‘non-quitting’, but also exuding civility, graceful, kind, witty, resourceful, and contagiously optimistic so as to be an inspiring, winning leader. It would be a term to be uttered without second thoughts. Rather than “stronger” to fight an opponent, the emphasis would be laid on “together” to join the joy. “Naspy” would be the core of the positive, uplifting theme for their new strategy to guide the campaign in the final days of the race.

Now they had to flesh out the ‘naspy’ term with the details needed for strategy implementation. They did not have much time to do so. They stayed at headquarters and got to work.

D. Crafting TV ads of all kinds of people joyfully walking to a voting center

Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and other assistants bandied ideas from here to there. Progressively, their ideas began to take shape and win consensus: They wanted an ad portraying people from all walks of life moving briskly from different directions, even dancing as they sang to invite others along the way, including those who looked the opposite of them, to join in a joyful trip that converged on a unifying center, that is, a voting center on Election Day where Hillary was to welcome them.

This led to a discussion of an appropriate place that would suggest the center of something. Robby came up with the idea of the green field of the Upper West Side Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University, of which he was an alumnus, because people could converge between the buildings on it and have the Low Memorial Library in the background that could bring to mind both the White House and the Supreme Court building as a…

“The triumphal arch!”, shouted Huma, who had held a volunteer recruiting speech at a student association of archrival New York University.

It was an instant hit: The Washington Square Arch in Lower Manhattan, surrounded by NYU buildings, conjured up the idea of celebration of a triumphal victory, indeed, that of George Washington.

However, getting the necessary permits to film physically at the Square would take too long, as would cordoning it off to prevent it from being flooded by students, tourists, street performers, neighbors, cyclists, vehicles, delivery trucks, etc. So they decided to do it the high tech way: They would go digital.

The movement of people would be filmed at the Madison Square Garden, where a true circus, that of the Ringling Brothers, usually performed. Thereafter scenes from the Columbia University campus and the Washington Square Arch would be added digitally. What is more, the ads that would run in battleground states would use the same movements of people and song, but an algorithm would easily perform the digital addition of equivalent well-known local buildings and monuments.

The discussion of a multitude of people swirling on the Square led to another idea. The people on the ad that would walk between a set of buildings would be dressed in the same solid color and kind of dress. As they approached the Square, they would mingle with other people dressed in other colors and kinds of dress so that as they neared the voting place under the arch they made for a kaleidoscopic crowd in joyful colors and variety of dresses. This would illustrate the message in the lyrics that they would sing: Hilly the naspy was the reunifier of America after a divisive and bruising campaign.

E. Assembling an artistic team to translate their ideas into reality

After they were reasonably satisfied with the results and could no longer keep their eyes open, they slept wherever they could for the little time that was left. As early as they could that morning, they began calling people.

They contacted the manager of their account at the TV advertising agency that was making their ads and prevailed upon him to dispatch to Hillary’s headquarters their best TV ad makers. They wanted to ensure that these ad people would not be distracted from producing their ads in a record short time.

They also got in touch with a composer who should come up with a catchy, vibrant, energizing song, something reminiscent of ABBA’s Thank you for the music. They also got hold of a male and a female celebrity who would narrate the positive message of being joyfully reunified for the common good under the inclusive leadership of a gregarious Hilly the naspy.

The ad people contacted a digital studio reputed for doing the most spectacular special effects for big budget Hollywood pictures. They expected it to be willing in exchange for a hefty fee, which the campaign could easily afford, to drop everything it was doing in order to concentrate on producing in rapid sequence a series of localized TV ads for the new strategy.

F. Variations on Hilly the naspy for T-shirts, signs, and posters

As more volunteers arrived at headquarters, they were told about the new strategy. They too contributed their ideas for variations on its Hilly the naspy theme. Those variations would be seen at every rally in hand-held signs, posters on walls, and the T-shirts worn by volunteers working at rallies and bought by supporters, whether at rallies or on the Hillary website.

Accordingly, an instruction was issued to all the state headquarters and local offices to print and distribute materials with the new logos and similar positive and uplifting ones likely to find resonance with the local voters.

Among the logos that Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and the headquarters volunteers came up with were these:

She’s naspy!…and I too;
We want Hilly!
Such a naspy Hilly
Naspy is the winner
Naspy is kinder
I love naspy
Hilly, America’s reunifier
Be naspy, vote Hilly
Stronger reunified
Go Hilly, join us
Be naspy, reunify!
Hilly for 1 America
We reunify, we’re naspy
I’m naspy for Hilly
Vote, be naspy

They also came up with ideas for designs with those logos to be printed on T-shirts in bright colors made by local shops on rush orders. Among the designs were these:

a color gradient that converged on a luminous center where the logo was written;
the logo was written in the inverted U shape of an arch;
the logo appeared on a billboard atop an arch;
the logo formed the road that ascended and led under the arch;
the logo appeared on the frontispiece of the arch;
the logo was written on the roof of a 3-D arch that tilted outwardly;
the logo was on the inside of the vault of a 3-D arch tilted toward the torso;
the logo was the foundation of the arch, whose legs rested on the blank space between two words;
the logo appeared in the shape and colors of a rainbow;
the logo appeared as lightning striking the arch and electrifying it;
the logo appeared as the rim of a sun that cast sunrays on the arch and brightened it;
the logo appeared as an incandescent arch overarching the arch and illuminating it.

Within 48 hours from the end of the charity gala, there rolled out onto the national scene the new strategy of leaving behind everything nasty about the campaign and moving forward with the naspy theme of kindness and the joy of being reunified as We the People. A lot rode on it for Hillary, Kaine, Robby, Huma, and everybody else involved in the campaign both at headquarters and in their offices throughout the country. Hilly the naspy was supposed to take them to victory at the polls under a triumphal arch.

In that vein, Robby, ever the electoral strategist, came up with an idea:

“At every rally from now on, we will replay the video of the charity gala before you enter the stage. It will put the audience in a joyful mood and make it see you as a well-rounded person with an insanely hilarious streak. You will tell the audience that the video is posted to your website.”

Robby’s idea turned out to be right on: The video went viral instantly. The goodwill that it generated explained why the request that followed it was granted by a high percentage of people who viewed it: to make a donation to Hillary’s campaign. Hilly the naspy became an emotionally and materially paying strategy.

