By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris 

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

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

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.

A.  A study about judges and their judiciaries identifies the circumstances that enable their wrongdoing

1.  I have researched, analyzed, and written a study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

2.  KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Hence, I invite you to read in my study as much as you can about the circumstances of unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness(*>ol:190¶¶1-7) that enable judges to engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3; ol:265) for their material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93) while disregarding due process of law(jur:5§3) and abusing their power to dispose of all our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives…and get away with it.

a.  Federal judges engage in wrongdoing because they:

1)  are life-tenured;

2)  can retaliate against politicians who investigate them by declaring their legislative agenda unconstitutional(jur:23fn17a);

3)  instead, are protected by the politicians, who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them, as “our men and women on the bench”; so they

4)  are allowed to dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of the complaints against them, which must be filed with their chief circuit judges(jur:24§§b-d); and

5)  are the only ones to whom you can appeal to review their own decisions, so they review them in their own interest(jur:28§§a-b) or deny review at will(jur:47§c).

b.  As a result, federal judges are in practice irremovable: While on 30sep15 the number of federal judicial officers was 2,293(jur:22fn13), in the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:22fn14)

c.  If your bosses could neither be removed from their life-appointment positions nor have their salary reduced(jur:22fn12) and had all the power to decide over all your money(jur:27§2) as an employee and a person, would you be afraid that they would abuse that power for their benefit, regardless of the harm to you? Those are the positions and power that federal judges have; they abuse them in reliance on the fact that no adverse consequences will come to them therefrom. Is that outrageous in ‘government, not by men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6)?

B.  Advancing the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by applying a principle of strategic thinking

3.  The exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and advocacy of judicial reform are guided by the strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C) principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him prevail so as to help myself”. It leads to alliances forged between people with harmonious interests even if with different motives who can converge on the same result.

4.  This effort has currently found expression in my letter(^‡>ol2:437) to Mr. Donald Trump, who publicly and repeatedly criticized the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. In that letter, I propose that he denounce judges’ wrongdoing, as opposed to judges’ exercise of discretionary power and reap significant electoral benefits therefrom.

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

a.  Proving abuse of such power is most difficult since discretion is a matter of opinion involving a wide leeway. Wrongdoing is indefensible. One only need show, rather than prove, that a judge has failed to abide by his or her duty to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). That can force a judge to resign(jur:92§d).

C.  Giving priority to the cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform and choosing a candidate that can advance it

5.  There is never a perfect candidate. But there is always one cause that outrages and energizes us the most. It is not productive to do nothing until we can advance all our causes simultaneously.

6.  Therefore, we all have to decide which cause is most important to us and who can contribute the most to advancing it the way we advocate. Then we must work with that person accordingly, in spite of what we may think about that person’s position on other issues.

7.  If judges’ wrongdoing exposure and judicial reform is that cause for you, I encourage you to share my letter widely so that many informed and outraged people may demand that Trump denounce such wrongdoing and the media investigate two unique national stories of it(ol2:439).

D. Choosing between a 1-2 term Trump presidency subject to checks and balances v. 2,293 life-tenured judges subject to no accountability

8. Trump is not expected to be interested in an honest judiciary at all. He is only assumed to be interested in winning the election and becoming president.

9.  That does not diminish the importance of the fact that he has what we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, sorely lack, which explains why we have made no progress in our common cause at all: He is avidly covered by the national media. We do not have access even to the local media.

10.  Thus, Trump can solely in his electoral interest denounce judges’ wrongdoing as proposed(ol2:437). Nevertheless, he can thereby set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing(ol2:439). By exposing its nature, extent, and gravity(jur:5§3, 65§§1-3), that investigation will provoke such outrage as to stir up the national public to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing. Their findings will so deeply aggravate public outrage that they will render judicial reform inevitable, regardless of who is president at that time.

1. What do you prefer?

a.  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;

or

b.  2,293 federal judges who are in effect irremovable and not subject to any checks and balances. Consequently, they risklessly engage in wrongdoing. Federal judges are not only human beings and as such flawed; they are also unaccountable wrongdoers(jur:88§§a-c).

11.  Hence the strategy of informing and outraging the public concerning judges’ wrongdoing. It is born of pragmatic, strategic thinking, not of partisanship. You too can think strategically and contribute to its implementation.

E. The need to take action to advance our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

12.  Merely making a statement of fact about wrongdoing and abusive judges, never mind simply whining to commiserate with one another about our suffering, will not accomplish anything. It is necessary to think strategically and take action accordingly(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C).

13  We all should contribute to advancing our common interest by taking advantage of the opportunity that Mr. Trump presents.

14.  Therefore, I respectfully invite you to:

a.  share the below letter(^†>ol2:437) to Mr. Trump as widely as possible by emailing it to all your friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances, and your emailing list, and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blogs;

1) See a list of yahoogroups at ^†>ol2:433.

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

b.  subscribe to my website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, and encourage them to do likewise so that you all can Gain Power Through Knowledge;

c.  network(ol:231) with friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers^#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems;

1)  Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort

2)  General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.

3)  VP Nominee Gov. Mike Pence

4)  Ms. Ivanka Trump

5)  Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.

6)  Mr. Eric Trump

d.  download^† and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

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

e.  organize presentations to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them the letter, evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B), and the way for them to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting  through a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture.

15.  I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your friends, relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances.

16.  Let’s not miss this window of opportunity for turning judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of a presidential election, which is the ocassion when politicians are most vulnerable and responsive(ol2:422) to We the People.

17.  Time is of the essence.

18.  It is by taking action that you too can become one the nationally recognized Champions of Justice of a grateful We the People.

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

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, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

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

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

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

See the article:

How Donald Trump
can turn his criticism of a federal judge
into an opportunity to
denounce federal judges’ unaccountability,
which gives rise to the mindset of impunity
that induces judges to engage risklessly in
wrongdoing, including illegal, criminal activity,
thus providing probable cause to believe that
judges, fearing no adverse consequences,
also abuse their discretionary power

A realistic alternative that takes advantage of presidential politics to inform the national public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing and cause the public to demand nationally televised hearings on 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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

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

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.

A. Barriers to access to the Supreme Court: the booklet format, the preference given to a few lawyers, the 1 in 100 review chance, and the cost of representation

1. The problem begins with the format of the brief and the record to be filed. It can cost $100,000 or more just to pay a specialized company to transcribe and print the record on appeal in the booklet format required by Rule 33(*>jur:47fn77) of the Rules of the Supreme Court because if you do not qualify as indigent to file in forma pauperis, you cannot file them on regular 8.5” x 11” paper.(jur:47§1)

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*

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

2. Even so, since in the last few years some 7,250 cases were filed per year in the Court, but it disposed of an average of only 78 cases, your chances of having your case taken for review are roughly 1 in 100(cf. jur:47fn81a). In the casinos of Las Vegas, your odds of winning are better.