G. Sec. Clinton consults with Dr. Cordero, the author of the strategic thinking concept

Soon after the new strategy was put in place, Robby and Huma suggested that Sec. Clinton bring in Dr. Cordero to consult with him on the further application of his strategic thinking concept to the campaign. They also wanted to ask for his advice on how, in case she won the election, she should proceed as president elect with the nomination of a successor to the Late Justice Scalia and to the sooner rather than later Retiring Justice Ginsburg. She also wanted to express her appreciation for his analysis of her performance at the charity gala.

The meeting was attended by the three of them as well as Sen. Kaine. It was very cordial and constructive. Emphasizing its forward-looking nature, Sec. Clinton asked Dr. Cordero how he could contribute to her administration if she became president. Dr. Cordero answered without hesitation and with conviction, as if he were making a statement before a Senate confirmation committee.

“I would like to be your Attorney General. I want to carry out the investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges for their unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing so manifest in their disregard of the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law. They have provoked the dissatisfaction with our judicial and legal systems of so many people among the more than 100 million parties to the more than 50 million cases that are filed annually in the federal and state courts(*>ol:311§1).

“The dissatisfied form a huge untapped voting bloc. They are ignored and left to fend for themselves by the politicians who recommend, nominate, and confirm judges and then hold “their men and women on the bench” unaccountable. They need an advocate.

“In turn, they can open the way for you to bring about the change that can help you win over the Dissatisfied With The Establishment, the very ones who have given their unwavering support to Establishment Outsider Trump and Establishment Critic Sen. Sanders. They can give you their support and help you become a successful president or they can mount an even stronger challenge in the mid-term election, thus reducing your support in Congress, and your reelection chances in 2020.

“As your Attorney General, I would work to make them and the rest of the country have reasons to acknowledge you as their Champion of Justice.”

After Dr. Cordero ended his answer, Sec. Clinton looked at him incredulous. She did not know whether he was joking, charity gala style, or he meant it as dead seriously as he appeared to be. Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma looked at each other speechless and at Dr. Cordero respectfully. Then they turned to Sec. Clinton, waiting for her to react.

Finally, she said with the benevolent smile on her face and the playful tone in her voice of a consummate diplomat.

“I don’t doubt that you could be a competent attorney general. But after reading your charity gala piece, I’d rather say that your vocation is that of a writer of dreams”…and she smiled facetiously. ”

The others chuckled. By contrast, Dr. Cordero replied matter-of-factly:

“But dreams don’t pay my rent and food”.

“Perhaps Saturday Night Live can give you a gig there…and next time I appear on the show you write something as funny as your charity gala skit. I can talk to some people to get you onboard.”

“I’d rather you gave me a job as an investigator of wrongdoing judges.”

“Dream on!”

“Okay, let’s begin with this: I can write skits for the many celebratory meetings that you will and should attend as part of a strategy for whipping up good will among the public and getting everybody, whether they voted for or against you, excited about attending and following on their media devices your next important public appointment: your inaugural speech in January. You wouldn’t like to have fewer people in attendance than President Obama did twice.”

That statement caught Sec. Clinton’s imagination. She appeared interested in what Dr. Cordero had to say.

“And how would you go about doing that?”

“Don’t remind people of the campaign anymore. We had enough of it. Instead, joke about your transition to life without the campaign.

“Tell them about your plan to relax after the election only to be overwhelmed by people asking you for a job…‘but I ain’t being no employment agency! I’m not working at all! I won the presidency and got free tickets on Air Force One to visit my friends in the 11,200 countries that I went to as a lowly secretary. Now I’m it! and I’m on holiday! until next year, or the year after that if you people keep interrupting my rest and bugging me’.”

They all laughed heartily. Dr. Cordero went on.

“Tell your audience that you were taking a long bubble bath when Putin called to complain about the lights going off in Moscow and to warn you that if he found out that the blackout was your retaliation for his release of embarrassing emails of yours, he would turn the lights off in the whole of the U.S. So you told him in no uncertain terms, “Listen, you little third-rate malicious hacking despot, if I have to take a bath in cold water because of you, I’ll nuke you!”

“Then you got so nervous about having sent the NSA the order for the blackout from your personal smartphone that you dropped it in the bathtub and it almost got you electrocuted.

“Do you have any idea, you ask your audience, how difficult it is to get your hair down when it is porcupine up with static electricity? Now you know why I almost didn’t make it here.”

Sec. Clinton burst into hysteric laughter and so did Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma. They just could not believe that Dr. Cordero had switched so swiftly and convincingly from an apparently earnest applicant for the cabinet position of attorney general to the delivery of a string of jokes performed with the flair of a stand-up comedian. That was what Dr. Cordero had been aiming for because laughter makes people thankful and receptive to the one causing it.

“The only thing that matters to me is exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. On September 30, 2015, there were 2,293 federal judicial officers in office. They can remain there for life. They have power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that shape their lives. And they do whatever they want, relying on their impunity because they know that in the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:21§§1-3)

“By contrast, you have a mandate limited to 4 years, subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the media, mid-term voters, the international community, and the public. Who has more means to harm people: you or judges?

“That is why I want to expose their wrongdoing. If you are not interested in doing so, the battle over the Supreme Court vacancies may offer Mr. Trump the opportunity to do it. He may adopt my proposal that he use the time needed to create his own TV station to attract professional and citizen journalists to the background investigation of any person nominated by you to the Court; and to launch the Watergate-like generalized media investigation(*>ol:194§E) of two unique national stories: the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA stories(^†>ol2: 440), which will expose wrongdoing as the judges’ institutionalized modus operandi(jur:65§B).

“He can publish their findings in his website’s daily newscast, his version of MSNBC and the precursor of his TV newscast. I want to lead that investigation, whether for you or for him, and in both cases on behalf of We the People and our birthright to government by the rule of law.”

Sec. Clinton looked inquiringly at Sen. Kaine, Robby, and Huma, who were looking in amazement at Dr. Cordero back in his serious skin. Sec. Clinton fixed Dr. Cordero with her eyes and became pensive. Nobody disturbed her thinking.

After a while, she said…

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

Candidates are held to account for their positions; judges are held unaccountable and do wrong risklessly, harming your property, your liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame your life

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

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

If you agree that the subject discussed below affects you, your family, and the life of everybody else in our country, forward this email to both candidates and share it with your family and friends and those on your emailing list. Here is a bloc of email addresses that you can copy and paste in the To: line of the forwarding email:

leadright@gop.com, info@hillaryclinton.com, donations@donaldtrump.com, info@ourrevolution.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, email@gop.com, teamtrump@trump2016.com,

In the public interest, you may share and post this email as widely as possible.

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

You requested on the Internet input for your debate with Sec. Clinton. Here is mine.

It rests firmly on your statement at the Values Conference that the most important decision that a president has to make short of declaring war is to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. It points to the importance to you and the American people of appointing honest justices:

a. Although 2,293 federal judges were in office on 30sep15(^*>jur:22fn13), in the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§1).

1) If the president and his or her cabinet were appointed to office for life and were in effect irremovable, would you and voters fear that they would abuse their power in self-interest?

2) If your bosses were unaccountable and secured in their position for life, would they too develop a sense of entitlement and become abusive and self-centered? That is why the judiciary has become a safe haven for Wrongdoing Judges Above the Law(jur:49§4).
__________________________

* All (blue text references) herein are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

Visit his website at, and subscribe to his series of articles and letters thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

__________________________

b. Chief circuit judges abuse judges’ self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(jur:24§b). By judges immunizing themselves from liability for their wrongdoing, they deny complainants their 1^st Amendment right to “redress of grievances”(ol2:364fn12).

c. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In CY 2010, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(42fn60). Money! lots of money! the most insidious corruptor(jur:27§2). It has fueled a bankruptcy fraud scheme(65§B; jur:xxxv-xxxviii).

d. In the Federal Judiciary, the model for its state counterparts, its circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals on procedural grounds and with “unsigned, unpublished, without comment, by consolidation decisions”(ol2:457§D) so perfunctory that the judges do not even have to read the pleadings to rubberstamp a ¢5 form where the only operative word is overwhelmingly “Affirmed” and which they deprive of precedential value. But they require parties to pay a filing fee of $505. It is a scam! It is bound to outrage the public and rally it and the media behind your call that…

e…the media should investigate wrongdoing in the Judiciary through two unique, national stories(ol2:440): P. Obama-Justice Sotomayor –while a nominee she was suspected by NYT, WP, and Politico of concealing assets(jur:65fn107a,c); and Judiciary-NSA on interception of communications of critics of judges(ol2:476), which can explode into a scandal bigger than Snowden’s.

There is probable cause to believe that my communications with other critics and victims of wrongdoing judges have been intercepted(ol2:425). That can be ascertained by IT experts, just as Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson(ol:215) and CBS hired such experts and they ascertained that her personal and work computers had been hacked. On that basis, she has sued through her attorneys at Judicial Watch(ol:216fn2) the Department of Justice for $35 million for hacking her computers in search of files on her investigative reporting on the attacks at the Benghazi embassy and the fiasco of DoJ’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation(ol:346¶131).

At the debate, your denunciation of wrongdoing(ol2:437) by judges, some confirmed by Then-Sen. Clinton, and proposal of those stories can:

a. launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judicial wrongdoing, one narrowly focused at the top of the national government, where it sets the example for all lower federal judges and their state counterpartes, and cost-effective;

b. let you set the campaign’s key issue;

c. rally the huge(ol:311) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judiciary to your website(ol:362; ol2:444), ideas(ol2:423), and business(ol2:463); and

d. pave the way for your calling for nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, similar those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee, and to a historic reform(jur:158§§6-8) of the judiciary that empowers We the People to hold accountable Judges Above the Law and turns you into our Champion of Justice.

I respectfully request a meeting to present this input to you and your officers.

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City

www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

Proposal for production by Donald Trump of his tax returns and Sec. Clinton of her 33,000 deleted emails on a national network; and for denouncing unaccountable judges’ riskless wrongdoing; launching the media investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor concealment of assets and Federal Judiciary-NSA interception of emails; and calling for nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing

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

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

If you believe that judges’ are held unaccountable and risklessly dispense with due process and equal protection of the law for their convenience and gain, depriving you, your family, friends, and the rest of us in our country of our property, liberty, and the rights and duties that shape our lives, forward this email to both candidates.

Copy and paste in the To: line of your forwarding email this bloc of email addresses:

leadright@gop.com, info@hillaryclinton.com, email@gop.com, donations@donaldtrump.com, contact@email.donaldtrump.com, info@nrcc-mail.org, teamtrump@trump2016.com, media@debates.org

This is your opportunity to denounce judges’ unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing. Take action! Share, post, and republish this email in its entirety as widely as possible and become a producer of an event that can change the campaign and decide the election.

Tweet:
Proposal @Trump to produce tax returns @Clinton emails
on a national network newscast &
denounce how wrongdoing judges harm We the People
#abusivejudges

If it becomes an Internet buzz, it may pressure the two candidates, the network, the anchors, etc., to take a stand on it before the third debate or even before the election. You can make a difference!

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

In your first presidential debate, you challenged Sec. Clinton to produce her 33,000 deleted emails in exchange for your production of your tax returns. While she did not take up your challenge, she did not turn it down either.

This opens the opportunity for you to raise the stakes by making a national announcement on tweets, emails, at rallies, and through Gov. Pence at his vice presidential debate that will build up enormous expectation and focus the attention on you:

a. At 8:05 a.m. on Tuesday, October 18, the eve of the 3rd presidential debate, Donald Trump will enter through the right door of the Good Day news studio of Fox, the network of the anchor of that debate, Chris Wallace, and before the cameras of the national and international media and the eyes of scores of millions of viewers he will be holding a copy of his tax returns with a flash drive on top containing their digital version in a not-passworded pdf file, none bearing any redactions.

b. If Sec. Clinton enters through the left door holding a copy of her 33,000 deleted emails with a flash drive on top containing their digital version in a not-passworded pdf file, none bearing any redactions, both candidates will walk to, and release them on, a table behind which there will be five people, the document receivers, who presumptively enjoy their trust:

1) Martha Raddatz of ABC, anchor of the second presidential debate;

2) the moderator of the second presidential debate, Anderson Cooper of CNN;

3) the moderator of the third presidential debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News; and

4) the chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., and Mr. Michael D. McCurry.

c. If after checking the paper and digital versions of those documents at least three of these five document receivers agree that Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton have produced what they are supposed to, the receivers will use the flash drives to make those documents available on the websites of Fox, ABC, CNN, CPD, and the websites of the national and international media represented at that event. There will be some 36 hours for the media, the viewers, and the rest of the world to analyze the documents before the debate the next day.

d. If one candidate fails to show up and produce the expected documents to the receivers, the other will not be required to produce his or hers, but may do so voluntarily. Obviously, if with the cameras of the world trained on a door the corresponding candidate fails to enter through it with the documents in hand, he or she will suffer a credibility-devastating blow. One candidate stared at the other while calling the other’s bluff, and the other blinked and crawled away.