3. Your odds of having your case reviewed by the Court are substantially worse if you are not represented by one of the “superlawyers”^†, whose cases are decidedly preferred by the Supreme Court: 8 superlawyers argued 20% of cases in the nine years between 2004-2012. They command whatever attorney’s fee the law of offer and demand allows, which only a few, mostly corporate parties, can afford.

4. In fact, taking a case all the way to final adjudication in the Supreme Court can cost more than $1,000,000(jur:48fn83). If it remands to the trial court for a new trial, you start all over again.

^† a. The Echo Chamber…At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket; Reporters Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts, and John Shiffman, Reuters Investigates, Thomson Reuters; 8dec14; http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus/

b. Elite circle of lawyers finds repeat success getting cases to the Supreme Court; Gwen Ifill interviews Joan Biskupic, Legal Affairs Editor in Charge, Reuters; PBS NewsHour; 9dec14; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elite-circle-lawyers-finds-repeat-success-getting-cases-supreme-court/

5. Judicial review in the Supreme Court is not only discretionary with the justices, it is also illusory(jur:48§2; cf. 46§3).

6. If you cannot download the Rules of the Court(jur:47fn77b) and pay attention to, and comply with, their hundreds of minute details, you cannot reasonably expect the Court to take your case for review. The clerk will not accept your case for filing.

7. Nor can you expect the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices of the august Supreme Court of the United States, sitting on the high bench to hear oral argument before the national press and a select audience of guests, let a pro se babble, ramble, and rant about the facts of the case and his heartfelt pain at so much injustice visited upon him by the adverse party.

8. That scenario is simply not possible, an idea born of ignorance of, or reckless disregard for, the applicable standards of performance and court decorum.

9. Rather, the justices expect knowledgeable and authoritative arguments based on legal precedent and firmly established or proposed principles of law. They want clarification about any points discussed in the briefs that raised questions in their minds, asking the kind of questions that are the most difficult to answer as they demand a firm command of the law: What are the legal implications of that point? The law is a system. Points of law have to fit together for the law to make sense. A pro se cannot wing it when answering those questions.

10. Therefore, do you have the money to retain a member of the Supreme Court bar to argue your case? If you do not have money to even pay a lawyer to review your papers before filing them, you don’t.

B. A case filed by a pro se in a federal court is weighted as a third of a case

11. When you file a case in a federal district court, you have to file a Case Information Sheet. It asks, among other things, whether you are represented or pro se. You are appearing pro se. The consequences thereof at the brief in-take office of the clerk of court are funereal without the solemnity: Your case was dead on arrival and is sent right away to potter’s field.

12. In the Federal Judiciary, pro se cases are weighted as a third of a case(jur:43fn65a >page 40). By comparison, “a death-penalty habeas corpus case is assigned a weight of 12.89”(jur:43¶81). As a result of such weighting, a pro se case is given some 39 times less attention than a death penalty case regardless of the pro se case’s nature, what is at stake in it, and whether the complaint was written by joe the plumber or a law professor.

13. Your brief is likely not to be read at all…that is the whole purpose of the Case Information Sheet: to tell the court on half of one side of one page what the case is all about and what relief the party is requesting so that if the court does not want to grant it, why bother reading the brief?

C. Justice is blind, but the judge sees the incompetence of pro se pleadings

14. A federal district judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship”(jur36fn57).

15. Hence, the judge is expected not to waste her time with a pro se case, which is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if it did, without any notion of the elements of the action that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he must introduce to prove each of them.

16. Indeed, the pro se, ignoring how to state a case, is likely to plunge in his opening paragraph into a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better? She knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say and do not lay out arguments of law, but instead intone articles of faith and cries of pain caused by an intuitive sense of justice denied.

17. As a result, your pro se brief reaches the judge tainted by the presumption of irrelevancy, inadmissibility, and incompetence. The judge will give it the perfunctory attention that the official weighting of the case enables her to give it. The weighting works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because upon your filing of your case in the in-take office it was considered already not worth a case, not even half a case, but merely a third of it, the judge will do a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.

18. Just because paper holds everything one writes on it, the writing on it by a pro se does not produce a brief of law. He is likely to have stated a case so inadequately that it will be considered incapable of surviving a motion for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” by a court, that is, a Rule12(b)(6) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(FRCivP; ol:5b/fn15e).

19. It follows that as a pro se, you do not stand a chance at getting a due process fair hearing or reading. You are DoA.

D. A pro se is likely not to have a clue of what subject matter jurisdiction is and how its absence can doom his case

20. Worse yet, you have to show something of which you, as a pro se and a lay person at that, are presumed not to have the faintest idea: subject matter jurisdiction(FRCivP 12(b)(1); ol:5b/fn15e). This means that you have to show that the federal court has the authority conferred upon it by statute as interpreted by case law to entertain your type of case and use its judicial power to adjudicate the controversy that opposes you to the defendant.

21. You cannot run to federal court and ask it to intervene in a purely state law matter, such as family, probate, and zoning law are. It is simply not enough for you to allege that the state judge and a host of other state officials engaged in what you, in your law-untrained opinion and your emotional state of mind as a party, a parent, an heir, or a resident in the neighborhood consider to be corruption.

22. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be waived: The defendant cannot confer upon the court authority to hear and decide your type of case by merely failing to raise an objection to it in its answer or by motion to dismiss. At any time, even in the middle of trial, the defendant can move to dismiss the case, thus terminating it, due to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is more, the court can do so on its own motion upon realizing that it does not have authority to deal with the type of matter presented to it.

23. In fact, when judges do not feel like dealing with a case, they take the easy way out by simply claiming that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s only remedy is to go up on appeal to argue a highly technical issue of law. Do you have any idea how to argue that the court has subject matter jurisdiction based on common law, a statutory provision, notions of federalism, and the equal protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment after analogizing your type of case to another type that was held to fall within the court’s jurisdiction?

24. You may hate lawyers because many are deceitful, uncaring, money grabbing fraudsters. Yet, it is logically sound to assume that people who went to law school for three years know something about the law that people who did not go there ignore. The same applies to those who successfully conducted doctoral research, analysis, and writing. How do you think the judge will react if you tell her that you consider the above statement arrogant and elitist?

E. A more realistic strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform that takes advantage of presidential politics and the mood of The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, including the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

25. Presidential politics offers the opportunity to reach out to Establishment-outsider Donald Trump, who has already dare criticize a federal judge, and through him the national media that cover him so that we, victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, may implement a realistic judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform strategy.

26. That strategy rests firmly on two foundations:

a. the strategic thinking principle “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and by helping him I help myself”; and

b. the first law of interaction between two or more persons, i.e., horsetrading!…because social life is a give and take:

27. The strategy is concrete, reasonable, and feasible:

a. Mr. Trump and the media, each acting in their own electoral or commercial interest(^†>ol2:416§B), can inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing and so outrage the public at it as to stir it up to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on such wrongdoing as the first step toward judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

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

28. You can contribute to implementing that strategy. To that end, I respectfully invite you to:

a. share the below letter to Mr. Trump(^‡>ol2:437) as widely as possible by sending it to your emailing list and posting it to yahoo- and googlegroups and blog.