On this occasion, you, Mr. Trump, can:

a. denounce unaccountable judges, some confirmed by Then-Sen. Clinton, who risklessly engage for their convenience and gain in wrongdoing(jur:5§3; ol:154¶3) that deprives parties and the rest of the public of their property, liberty, and rights, and intercept their communications to protect themselves, which can set off a scandal; outrage the public of all stripes; and rally it behind Trump as the only Establishment Ousider who can go to Washington and disrupt the corrupt and corruptive system of connivance between judges and the politicians who recommend, endorse, nominate, confirm, and then fear judges and their power to retaliate by declaring a party’s legislative agenda unconstitutional;

b. call for a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the two unique national stories of P. Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA (infra);

c. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing;

d. cause the resignation of judges, whose vacancies you will get to fill; and

e. attract the attention of more than 100 million people who are parties to more than 50 million cases filed annually in the federal and state courts(jur:8fn4,5), or parties to scores of millions of cases, and who are at the mercy of unaccountable wrongdoing judges; they constitute a huge untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, and form part of the largest segment of the public and the electorate: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

I^[1] respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers to present this and other proposals^[2].

^{_______________________________}

^[1.]This letter(^†>ol2:481) together with previous ones(cf. ^†>ol2:463) and supporting materials, all of which contain more proposals appropriate for preparing for the second presidential debate, are collected in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

Those letter and materials are based on, and also found 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* ^†

The study runs to more than 965 pages and is contained in two volumes:

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

^†Vol. 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

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

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

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

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

The Two Unique National Stories
of Judges’ Wrongdoing

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf >ol2:440

The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer & Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal judges(jur:105fn213b) know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets, which entails the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– but covered up and lied(ol:64§C) about to the public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it and other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)

This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; ol:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for vetting judges and other candidates for office; and open the door for ‘packing’ the Federal Judiciary after judges resign for ‘appearance of impropriety’.

2. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the *Follow it wireles**sly!* investigation

To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act– to:

1) conceal assets –a crime under 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1); and

2) cover up their interception of the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of critics of judges to prevent them from joining forces to expose the judges?, which constitutes a contents-based interception, thus a deprivation of 1^st Amendment rights, that would provoke a graver scandal than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the NSA’s illegal dragnet collection of only contents-free metadata of scores of millions of communications.

See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn12) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425), pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.

This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).

Dr. Cordero respectfully requests an opportunity to present to Mr. Trump and his officers the proposed investigation by the media(ol:194§E) and law school professors and students(ol2:452) of these two unique national stories of judges’ wrongdoing.

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

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

When pro ses and lawyers think strategically and proceed unconventionally to join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities, turn clerks into confidential informants, and become We the People’s Champions of Justice

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

DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

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

This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Subscribe to this series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or >Users >Add New

You, a pro se or a lawyer, who have had a judge deny you or your client due process and equal protection of the law, can take unconventional, imaginative action to expose such wrongdoing (*>jur:5§3; ol:154§3) judge, e.g., one who has clerks allege that documents were served on you but who can neither produce copies nor even show a record that they were actually served on you.

* All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

There are two basic principles that should guide the actions that pro ses and lawyers take to defend their rights in court:
.
a. The court has all the institutional power. If a court wants to railroad you, there is nothing you can do about it, as shown in the analysis(^†>ol2:452) of the official statistics of caseloads and their management by judges. Suing the judge before his or her own colleagues, peers, and friends is an exercise in futility foretold and a show of lack of understanding of how and why judges cover for each other, as explained in the article(ol2:461) that discusses the concepts of:

1) dynamics of interpersonal relations based on reciprocally dependent survival; and

2) institutional circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing.

b. Think strategically! This means think outside the box, putting aside the conventional, in-court ways(*>ol:390§B) in which pro ses and lawyers have tried for centuries(jur:21§1) unsuccessfully to secure the respect of the law by judges and their clerks.

1) Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) consists of the use of knowledge of parties –here: the parties in the judicial and legal systems– and their interrelations to determine through analysis their constantly strengthening and weakening harmonious and conflicting interests underlying and motivating those relations so as to figure out a way to influence those interests to one’s advantage through, e.g.:

a) the forging of strengthening alliances or the driving of weakening wedges between parties, in application of the principles:

(1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will do everything possible to help him prevail in order to help myself;

(2) The friend of my friend is my friend…and I will help him because there is strength in numbers and my grateful friend may help me.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read as much as you can of my study of judges and their judiciaries*, starting with the (blue text references* ^†) to it herein. Then you can proceed, not by rote, but rather by strategy crafted against a formidable opposing party: judges and their clerks, who have all the power of their institutions and will use it to crush you. You only have the power of knowledge, which can help you outsmart them. This you can do in the following concrete ways that apply the above principles. They provide for you to use your case only as an element of a strategy: the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy(^†>ol2:458§1) for exposing unaccountable (ol:265) judges who consequently engage risklessly in wrongdoing coordinated with their clerks.