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

1) See a list of yahoogroups(†>ol2:433);

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

b. network(ol:231) with colleagues, friends, and acquaintances of yours who can network with theirs so as to reach Trump campaign officers^#) to persuade them to invite me to present to them how it is in their own(ol:317¶28) electoral interest for Mr. Trump to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw the attention of the media and The Dissatisfied With The Establishment, especially its huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries;

1) Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Paul Manafort,

2) General Counsel Michael Cohen, Esq.,

3) Mrs. Ivanka Trump,

4) Mr. Donald Trump, Jr.,

5) Mr. Eric Trump, and

6) Running Mate Gov. Mike Pence,

c. download^‡ and print the letter to distribute it at political rallies to the attendees, in general, and to each member of the campaign staff and officers, in particular; and

d. organize a presentation to professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I may present to them:

1) the give and take letter to Mr. Trump;

2) the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B); and

3) the way for them to participate in a multidisciplinary academic(ol:60; 112-120; 255) and business(jur:119§1; ol:271-273) venture to pioneer the field of judicial unaccountability reporting and judicial reform advocacy.

29. So that you may feel confident in networking me with others, I offer to first make a presentation at a video conference or in person to you, your colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.
30. Let’s not miss this window of opportunity to make of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a decisive issue of the presidential campaign(ol2:422). Time is of the essence.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

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

By

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

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.

___________________________________________

Dr. Cordero and Judicial Discipline Reform are non-partisan and non-denominational in their pursuit of one single issue: the exposure of the unaccountability of federal and state judges, who consequently engage in wrongdoing risklessly despite the harm to parties and the rest of the public.

Their plan of action is based on strategic thinking: Informing the national public of unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing so that the public may become so outraged as to demand of all politicians, whether running for, or in, office, that they call for, and conduct, nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing.

Therefore, members of the public who support any issue as well as those who oppose it are all welcome here as long as they believe in, and want to contribute to advancing, this common issue:

We the People are the sovereign source of all political power and as such the masters of all our public servants, including judicial public servants. We have the right to hold all judges accountable for honestly serving us Equal Justice Under Law, and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

Achieving judicial reform that enables us to exercise that right is our ultimate objective, for judicial power is at the center of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’. In that government, we want to assert the supremacy of our role as We the People.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has access to the national media, hence to the national public; is the only outsider of the Establishment, which recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, and appointed judges; and is the only one who has dare criticize judges. Thus, the letter below is an application of the strategic thinking principle: The enemy of my enemy is my friend…and I will help him help me.

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to apply a principle that you stated in an interview some 25 years ago to the effect that ‘you always think how things can go wrong, because if they go right, they take care of themselves, but if they go wrong, you want to know that you anticipated that event and did everything possible to prevent it and now are better prepared to make things right’.

Things can go wrong for your campaign due to lack of money and the dwindling support shown by polls. To run a campaign you may need $1 billion, of which you only collected $1.3 million in June. Since neither your party nor big donors are opening their pockets, you can either pay the difference from yours or implement this proposal for innovatively addressing both problems:

At the end of a long primary season, people are weary of stretched-out hands requesting money. So you can offer them your ears and invite them at rallies and in emails to voice their complaints on your website.

Complainants form that part of the electorate that you have identified and are your base: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

The most dissatisfied are those who, like you recently, feel they were treated unfairly by judges, not to mention those who feel that  they had their property,  liberty  as  well  as  the  rights  and  duties that  determine their lives mishandled: the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form a huge untapped voting bloc:

More than 100 million people are parties to over 50 million cases filed in the federal and state courts annually(*>jur:8fn4,5); to them must be added the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases and cases deemed wrongly or wrongfully decided; plus the millions of closely related people who have also become just as dissatisfied: family, friends, peers, supporters, employees, etc. All are passionate in their quest for vindication and justice.

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study, which has two  volumes: …/OL/… and …/OL2/….

The dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems will be receptive to your invitation to go to your website both to fill out a standardized case description form(*>ol:281) and to post their court papers so that anybody may search them for the most probative evidence, i.e., a pattern of wrongdoing(ol:274), unlike a claim of abuse in only one’s case, which is suspect of being self-serving and biased.

Thereby you would apply the marketing psychology principle that when people feel they have been given to, e.g., attention and hope of help, they feel grateful and prone to give back, e.g., money, volunteered work, and word of mouth support.

While the dissatisfied are on your website, they will be more responsive to your donation pitch. They may donate small amounts, similar to those that The Hopeful Young gave Sen. Sanders, which added up to scores of millions, even surpassing the big donations to Sec. Clinton.

You can thus grow your support, for those who post  their  complaints  to your site will identify themselves and those closely  related  to  them  as  potential voters for you, whom you can enter in your database, keep giving to(ol:362), and mobilize on Election Day.

Although you sue often, you are not afraid of criticizing judges. You can cause them to resign(jur:92§d) or be removed by denouncing(ol2:437) their unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing(ol:311).

Thereby you can launch media and official investigations of two unique national cases of judges’ wrongdoing(see infra) and provoke an institutional crisis that leads to judicial reform entailing  a reconfiguration of checks and balances among the branches and between them and the people.

Indeed, that can become your legacy even if you lose the election: a new American governance system(ol2:423¶¶g,h) where We the People assert our  supremacy in “government of, by, and for the People”.

If you win, you can also nominate replacement judges supportive of your legislative agenda(ol2:422).

To detail this proposal and explain how you can investigate(ol:194§E) the two unique national cases, I respectfully request a meeting with you and your officers.

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,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com,
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 to Mr. Trump together with previous ones to him and supporting materials is found at:

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

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

The Two Unique National Cases
of Judicial Wrongdoing

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

1. What did the President(*>jur:77§A), Sen. Schumer  and Sen.  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 as  well as any  other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)
2. This case  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’.

B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA case and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

3. 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 National Security Agency (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 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act– to:

a. 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

b. 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 1st 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.

4. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) of a large number of communications critical of judges and a pattern of oddities(ol2:395, 405, 425) in  those  communications pointing to probable cause to believe that they were intercepted.
5. This case can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:2, 69§C).
   ***************************************************

An opportunity for Trump to emerge as
The Voice of
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment,
The Champion of Justice of
the victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges, and
The Architect of the New American Judicial System
by causing the investigation of
two unique national stories 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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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.

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

On May 23, I delivered at the reception of Trump Tower a letter(^†>ol2:422) for you with materials^† proposing that you denounce federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, and reap benefits from so doing, i.e., attracting the attention and support of the huge(*>ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people who are dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. They form part of the dominant sector of the electorate to whom you have given a voice and who represent your key constituency: The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

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

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

A. Federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing raises probable cause for criticism of abuse of discretion

1. Your criticism of the exercise of discretionary power by Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presides over the Trump University case, offers you the opportunity to denounce judges’ unaccountability that enables wrongdoing and abuse of discretion(*>jur:5§3):

2. You can argue that judges have granted themselves absolute immunity from prosecution, thus elevating themselves above the law; and are held unaccountable in practice by the Establishment politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them to the Federal Judiciary and protect them there as ‘their men and women on the bench’. So the judges are in practice irremovable:

3. In the last 227 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, the number of impeached and removed federal judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13– is 8!(jur:22fn13, 14) As a consequence, they do wrong risklessly(jur:65§§1-3) and even exercise their discretion abusively: Those who can do the most –impeachable wrongdoing– can do the lesser –reversible discretion-abusing decisions–.

B. Distinguishing between abuse of discretion and a charge of wrongdoing

4. You need not prove that Judge Curiel himself has engaged in wrongdoing, not even that he has abused his discretionary power, for which you would have to meet the exacting requirement of proving that his decisions were grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence.

5. Convincing appellate judges in any case that a peer in the court below and friend of theirs for years, who knows of their own wrongdoing and abuse, abused his discretion is an uphill battle; it is rendered in this case all but impossible because the appellate judges as well as all the other judges have closed ranks as a class behind one of their own under attack.

6. Instead, you only need to show the appearance(jur:68fn123a), rather than prove based on evidence, that the Federal Judiciary and its judges, of whom J. Curiel is one, engage in wrongdoing involving illegal activity so routinely, extensively, and in such coordinated fashion that they have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi. Abuse of discretion is only part of the mindset that develops in people who know that they can get away with anything they want.

C. The mindset of impunity: the policy established by the Supreme Court and its manifestation in judges’ conduct

7. The wrongdoers’ mindset has been fostered by policy established by the Supreme Court itself. In Pierson v. Ray(jur:26fn25), it stated that judges’ “immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”. In Stump v. Sparkman(26fn26), the Court even assured judges that “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”.

8. Such assurance has created the mindset of impunity. Once on the bench, forever there no matter what. Self-restraint is superfluous because anything and everything is condoned. Self-indulgence has but contempt for discretion.

9. Unaccountable judges exercise abusively, not merely discretion, but even power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives. They wield absolute power, the kind that ‘corrupts absolutely’(27fn28). Abuse of discretion is an institutional uninhibited mental reflex.

10. As a result, federal judges abuse discretion for their own benefit. Indeed(*>Lsch:21§A):

a. Chief circuit judges abuse judges’ statutory 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 1st Amendment right to “redress of grievances”, making them victims with no effective right to complain.

b. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders(jur:44fn66) or opinions so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) that the judges who wrote them mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43§1). In their own estimation, they are raw fiats of star-chamber power. They are as difficult to find as if they were secret; and if found, meaningless to litigants and the public, for most frequently their only operative word is the one that betrays the expediency that motivates them: ‘affirmed!’ They are blatant abuse of discretion.

c. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In Calendar Year 2010, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). Money! lots of money! the most insidious corrupter. About 95% of those bankruptcies are filed by individuals; bankrupt, the great majority of them appear pro se and, ignorant of the law, they fall prey to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:42fn60).

d. That scheme was covered up by Then-Judge Sotomayor, e.g., DeLano(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), which she presided over. Whether it is one of the sources of assets that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) suspected her of concealing (65§§1-3) is a query that you can raise at a press conference(jur:xvii) to launch(jur:98§2) a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(ol:194§E) of her and the Judiciary through two unique national stories (see infra).

D. Wrongdoers and their accessories: What did they do or know and when did they do or know it?

11. Not all judges are wrongdoers; but they need not be such to be participants in illegal activity that requires their resignation(jur:92§d) or impeachment. When they keep silent about the wrongs done by their peers, they become accessories after the fact; when they let their peers know that they will look away when the peers do wrong again, they become accessories before the fact(jur:88§§a-c).

12. In both cases, they breach their oath of office(ol:162§§5-6), show dereliction of their collective duty to safeguard institutional integrity, and contribute to denying due process and equal protection of the law to all parties.

13. Thus, the question is properly asked of every judge: What did he or she know about their peers’ wrongdoing and when did he or she know it?

E. Actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing and become the Champion of Justice of victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges

14. Republican Establishment Sen. McConnell has called your criticism of the judge in the Trump University case “your worst mistake”; and Republican Sen. Collins has asked for you to apologize to the judge.

15. You can defend your criticism by showing that unaccountable judges engage in institutionalized wrongdoing as part of their history, policy, and mindset of impunity, which provides probable cause to believe that they abuse their discretion as part of their way of doing business.

16. What is more, you can turn your own defense into that of the national public, for ‘if judges can treat me unfairly, though I am a presumptive nominee, represented by the best lawyers, and able to appeal to the Supreme Court, how much more abuse do they heap on you?’ So to become the voice of the Dissatisfied With The Establishment and its judicial and legal systems, you can:

a) denounce(jur:98§2) judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference and ask the media to conduct a pinpointed, cost-effective investigation of two unique national stories, stated below, that can expose the nature, extent, and gravity of judicial wrongdoing;

b) invite the public to:

1) upload their complaints about judges to your site(cf. infra 362), search them for patterns of wrongdoing supportive of motions for disqualification, remand, new trial, etc., and

2) demand nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform;

c) propose to the deans of Columbia and NYU law schools a course to research(ol:60, 112-118; jur:131§b) judicial unaccountability and reform as an independent third party(jur:128§4) working to the highest academic standards(infra 364⁷) to produce the Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America and the Required Reform; and

d) pioneer judicial unaccountability reporting as a business venture(jur:119§1).

15. By so doing, you can turn your criticism of a judge into a master strategic thinker’s move to:

a. pack(ol2:422) the Judiciary with your nominees to replace justices and judges forced to resign or removed;

b. reform(jur:158§§6-8; ol:129§3) the Judiciary to detect, prevent, and punish wrongdoing as warranted by(ol:135§A) the wrongdoing exposed; and

c. become thereby the Architect of the New American Judicial System.

16. I respectfully request an opportunity to present this strategy to 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

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

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 and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:

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

The Two Unique National Stories

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

1. 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)

2. 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’.

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

3. To w hat 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:

a. 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

b. 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.

4. See the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) 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.

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

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

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.

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

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

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is a proposal for you to nominate to the Supreme Court, not just one of your 11 candidates, but rather many justices and judges, thus packing(*>jur:23fn17) the Federal Judiciary with jurists handpicked to uphold your legislative agenda’s constitutionality for a generation. To that end, you can appeal to the electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

* See Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciary, which 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

All (blue text references) herein are keyed to that study. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

Among The Dissatisfied is a huge(infra ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems because judges are held unaccountable(jur:21§1) by the politicians who nominated and confirmed them, so they risklessly engage in wrongdoing(jur:5§3).