B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

Go to the court website(jur:20), surf to, and download the docket of the case and the calendar of the judge for the last year. You must do that immediately to preserve those records as they stand now before they are altered to suit the clerks’ account of the documents in question. If you cannot download them, take screenshots of every screen –Shift + Screen print (the key after F12)–.
.
Indeed, whenever you visit a webpage for any aspect of this search, download and date it, and add its link to it because it can be moved or deleted. Add all of them to a single searchable pdf(ol:102; 277¶¶18-20) and bookmark each page to facilitate navigation through the pdf.
.
Go to the courthouse if those records are not online. Many state courthouses are located in the same building as the county clerk’s office, where the judges’ decisions as well as plaintiffs’ complaints and parties’ briefs, motions, and other case papers are filed as public records. It will become apparent below why it is pertinent to note that the county clerk’s office has other departments to keep, file, register, and issue a host of records, licenses, certificates, and applications regarding jury rosters, property, incorporation and sole proprietorships, marriage, birth and death, name changes, identification cards, voting, running in and results of elections, social security, public assistance, etc. County clerks work in close contact with state court clerks. The former know through the latter all the gossip about the judges and what happens in the court.
.
In a federal court filings are made in the in-take office of the clerk of court, which is not associated with the state county clerk’s office. In-take clerks learn from the law clerks, who are lawyers and ‘clerk for a judge’ (only for a year after law school) or for the court in general as their permanent job, what goes on in chambers, the courtroom, and elsewhere. An in-taker may also learn from a judge who wrongfully orders her to “change that motion’s docket date to today’s”.
.
These state and federal case filing offices are referred to here as the clerk’s office or office. Go there and quietly, without drawing attention to you more than needed, sit at a public computer terminal and check your case for its docket and the judge calendar. Print them AND take a picture of every frame with your smartphone or tablet, making sure that the picture allows the identification of the computer as that in the clerk’s office. If there is no computer available to the public, ask a clerk for the paper version of those records and make a copy or take a picture.
.
Likewise, download or print every single document in the docket. You want to determine whether the alleged document was docketed at all so that it is online and, if so, whether it was docketed in the proper numerical order. What you are looking for is:
.
a. the date stamp on the first page;
.
b. the sequential number of the document, which often is handwritten next to the date stamp;
.
c. the initials or name of the clerk who made each docket entry;
.
d. whether the document was docketed completely because it has all its internal pages;
.
e. markings on pages even if they appear meaningless at this early research stage…or no markings, but a year later the document has markings. Who reloaded it with them? Why?
.
Examine the judge calendar and look for any entries concerning your case. Are they plausible? Determine whether the judge was in chambers, holding court, or even in town on the date when the document in question was signed or the order for its issuance was allegedly issued; or he or she was at a seminar; teaching a class as an adjunct professor; judging a moot court session at a law school; at the wedding out-of-state of his or her son; on holiday; etc. So check the judge’s:
.
a. webpage on the court’s website, paying attention to dates, times, places, names of people, titles, relations, occasions, membership in organizations and clubs, etc.;
.
b. social media page, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube; download all pictures of the judge, his family, associates, etc., and accompanying articles for future use(infra, ol2:470¶25).
.
c. appearance on a Google search showing that he or she holds an honorary position in an organization that advocates positions that under the code of conduct for judges (jur:68fn123a >Canons 4 and 5) are inconsistent with the obligations of judicial office or involve political activity; or contradict his or her public statements.
.
……………1) This is an example of serendipity: You are looking for one thing but detect another thing of great value because you are proceeding with your eyes wide open and a mind that looks at everything critically and integrates every piece of information into a system. A large percentage of findings are made thanks to serendipity.
.
Compare your case docket and the calendar entries for your case with those of the judge’s 20 other current cases; compare them with those of other judges. Does a pattern emerge that:
.
a. was broken in, or confirmed by, your case and points to the judge’s failure to abide by the injunction in Canon 2 of the judges code to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”?
.
b. raises suspicion?: e.g., the judge takes the type of order affecting you on Fridays close to the end of business: Is that a mere caseload dumping(ol:92¶b) measure for a light shoulder feeling that has nothing to do with the merits of the cases?
.
c. involves other parties that strangely enough are the same? One of the main rules of wrongdoing is: Involve as few people as possible to avoid leakage, mistakes due to lack of coordination of timing and action, infighting for turf, and reduce the number of ‘slices in which the cake’ of wrongful benefits must be divided among the wrongdoers:

1) the same clerk, the same accountant, auctioneer, warehouser, guardian ad litem, executor, liquidator, evaluator, companies, and other parties with whom the judge and/or the clerk works together in a scheme(ol:85¶2, 91§E), the most complex, profitable, and harmful form of coordinated(jur:88§a) wrongdoing.

Think like a lawyer: What arguments can you make based on each piece of information, such as a marking, in a source, such as a picture, a webpage, an article, and through their integration in, or failure to fit, a system? Arguments do not scream at you to identify themselves. You have to stare at sources critically and imaginatively to craft them; sources only provide a hint in the form of a piece of information. Does it hint at manipulation of dates, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, text replacement, bias, conflict of interests, counterfactual statement, odd behavior, etc.?

2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

Al Capone was convicted, not on his alleged mafia crimes, but rather for tax evasion. Likewise, a judge may not be brought down on account of her wrongful decisions, which peers and clerks may squeeze within her discretion or cover up, but rather on account of financial crimes(ol:250§B); after all, the most insidious motive for wrongdoing is Money, lots of money!(jur:27§2).
.
The key documents in this respect can be downloaded or examined and copied in the field and subjected to financial analysis to determine whether the judge is liable to the Al Capone approach for illegal benefits sought and/or obtained for herself or others. These documents are:
.
a. the judge’s mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) available for the last seven years(jur:105fn213a); and
.
b. the filings in county clerks’ offices(jur:110fn242-244) concerning the property in the name of the judge, her family, close associates, and even strawmen (fictitious people).
.
Such financial analysis may produce probable cause to believe that the judge may be:a. filing reports that make no financial sense(104¶¶236-237; jur:72§b; ol:315§6), which may point to off-shore accounts in tax heavens(ol:1, 2), money laundering, and tax evasion;
.
b. living above his or her means because on a judges’ salary –a matter of public record–:

1) records in county clerks’ offices show that the judge has a yacht, a condo in Miami, a large investment in a company, in addition to a home in a gated community;

2) based on the information found in huge commercial databases of newspapers and journals, e.g., Nexis(jur:108§d): the judge has three children at expensive private universities, takes vacations at luxurious resorts, is a member of exclusive clubs;

c. taking indirect bribes, e.g., has taken out large loans for which little or no collateral has been posted by mortgaging a property and recording it in the county clerk’s office.

15. The above should have allowed you to realize the strategic thinking that motivates this exercise:

a. You are not looking to establish that the judge abused his or her discretion. That is a losing battle because by definition ‘discretion’ has a wide margin of leeway. Even if appellate judges would have exercised their discretion to do the opposite of what the judge did, they cannot reverse her decision if it was within her margin of discretion(ol2:437).

b. You are looking for wrongdoing, including criminal activity, from which the judge and the clerks benefit(ol:173¶93). Three basic elements are considered to establish wrongdoing: motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). They may reveal a settled way of doing, the modus operandi, which manifests itself in a telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing. You only need to show ‘the appearance of impropriety’(jur:92§d), not prove with evidence.

3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

The search for patterns of wrongdoing is what can allow you to strengthen your case as nothing else can. Right now, you only have yourself, a pro se party or a lawyer for a party, who as such is by definition biased toward his own side of the story. You are alleging with nothing more than words that you are the victim of some form of judicial wrongdoing, e.g., that you did not receive a document or that the record of a document cannot be found. Nobody is going to take your word for it over that of a judge and her clerks, who are her protégés as her accessories in wrongdoing. Forget about people reading the whole record to reach their own conclusion. Thus, you are nothing but a lone whining loser. You need to break away from that damning status.
.
Strategic thinking and proceeding will allow you to become a member of a class of people victimized by a pattern of wrongdoing of a judge or judges and their clerks. How you form that class, beginning with a small, manageable team of three to seven people who have appeared before the same judge as you have, is described in painstaking detail in the article Auditing Judges (ol:274; and at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero_Auditing_Judges.pdf).

C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

To build the Auditing Judges class, you and your Auditing Judges team need inside informants: Deep Throats(jur:106§c), similar to the classic one in the Watergate Scandal, which brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign on 8aug74(jur:4¶¶10-14).
.
Clerks know a lot about judges’ wrongdoing, for they may be their willing or coerced assistants in committing it. Yet, most only get the smallest benefit, usually limited to holding on to their jobs: They either do what they are told or they are flung out(jur:30§1). If they are fired arbitrarily, they can hardly count on other clerks testifying on their behalf. If they file a suit, they land in front of the firing judge’s peers, who have an interest in sending a message to all clerks: ‘Don’t you even think of disobeying our orders: You can only jump from the pan to the fire.’ Cowardice and helplessness breed resentment in the clerks. How many female clerks have had to endure sexual abuse by judges, such as J. Samuel Kent(jur:22fn14)? Read about it and turn this subject into a talking point to strike up a conversation with a clerk identified as a potential informant.
.
This explains why clerks may be the ones most indignant about the judges’ wrongdoing: They may have joined the court expecting to be Workers of Justice, but have been forced to become the judges’ Enforcers of Wrongdoing. They may not feel proud about their behavior.
.
All this points to the need to:
.
a. identify former clerks: They know a lot about what went on in the court; still have contacts there, and cannot be fired…or were fired for protesting;
.
b. imagine scenarios of how to approach a given clerk based on what you are learning about her that may persuade the clerk to become an Informant for Justice; and
.
c. role play(ol:356) frequently with other team members, even on the phone, or in front of a mirror: Do not wing it! Here are three steps for you and your team to search for informants: identify, learn and choose, and contact:

a. Identify current and former clerks

a. Go to the website; download and print the picture of every judge and clerk; identify each with name and title, and affix all to The Wall of Insiders of your home, where you will build their organizational diagram (organigram) with those pictures and additional information found elsewhere; use 3” x 5” cards for people whose picture have not been found;

b. download the telephone register, which lists the name and title of judges and clerks;

c. check the website’s Contact Us webpage;

d. check the webpage for each judge, which may identify his or her law (chambers) clerks;

e. send a crawler to roam the Web for people who in social media or resumes have listed among their former jobs ‘clerk at court X [=wild card]’ or ‘clerked for Judge X’;

f. Go to the courthouse; look in the lobby for a directory on a wall listing the name, title, and room of each judge and clerk; take a picture with your smartphone or tablet;

g. go to the county clerk’s office, the in-take office, the court library and other departments:

1) the personnel headshot gallery, with name and title, may be on a wall; take a picture;

2) ask a clerk for a roster of clerks to help you navigate your way through the maze of departments that you have been told you need to work with. If the clerk has such a roster but not for distribution to the public, ask to be allowed to copy it;

3) inconspicuously take a picture of every clerk and the desktop nameplates;

4) ask for newsletters, brochures, fliers, forms, etc.; some may be downloadable;

h. go to the court library; check the publications that report court decisions, called reporters and advanced sheets, which at the front or the back may have a list of clerks’ names;

i. check the pages posted on the outside wall of the courtroom on the day when a judge holds motion hearings, which may list the name and phone number of the judges’ clerks;

j. walk through the courthouse and pay attention to the shingles outside some doors indicating the names of the several departments and their respective heads;

k. strike up a conversation with any clerk even if you show that you are in the wrong department and have no clue what it does. Use your ignorance to ask for, and receive, the names of current and former clerks in that and other departments with whose requirements you have to comply…to receive child support for a newborn after changing your name after your home was foreclosed and your new address is your car that was stolen. Bad day!

l. if needed, go to the courtrooms and photograph judges on the bench and their clerks.

22. Think, think, think creatively, imagining and rehearsing scenarios in advance, to come up with the opportune questions or comments at the right moment. Think strategically to craft a plan of action and, very importantly, to ‘connect the dots’ represented by each big as well as small, even tiny, piece of information. You are doing field research work: You are a Detective for Justice.

23. Go back home; print and post new pictures and add your field information to that already in the organigram on your Wall of Insiders. Google names and run pictures through face recognition software(jur:146fn271, 272 for a spectacular result of so doing); read the related articles; and add information on 3” x 5” cards. You will be impressed by your own work and so will be others.

24. Reproduce your Wall on your computer using PowerPoint preferably, otherwise Word, and its many collapsible/expandable features for adding information, such as digital sticky notes, call outs and cloud forms, connecting and freeform lines, etc., also available after you save your PP page in, or add it to a, pdf. Save a copy on your mobile device so that you can share your organigram with other team members(ol2:416§A) by email or when you meet them; and compare it with theirs in order to correct, combine, and enlarge it. This is team work, not competition.

b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

After compiling the list of clerks, you and the team must learn about each. Check their social media pages and Google their names, as shown above concerning judges. Learn as much as possible about where and what they studied; what their past jobs were; whether they have family and who their friends are; what school their children go to; where they went for their holidays; what hobbies they have; what associations or church they are members of; where they are likely to be found outside the courthouse; etc. Every piece of information will allow you to relate to them better when you meet them. With insatiable curiosity, imagination, and foresight, hog information.
.
The determination of what clerk is most likely to become an informant begins with those who are more relatable to you because of age, race, educational level, religious affiliation, marital and family status. However, keep in mind that young people are likely to still be idealistic. They may resent more the injustice that they see in the court and that they are forced to participate in. An unmarried young clerk who still lives at home may still be sensitive to a motherly figure.
.
Old clerks may have become jaded. They have established links of, not only conspiratorial relations with judges, but also of friendship and loyalty. They may be so deep into wrongdoing schemes that they risk too much if they give you any piece of information that may lead to any aspect of the court being investigated. Their ‘fingerprints’ are in every wrongdoing. They knew or should have known about it. They are not only accessories under duress(ol2:462§1); they have become principals(jur:90§§b,c). They may be close to retirement and cannot envisage losing their pension just because you tell them to think back to the days when Justice mattered to them.