This is illustrated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c), which suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets(65§§1-3).

She was President Obama’s first justiceship nominee, shepherded through the confirmation process by both Sen. Chuck Schumer, whom Sen. Harry Reid has named to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York(77§§5-6).

Your denunciation(98§2) of judges’ wrongdoing –as opposed to wrongdoing judges- at a major press conference or speech would be a masterstroke, allowing you to:

1. attract dissatisfied Democrats and Independents, and Hispanics, Muslims, women, and Blacks;

2. tarnish P. Obama, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic brand itself, and embarrass them, J. Sotomayor, and her current(71§4) and former peers by requesting that they release the secret FBI vetting reports on Nominee Sotomayor for the district, circuit, and supreme courts and those of the other justices and peers(jur:105fn213); and call their bluff by offering to publish your IRS returns if they release those reports;

3. take on judges safely, for they not only have no constitutional claim to immunity(ol:158) in ‘government by the rule of law’ where Nobody Is Above the Law, but also are the most vulnerable public officers to news pointing to their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct(jur:68fn123a) “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, a standard of showing that journalists can easily meet and that forced Justice Abe Fortas, nominated by President Johnson for the chief justiceship, to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d);

4. demand nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing, akin to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee; just as the latter led to the unthinkable, the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(jur:4¶¶10-14), these judicial wrongdoing hearings can lead to the unimaginable, the resignation of all the justices for participating in, or condoning their peers’, wrongdoing; your demand can taint with suspicion of a cover-up all the presidential candidates and other politicians of the Establishment who oppose these hearings, which can become known as ‘the Trump hearings’ on the Judiciary;

5. earn $100s of millions’ worth of free media coverage as the media conducts its, and reports on your, investigation(*>ol:194§E) of J. Sotomayor as a Trojan horse into the circumstances of secrecy, unaccountability, coordination, and risklessness enabling(ol:190¶¶1-7) judges’ wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and grave as to be the judges’ and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4);

6. emerge as the untarnished leader if the investigation exposes judges nominated, confirmed, and protected by conniving Republicans and tarnishes their Establishment, whereby you, as the reformer in chief of our political and judicial systems, can do without their and its endorsement or force them, including Speaker Ryan, to choose between going down with their party or joining you;

7. burnish your credentials as the only candidate who, as the only Establishment outsider, could have taken on federal judges, and who can take on any domestic lobby and even foreign entities so as to bring relief to, as Mr. Lewandowski put it, the people “tired of the way things are”;

8. develop your website so that it becomes:

a. the place for people to submit and analyze for patterns of wrongdoing their complaints against judges(311) and their conniving and compelled helpers(395); and

b. the center with innovative, interactive, and competitive features for people to give and receive vital information about your campaign, their lives, terrorism, etc., (362), and to gratefully donate to your campaign, which desperately needs every dollar it can get; and

9. use your denunciation to inform the national public about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in a country supposed to be founded on the rule of law and create such national outrage as to:

a. set in motion a Watergate-like generalized media investigation that stirs up news-dominating controversy;

b. announce the presentation of the findings of your own investigation at the Republican Convention so that you

c. turn the Convention into a reality show that irresistibly attracts every Republican, Democrat, Independent, and all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, whereby you

d. become their Champion of Justice;

e. set once again the subject of the public debate because you are the one who senses and can ‘treat’ the pulse of We the People; and

10. pave the way for historic, profound judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), which can be his most important and enduring legacy regardless of whether he wins the presidency.

I respectfully request an opportunity to present this and supporting strategies to you and your staff. Time is of the essence.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net;  Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com

This letter and supporting materials can be downloaded through this link:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/16-5-21DrRCordero-DJTrump.pdf

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

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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.

A. Probable cause to believe that communications about exposing judges’ wrongdoing have been intercepted

1. I am a lawyer, a doctor of law, and a researcher of court statistics, reports, statements, etc.(*>jur: iii/fn.ii), which I have cited hundreds of times in my 880+-page study of federal judges and the Federal Judiciary –the models for their state counterparts– titled and downloadable as follows:

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

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://   www.google.com/chrome/

or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://   support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

2. I have proposed the pinpoint, profit-making(*>ol:326§F) investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through a unique national query(ol:191§A) based, among other things(ol:194§E), on the articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) that suspected the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, of concealing assets. Such concealment is undertaken to evade taxes and keep the illegal origin of taxable assets hidden; it is a crime(ol:5fn10).

 

3. The evidence(jur:65§§1-3) shows that her asset concealment is enabled by, and only part of, wrongdoing coordinated among federal judges and between them and insiders of the judicial and legal systems(jur:81fn169). Thus, her investigation would be a Trojan horse that would reveal wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinated as to constitute the judges’ and the Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190¶¶1-7).

 

4. I have sent that proposal to over ten thousand people, yahoogroups, and pertinent websites. Given the evidence in the study of how widespread dissatisfaction with the judicial and legal systems is, and a current public mood dominated by the Dissatisfied with the Establishment, one could reasonably expect many recipients to contact me to express interest in my proposal. Yet, only a handful has done so. Neither under the circumstances, statistical analysis, nor related events is this a normal reaction.

 

5. This article argues that under those three considerations, there is probable cause to believe that the communications that I sent or that were sent to me were intercepted and their delivery was prevented. It calls on victims of judges’ wrongdoing and on advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces to expose such wrongdoing by implementing a strategy that takes advantage of the public mood and the presidential campaign that feeds off it.

B. Interception and secrecy as the government’s modus operandi

6. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and the intentional access to a protected computer without authorization are acts prohibited as federal crimes and punishable with up to 20 years in prison under Title 18 U.S. Code §§1030 and 2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14).

        1. NSA and judges can issue companies secret orders of interception

7. The documents of the National Security Agency (NSA) leaked by Edward Snowden(ol:17) have revealed that the NSA, which reports to the President daily, broke the law to intercept the communications of private and public parties, including 35 heads of state and government, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazil President Dilma Rousseff among them as well as U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

 

8. This supports probable cause to believe that the government is once more intercepting communications, such as mine, to safeguard its own interests.

 

9. The NSA has an interest in intercepting communications calling for the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing: It depends on judges, such as those of the secret federal court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(ol:20fn5 >50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811), to have its secret requests for secret orders of surveillance rubberstamped, up to 100% in a year(ol:5afn7).

         2. Microsoft sued the government over its orders’ permanent secrecy

10. In mid-April 2016, Microsoft sued the federal government over secret requests, such as those by the NSA, for secret orders of surveillance that those who must execute them, such as Microsoft and other Internet Service Providers, must keep secret forever. It is arguing that such permanent secrecy even after the abatement of the emergency that warrants the order’s request and execution without due process notice and opportunity to defend to the surveillance target defendant prevents any control on the government and, as a result, leads to government abuse of power.