c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

The previous two steps called for members with a bent for research and organization of data and capacity for profiling people(jur:xLvi§H). The third step calls for people’s persons, those with great social skills, talkative, and the ability to touch other people’s soul. They have to go in the field to befriend clerks who have been determined likely to become confidential informants.
.
Befriend a clerk until you can appeal:
.
a. to his or her moral fiber:
.
b. the image of themselves as decent persons, who “Treat others the way they would like others to treat them”;
.
c. as honest public servants who take pride in serving the public;
.
d. as good parents who want to set the right example for their children;
.
e. people with a personal and civic conscience who would be outraged upon being informed(ol:236) that you and so many others, their families, employees, suppliers, etc., have been harmed profoundly by the wrongs, committed with the coerced assistance of their clerks, of the judges who have deprived them of their property, their liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives. The harm is real –injury in fact–; the pain is constant.
.
Elicit understanding and empathy, positive reactions that generate personal identification with a common cause and commitment to its advancement; not guilt, a negative feeling that drains people of energy and draws them into self-absorbed recrimination that causes degenerative self-worthlessness. Get the clerk to confide in you under the assurance that you will preserve their anonymity. Share only the information with the other team members(ol2:416§A). Invite the clerk to meet and join them.

2. The invisible little men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

There is another class of people that can provide an enormous amount of information about judges and their wrongdoing: They are outsiders: hotel drivers, receptionists, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, room cleaners, and similar ‘little people’ with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts, experience with VIPs, and financial interest in satisfying their every wish– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges full of themselves, and in whose ghostly presence Judges Above the Law uninhibitedly discuss, or engage in competitive boasting about, their wrongdoing(ol:175§2).
.
a. Got to the places where, according to your research, the judge went or frequently goes. and show the ‘little people’ the pictures of the judge, her family, associates, etc.;
.
b. ask them what they know about the judge and the others. Any apparently insignificant dot of information can become significant once you start ‘connecting the dots based on what makes people tic and the world go around’(ol:279¶25) and a richly detailed figure emerges of the judge, her train of living, property, extra-judicial activities, etc. So, ask about:

1) the occasions on which the judge was there;

2) the other people that were with the judge: spouse, boy- or girlfriend, children, other VIP’s, shady people;

3) who picked up the tab;

4) any bit of the conversation among them that the little people picked up;

5) how the judge treated the little people; etc.

D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

32. Einstein said that “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, because it ignores the fundamental law that governs both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. The secular practice against wrongdoing judges is to sue them in court, lodge complaints against them with a judicial performance commission, and ask legislators to investigate them. If you do that, you will likewise end up frustrated, exhausted, and abused; and with dissatisfied one-time clients.

33. Strategic thinking leads to a radical departure: inside knowledge and rational analysis of people’s interests. It detects patterns of wrongdoing and devises an out-of-court/commission plan of action that imaginatively fosters or hinders such interests to expose wrongdoing and hold wrongdoers accountable. This calls for hard work, but it is reasonably calculated to have positive results: objective, verifiable, and convincing wrongdoing patterns that you and your team can take to:

a. journalists, who do not pay attention to the self-serving allegations of a single party;

b. politicians(ol2:416) who are looking for a novel issue on which to run for office, set themselves apart from their challengers, and develop a personal, reliable constituency;

c. documentarists looking for a story that can make them the next Michael Moore, with the equivalent of a hugely successful Fahrenheit 9/11(ol2:461), or Laura Poitras(ol:35, 36);

d. to other parties before the same judge or other judges in the same court, in other courts in the same city, in other cities, and beyond to build a class and develop a precedented, Tea Party-like movement(jur:164§9) of victims of wrongdoing judges and the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who are members of the dominant segment of the population: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment;

e. even the judge on a motion for recusal; an appeals court for disqualification or remand and new trial; and a judicial performance commission to support a fact-based complaint;

34. You are not alone. There are many like you out there. The above is a plan of action for you to become their rallying point. It all begins in your mind, by strategically thinking, then taking imaginative action(ol2:431). Strengthen your mind by reading in my study*^† because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Read and reread the Auditing Judges article(ol:274) to learn how to form a small team of people who have appeared before your wrongdoing judge. They share your experience and frustration. They understand you. They are on your side. Your success is their success. You can become the leader of many pro ses and even lawyers by starting with a few just like you.

35. Take heart from the people who never dreamed of becoming leaders until they were hit by an event that knocked them to the ground. But they would not stay down and take it: They stood up and fought back. They became reluctant heroes(ol:142§B).You never know what you can do until you decide that enough is enough and take the risk: To do your most. That is how you become recognized by We the People as one who asserted our right to Equal Justice Under Law and to hold all our public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing because Nobody is Above the Law.

36. Thus, I offer to make a presentation at a video conference(ol:350) or in person on how you can become one of the People’s Champions of Justice.

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles and letters thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >+ New or Users >Add New

Proposal for attracting the attention of the huge untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems by setting in motion the investigation of a unique national case of judicial wrongdoing

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

To subscribe to this series of articles on this website
Go to the menu bar above >+New >User

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

This letter may be republished and redistributed, provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

The pragmatic intention, not partisan character, of the letter below

The letter below is a manifestation of pragmatism, not partisanship. It applies the principle of strategic thinking: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, it appeals to the person in the best position, as an Establishment outsider who never nominated or confirmed any judge and need not protect any, to achieve, even if only in his own electoral interest, our objective of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform(†>ol2:445).

What do you prefer?

A flawed presidential candidate, perhaps even a president for four, at the most eight years, though subject to the checks and balances of Congress, the Judiciary, the media, public opinion, and the constraints of other world leaders and international treaties;

2,293 federal judges, as of 30sep15, who enjoy actual or effective life-appointment without being accountable to anybody: In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! They dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers(*>jur:21§1). As a result of such historic and self-insured impunity, federal judges engage in wrongdoing risklessly, depriving you of your property, your liberty, and all your rights without due process or equal protection of the law. They are the models for state judges.

^†*All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

Mr. Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

Your campaign is in trouble and the number of days to recover is worryingly small.

So I ask you as you did when you invited Blacks to vote for you:

“What the @#%! do you have to lose”
by taking a close look at this proposal and implementing it?

Indeed, this is a proposal for shifting attention from slipping poll numbers to your theme ‘Not a third term for Barak Obama through Crooked Hillary Clinton’ by bringing up at a press conference a story rooted in articles(*>jur:65fn107a) in The New York Times (NYT), The Washington Post (WP), and Politico that suspected P. Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets.

In the documents that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations she failed to account for $3.6 million(jur:65fn107b,c).

Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, e.g., in a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by bankruptcy judges(jur:65§§1-3). They are appointed for a 14-year term by circuit judges, such as J. Sotomayor was(jur:xxxv-xxxviii), and are removed by them and district judges, not by Congress.

On average, 75% of all cases enter the Federal Judiciary through the bankruptcy courts, where the money is: In 2010, bankruptcy judges ruled on $373 billion in controversy in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). A large majority of such bankruptcies is filed by the most vulnerable people: bankrupts who cannot afford a lawyer and have to appear pro se. They are easy prey of the judges and their cliques(jur:81fn169).

How they were appointed suggests a variation on the “Pay to Play” notion that you used to depict Sec. Clinton’s sale of access to the State Department against a donation to the Clinton Foundation: “Share and share generously”(^‡>ol2:440§B).

The J. Sotomayor asset concealment story will allow you to charge “the sleazy media” with partiality now that NYT is running a story about your former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, having received payments under the table from the former pro-Russia Ukrainian government: Did NYT enter into a quid pro quo with the Obama administration to kill its J. Sotomayor story in exchange for a benefit, a hefty one?:

Obama nominated her, another woman and the first Latina, to the Court in order to ingratiate himself with the people and entities that had requested such a nominee from him to replace Retiring J. Souter and from whom Obama expected in return support for the passage in Congress of what was to become his signature legislation: Obamacare.

NYT could have expected to win a Pulitzer Prize if it had pursued the story until it had caused J. Sotomayor or even P. Obama to withdraw her name or resign as a judge or a justice. NYT could not dismiss that prospect lightly after it failed to act on a tip(jur:102fn198f) that the Watergate scandal reached into the White House, thus leaving to WP the historic journalistic feat of bringing down a president, Nixon, who resigned on 8aug74.

WP and Politico, which killed the story contemporaneously with NYT, would not have risked letting the glory go to it. Did they too enter a quid pro quo?

To find out, you can make a masterful move:

Demand that Obama, J. Sotomayor, Sen. Schumer(ol2:422¶3), and the FBI release the secret FBI vetting reports on her as a district, circuit, and supreme court nominee.

Challenge Sec. Clinton to join you in calling for such release, lest she show that, if elected, she will not only cover up all wrongdoing by Obama, but also engage in more of her own when nominating the successor to Late J. Scalia(ol2:437 5^th¶).

I respectfully request a meeting to present to you and your officers this proposal.

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

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

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

NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., 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.

NOTE 2: This letter, previous ones, and their supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

To subscribe to the series of articles on this website
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
go to the menu bar above >+New>User

A. On the sit-in in Washington, D.C., to request that the President appoint a certain kind of people to the judiciary

B. On breaking up the Ninth Circuit

C. A reasonable strategy: first expose judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, thus establishing the need for judicial reform

D. The benefit for advocates of meeting and discussing the most cost-effective way of attaining their objective: an honest judiciary

E. Participating in a business to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform

Share this:

Like this:

A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public

B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done

C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People

D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants

Share this:

Like this:

A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world

B. A demand by 34 states for a constitutional convention is before Congress, whose members have disregarded it in the interest of preserving their power and privileges and avoiding accountability and liability for their wrongdoing

C. Informing and outraging the public by taking advantage of President Trump’s nomination of a justice on February 2

1. This is the most opportune time for implementing the strategy

2. Informing of wrongdoing through the investigation of two unique national stories of politicians’ and judges’ wrongdoing that can outrage most intensely

D. The “move forward” to a new constitution must from the beginning expose the scope of wrongdoing, and cause the resignation, of swamp judges, lest they declare it “unconstitutional” or interpret it protect their interests

E. The immediate steps that we can take to “move forward” together to a new constitution

1. My offer to make a presentation to you

2. Share and post this email

3. Our presentation at a press conference and privately to journalists

4. Our demand for the investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA

F. Requested action

The Two Unique National Stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA

G. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

H. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

H. Judges’ wrongdoing and abuse of power with the connivance of politicians warrants the People giving themselves a new constitution

Share this:

Like this:

A. The abused powers that generate the judicial swamp

1. Judges’ power to stay established: life-appointment and irremovability in practice

2. The power of connivance between appointing-politicians and their appointed judges

3. Judges’ vast power of the office

4. Judges’ power to grab benefits

5. Judges’ power of growing well-connected

6. Judges’ power of camaraderie

7. Judges’ power of self-disciplining

8. Judges’ power to show contempt for We the People and our representatives

9. Judges’ power to retaliate

B. Judges’ unaccountability is the key corruptive component of their swamp

C. P-e Trump owes his loyalty, not to the judges of the swamp, but rather to The Dissatisfied With The Establishment who elected him

D. P-e Trump’s first step: a press conference to call on the public and the media to expose the corruptive judicial powers and the resulting swamp

E. The action that you can take to ensure the drainage of the judicial swamp

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

A. How their vans exploded soon after they were turned on

B. Thinking strategically to craft the strategy for the final stretch

C. Defining “naspy” as the positive core of their new theme

D. Crafting TV ads of all kinds of people joyfully walking to a voting center

E. Assembling an artistic team to translate their ideas into reality

F. Variations on Hilly the naspy for T-shirts, signs, and posters

G. Sec. Clinton consults with Dr. Cordero, the author of the strategic thinking concept

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Two Unique National Stories of Judges’ Wrongdoing

The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

2. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

Share this:

Like this:

A. Two principles that pro ses and lawyers should know about wrongdoing judges

B. Concrete ways for searching for document records and information about judges’ wrongdoing

1. Searching online and in the office of the clerk of court and county clerk for document records: the case docket and the judge’s calendar

2. Financial wrongdoing: the Al Capone approach

3. The strongest support for a claim: a pattern of wrongdoing

C. The search for Deep Throat: developing confidential informants

1. Court, law, and county clerks: the insiders

a. Identify current and former clerks

b. Learn about each of the clerks and choose the most likely to become confidential informants

c. Contact the clerk to persuade him or her to become an Informant for Justice

2. The invisible little men and women: outsiders with big eyes and ears

D. Taking action for you and others and becoming a national Champion of Justice

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

**A. The “move forward” toward a new constitution that We the People living today give ourselves for a radically different world**

The Two Unique National Stories of
President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and
Federal Judiciary-NSA

**H. Judges’ wrongdoing and abuse of power with the connivance of politicians warrants the People giving themselves a new constitution**

The Two Unique National Stories
of Judges’ Wrongdoing

**The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation**

2. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the *Follow it wireles**sly!* investigation