 

11. Secrecy is the petri dish for corruption(jur:49§4), for it places wrongdoing beyond public condemnation, rendering it private, blameless, acceptable to those in on it, whom it renders unaccountable and whose wrongdoing it turns into riskless acts to gain irresistible, wrongful benefits, inevitably leading to their performance through abuse of power(jur:88§§a-c). “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Justice Brandeis put it: information is needed to rid the government of corruption.

        3. Unauthorized access to CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computers

12. CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed the fiasco of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the Department of Justice (DoJ), which sold weapons, including military assault rifles, intended to be followed all the way to druglords in Mexico. But the Bureau lost track of them; one was used to murder an American border patrol.

 

13. DoJ Attorney General Eric Holder tried to cover up Fast and Furious by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents, submitting them with whole pages redacted so that they no longer made sense. As a result, he became the first sitting member of the cabinet in American history to be held in contempt of Congress. Having lost the trust of Congress, he had to resign.

 

14. Likewise and much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, Reporter Attkisson reported on the Benghazi attacks, where the American ambassador to Libya and three other American officers were killed by Islamic militants while the Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton.

 

15. Rep. Attkisson(ol:215) had three independent computer experts examine her home and work computers. They attested to their having been hacked and roamed through. She, represented by Judicial Watch, has sued DoJ for information concerning the hacking of her computers (ol:216fn2); and reportedly has demanded $35,000,000 in compensation.

          4. The government sued Apple to get backdoor access to an iPhone

16. In order to gain access to the messages on the phone of one of the terrorists that committed the massacre at San Bernardino, California, the federal government sued Apple to force it to crack on its behalf the encryption system that protects the privacy of messages on its iPhones. Apple refused to comply, arguing that the public interest in the privacy of emails trumped the interest of the government in particular cases and that cracking the encryption would set a dangerous precedent, give the American government as well as foreign ones a backdoor access to all messages on all iPhones, and lead to abuse of power.

 

17. After the government managed to crack the encryption with the help of another company, it withdrew its suit.

 

18. Instead of just after a crime, how far ahead of any crime or even suspicion of it will the government enter through that backdoor to read all contents of iPhones…and eventually of all phones and computers?

 

19. Power is by nature expansive; it will only stop its advance if opposed by an equal power or is pushed back by a stronger one(jur:81¶174). Such can be the power of We the People, the sovereign source of all public power, when informed by the free flow of communications.

B. Statistical considerations: the normal distribution of a series of values and the abnormal number and contents of replies

20. Probable cause to believe that there has been interception of my communications derives from the statistical abnormality(ol:19fn2 >ws:46§V) of my non-receipt of replies from the thousands of people to whom I wrote(cf. *>Lsch:1), except for some five replies, and the statistical oddity that all those replies were negative, expressing the repliers’ lack of interest in my proposal.

 

21. Normally, the reactions of the subjects to whom an attitudinal questionnaire is submitted –like the people to whom I sent my proposal– line up on a continuum from an extreme of very few ‘not liked any bit of it’ rising toward the most numerous ‘balanced bunch’ and descending toward the other extreme of very few ‘liked every bit of it’. When the series of values measuring the intensity of their reaction and the number of those so reacting are plotted on an X,Y graph, they produce the bell-shaped curve called a normal distribution of values(ol:19fn2 >ws:59¶124).

 

22. Instead, the replies that I received produced a flat floor line with a hiccup at the end. But there is neither a logical nor a psychological cause to believe that normally only people who disliked a proposal would be motivated enough to bother to write to let the proponent know that they disliked and rejected it rather than outright delete the email or shred the letter of proposal.

 

23. Only the interception by an outside agent who managed to gain access to all the replies, examined them, and prevented the delivery of those that liked and accepted the proposal can explain that abnormal one-sided delivery to me of only replies that disliked and rejected my proposal.

C. Interception by companies’ suspending email and cloud storage accounts

24. Probable cause to believe in interception is found in the sudden, unexplained, arbitrary suspension between October and December 2014 of my email and cloud storage accounts by Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft.

 

25. It is utterly improbable that these three, at the time independent, companies acted independently and only coincidentally to suspend my accounts. Their doing so was contrary to their commercial interest in advertising themselves through the accounts that people open with them, which bear the companies’ names in the domains of the accounts, e.g.,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf?dl=0,

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com, and

Ric.Cordero@hotmail.com(*>ggl:1 et al.).

          1. One of the 5% most viewed Linkedin profiles loses most of its contents

26. A company’s commercial interest in encouraging Internet traffic with its name attached to it is shown by Linkedin’s congratulating me for my profile being among the 5% most viewed among its more than 200 million profiles(*>a&p:25-27). So how is it possible that last week, I checked my profile and noticed that my photo and most of its information about me were not there? I had to repost them. Do you see them at www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/?

          2. Microsoft prevents again the signing in to an email account

27. After Microsoft suspended my Hotmail account, I created this other Microsoft account: Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com. But since last week, my attempts to sign in have been met with the following notice, which you will likely receive if you go to www.microsoft.com and try to sign in as RicCordero@verizon.net. So I can neither access the emails sent to my Outlook account nor upload to my Microsoft DriveOne cloud storage account the updated versions of my study of judges and their judiciaries.

Sign in
Something went wrong and we can’t sign you in
right now. Please try again later.
Microsoft

         3. The dramatic drop in the number of daily subscribers to my blog

28. I built a new website using WordPress in September 2015 and started to post my articles there; www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Although I did not advertise it, readers found it and I began receiving at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net automatically generated email notices of their having subscribed to it.

 

29. At the beginning, it was only a handful a day. But the phenomenon of referential chain reaction increments that occurs throughout cyberspace must also have occurred with respect to my blog-like website: One reader who liked my articles referred them to two or more other readers, who did the same, thus giving rise to an exponential growth rate.

 

30. As a result, by Monday, April 11, there was a daily average of 53 new subscribers with an upward trend. But thereafter the daily average plummeted. In fact, only 8 readers subscribed last Sunday, April 17, although normally the highest number of readers subscribe on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

31. One cannot reasonably assume that for the third(ol:19fn2; ggl:1) time and only coincidentally companies, this time Microsoft and Verizon, have caused a negative flow of emails to me, whether in their content or number, concerning my proposal for exposing judges’ wrongdoing.

 

32. Rather, such flow is probably caused by interception of emails to and from me. But since such interception only hurts those companies’ commercial interest in self-advertisement, it occurs either without their participation or by them upon orders of a third party. The latter can reasonably be assumed to be those who have the most to lose from judicial wrongdoing exposure:

a. judges (cf. jur:71§4);

b. the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them(cf. jur:77§§5-6) and now protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’; and

c. others who benefit from maintaining a good relation with judges in exchange for favorable rulings.

E. Another query for investigation during Election 2016 of judges’ wrongdoing

33. Based on these and other instances of actual, attempted, and probable government interception and access, I have posed the following query(ol:192§4) for professional 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) through PACER, Public Access to Court Electronic Records– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA 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; ¶2 supra),

2) cover up judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by intercepting the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of their exposers; and

3) prevent exposers from communicating to join forces, thus infringing upon their rights “to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:22fn12b; ol:371)?

          1. From collection of metadata to unconstitutional interception based on contents and undertaken in the interest of covering up wrongdoing

34. The findings of the investigators of that query can have a farther-reaching impact than Snowden’s revelations. His leaked documents pointed only to illegal dragnet collection of communications metadata of scores of millions of people, such as their telephone numbers, call duration, date, etc., but not the contents of the intercepted communications. Even so the public was out-raged by the breach without warrants of communications privacy, its scope, abuse potential, etc.

 

35. The public would be more intensely outraged if verifiable findings pointed to the government committing communications interception based on their contents, which constitutes breach of privacy as well as abridgement of freedom of speech and the press”(jur:130fn268).

 

36. Public outrage would reach its paroxysm if the interception were spurred by the unjustifiable motive, not to protect any alleged ‘national security interest’, but rather to advance judges’ crass interest in covering up their wrongdoing and the government’s in avoiding judges’ retaliation by executing their im-plicit threat “If you let them take any of us down, we bring you with us!”(jur:22§31; ol:266¶13).

 

37. Such findings can lead to a test case representative of many other cases of government content-based interception of the communications of advocates of honest judiciaries, victims of wrong-doing judges, and journalists critical of public officers.

 

38. The findings can support discovery through a suit under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, 552a, to ascertain the identity of those who sought and those who implemented interception orders, the latter’s text, target, justification, objective, etc.

 

39. Moreover, an outraged public could impact the elections significantly.

         2. Strategy for launching the investigation and informing the public

40. To launch the investigation, I offer to make presentations(ol:197§G) at video conferences and in person, generally, to IT experts, journalists, lawyers, students and their professors, business people, and other potential members of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture (jur:128 §4) and advocates and victims, and, particularly, to any or all presidential candidates.

 

41. They and their top officers, e.g., their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, can be interested in drawing support(ol:311, 362) from the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, part of the Dissatisfied with the Establishment(¶4 supra).

 

42. Since the candidates are covered by the national media and the public pays attention to them, they are in the best position to denounce(jur:98§2) contents-based interception and judges’ wrongdoing. They can cause their campaign research teams, and encourage the media, to conduct pinpoint, profit-making investigations of the unique national queries of Justice Sotomayor(¶¶2-3) and the Federal Judiciary-NSA.

 

43. After exposure of the nature, extent, and gravity of the wrongdoing, informed discussion and adoption of judicial reform measures(jur:158§§6-8) can begin.

 

44. If you have had an experience similar to those described above, please email me to all my addresses^†. Kindly use the headings of this article as those of a template, providing information under applicable ones. If necessary, add headings.

 

45. If you want a presentation for you and others, let me know.

 

46. You can also network with your acquaintances so that they may network me with campaign officers for me to make a presentation on how their candidate can attract that huge untapped voting bloc and eventually nominate replacements for wrongdoing judges(ol:312¶10).

 

47. If we think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E), we can earn material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), including the highest one: to be nationally recognized as We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§§J,K).

 

48. But time is of the essence.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at:

or

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:

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

or

http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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

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

A. Making presentations to each presidential candidate on how to benefit from denouncing unaccountable judges and their riskless wrongdoing

1. I have offered to make a presentation either at a video conference or in person to you, advocates of honest judiciaries and victims of wrongdoing judges, so that you would network me with top officers of the presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist, in order for me to present also to them, and eventually to the candidate, how the latter’s denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing (> *jur:5§3) can reasonably be expected to resonate with an electorate dominated by ‘The Dissatisfied with the Establishment’.
2. Consequently, the candidate can become the standard-bearer of, and draw support from, the huge(> *ol:131¶1) untapped voting bloc of all the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

NOTE: All (blue references) and superscripts are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows*:

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

* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:311

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8 >ol:311

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf >ol:311

If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

3. What is more, if the denouncing candidate also outlines two unique national stories involving wrongdoing by Justice Sotomayor, President Obama, and the NSA(ol:191§§A,B), the dissatisfied electorate as well as the rest of the public will be outraged.
4. The media will investigate those stories because ‘scandal sells copy’ and because the stories will be undoubtedly pertinent to the confrontation between the President and Republican senators over the confirmation of his nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes of that confrontation are so high, namely, the voting balance between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning justices, that the Republican senators have refused even to meet with the nominee, never mind hold confirmation hearings.
5. Those two unique stories will show that regardless of the justices’ splitting along political lines when voting on cases before them, they are united in participating in, and condoning their peers’, wrongdoing. It will also show that presidents and senators who have connivingly nominated and confirmed judges and thereafter held them unaccountable. They have done so, not in ‘the national security interest’, but rather in their crass judicial class and personal and political interest.
6. The dissatisfied public will be so profoundly outraged at Establishment judges and politicians and so avidly demand news thereon as to generate the commercial incentive for ever more media outlets to offer such news by climbing on the investigative bandwagons running toward the deepest webs of politico-judicial wrongdoing.
7. The outraged public will also demand that politicians open, and those campaigning for office call for, official investigations, lest they receive no more donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth endorsement, and be defeated at the polls. It is because the presidential candidates so desperately need such public support and votes that they will see it in their interest to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and outline the two unique national stories.
8. This concrete, realistic, and feasible out-of-court strategy can through presidential candidates and the media insert into the national debate the issue of unaccountable judges’ and their judiciaries’ riskless wrongdoing that has become their institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4).
9. The public can compel reform that not merely touches up judiciaries to assuage its outrage, but rather transforms them into a We the People’s system of public servants held by the People accountable for administering justice according to law and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:160§8).
   

   B. The need to abandon failed ways of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and join forces in support of a novel, out-of-court strategy
   

10. We must join forces to take advantage of the turmoil generated by the presidential campaign and the justiceship nomination. If we fail to, we will miss a unique opportunity to make some progress in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and setting in motion a process of judicial reform. The fact is that up to now, we have worked in isolation and made by rote the same kind of traditional, failed efforts.
11. We continue to sue wrongdoing judges in court, their turf, where they are protected by trial and appellate judges who are their peers and friends, who disregard the facts and the applicable law and make up rules as they go, such as the doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d), which is contrary to the Constitution(ol:158).
12. We keep approaching legislators to ask them to pass laws to restrain judges, even though those legislators are the very ones who recommended, endorsed,
    nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, those judges, so that the legislators have no interest at all in incriminating or reining in those whom they now protect as ‘our men and women on the bench’. The dissension over the justiceship nomination proves how important it is for politicians to have and keep their own people in a judiciary: the balance of voting that sustains or denies the constitutionality of their legislative agenda is at stake^17a.
13. We fail to realize the inherent contradiction, inconsistency, and absurdity of complaining about law-disregard judges while assuming that if the laws that we advocate were passed, they for some strange reason would not disregard them too, although the evidence indicates the opposite: Federal judges’ systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers under the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24§§b,c) amounts to their abrogation of it in effect. They will disregard the new laws too with the conniving toleration of the legislators who passed them pro forma, thus making all our effort a fool’s errand.
14. As a result, we have made no progress whatsoever in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, let alone curbing it. For proof, there is the official statistic that although 2,217 judges were on the federal bench on 30sep13¹³(jur:22fn13), in the past 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!¹⁴(jur:22fn14)
15. Such historical record of irremovability in practice has assured federal judges that they can engage in any individual and even coordinated wrongdoing without risking either their jobs or even their salary, which cannot be reduced while in office(Const. Art. III, Sec. 1^12a). Federal judges, like most of their state counter-parts, are unaccountable: Officers of a Sovereign State Above the Law of the Appointing State.
16. We will remain whining losers as long as we unreflectively continue to pursue failed ways of judicial wrongdoing exposure. By so doing, we have attracted the application upon us of Einstein’s aphorism: Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality. This is so because such conduct reveals ignorance of, or disregard for, a fundamental law of both the physical and human worlds: cause and effect.
17. By contrast, we can join forces to implement that out-of-court strategy that realistically aims to appeal to the presidential candidates’ own electoral interests to gain what they have and we sorely lack but desperately need: access to the media, and the national media at that.
18. The media is the only entity that can take the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing to the national public, outrage it, and thus turn that issue into a decisive one of the rest of the primaries, the nominating conventions, the presidential campaign, and even American politics thereafter.
19. Therefore, the offered presentation(¶1 supra; ol:311, 362) is a first step toward implementing that strategy.

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

This open 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.

A. Jointly finding out whether Internet Service Providers are intercepting communications at the behest of third parties

1. If you, the Reader, email me, I will acknowledge receipt promptly. That is very important because I have been informed that people have tried to communicate with me by email but have had their emails returned as undeliverable. In fact, I have sent many emails which ISP Verizon blocked as spam; then I sent them through Yahoo, but did not receive a single reply.
2. You and all the other advocates of honest judiciaries are likely to find of interest the problem of emails being blocked as spam and not sent, for it may interfere with your own communications. It enables the blocking Internet Service Provider (ISP) to wield the power to censure. Such power is unaccountable, for the ISP gives no indication whatsoever of what constitutes spam. As result, the user does not know how to avoid sending spam: He or she is at the mercy of the ISP, who can block any email by just labeling it spam, whether at its own initiative or at the request or by order of a third party. That amounts to absolute power, which breeds abuse.

3. The issue of blocking by spam labelling is discussed in my letter to the CEO of Verizon, which is found in my study of judges and their judiciary at * >ol:371. That study 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

In that file, all blue text ^{superscript note} and (parenthetical) references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it.

4. This is a matter where you, other technically and research savvy advocates, and I can join forces in an effort to find out whether a third party has instructed Verizon and other ISPs to not only block the sending, but also intercept –a much broader concept- the communications of critics of judges and other people disliked by private or government officers. Such interception is a crime under federal law(ol:6fn13).

1. A current $30 million lawsuit by a former CBS reporter alleging government interception of her communications

5. A current case starkly shows how wrongdoing can take the form of interception of communications undertaken by officers at the top of government:

Former CBS Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has sued the U.S. Department of Justice for $30 million on a claim that it hacked into her work and home computers to find out about investigations of hers that embarrassed the Obama administration, in particular the Department of Justice (DoJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and its Fast and Furious operation. The latter concerned the sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers in the U.S. in an attempt to track the weapons’ journey to druglords in Mexico. This ill-considered and worse executed operation led to the use of one of those weapons in the assassination of an American officer….(ol:346¶131)

2. Determining whether judges are directing ISPs to intercept the communications of their critics

6. There appears to be interception of my emails to prevent communication between critics of judges’ wrongdoing and hinder the critics’ effort to reach out to third parties, such as presidential candidates. The latter can have an electoral interest in denouncing such wrongdoing to attract journalistic attention and earn the support of the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. In this vein see:a statistical analysis of a large number of communications critical of judges, which gives probable cause to believe that they were intercepted(ol:19§D/fn2); andb. the cancellation of my email and cloud storage accounts by Google, Microsoft, and Dropbox(ggl:1 et seq.).
7. The revelation that judges have led any ISP to intercept the communications of their critics would outrage the national public by far more intensely than Edward Snowden’s revelation of the blanket collection of metadata by NSA: The latter had the plausible excuse of having acted ‘in the national security interest’. However, the judges are acting only in the crass personal and judicial class interest of covering up their ill-gotten benefits(jur:5§3), including assets(jur:65§§1-4), grabbed by abusing their judicial power and excused by their concoction of the self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d).

B. Judges’ interest in covering up their concealment of assets

8. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico published a series of articles(jur:65fn107a) suspecting of concealment of assets Then-Judge, Now-Justice, Sotomayor, the first nominee of President Obama to the Supreme Court. Assets are concealed to hide their illegal origin, evade taxes on them, and launder money so that it can be openly invested or otherwise used as if legally acquired. Therefore, concealment of assets is a crime(ol:5fn10).
9. The Code of Conduct for Judges requires that they “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” (jur:68fn123a). The appearance that judges, and all the more so Supreme Court justices, are concealing assets would become a key issue of Election 2016 and lead to precedented resignations(jur:92§d). This would follow the revelation that they have been recommended, nominated, and confirmed by politicians, including presidential candidates, who were knowingly indifferent or willfully ignorant or blind(jur:90§§b,c) to the evidence of judicial candidates’ wrongdoing and who now protect them as ‘their judges on the bench’

C. An outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing

10. The national public can become outraged at the connivance between judges and politicians. Hence, it can force incumbent and challenging politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to take a stand on the issue of judges’ wrongdoing. What is more, the public can demand that politicians, in general, call on Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and, in particular, hold nationally televised hearings thereon and publish the FBI vetting reports on judicial candidates(jur:65§1).
11. Public outrage and scandal sell copies. They can be powerful commercial incentives for journalists to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and their connivance with politicians.
12. As proposed(ol:311, 362), politicians can attract the public by inviting it to post its complaints against judges to the politicians websites-cum-clearinghouses so that the complaints may be analyzed by the public for patterns and trends of wrongdoing. Evidence of coordinated wrongdoing among judges and between them and other insiders of the judicial and legal systems is much more persuasive than the claim of a single party that the judge in its case was corrupt.
13. Presidential candidates as well as other politicians can intentionally advance their own electoral interest while unwittingly advancing the interest of us, advocates of honest judiciaries, in developing the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating conventions, and the presidential campaign. Such issue development we cannot accomplish on our own.
14. However, we can develop an alliance of harmonious interests(Lsch:14§§2-3; ol:52§C) with presidential candidates and other powerful people and entities. That is the result of strategic thinking(ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C). It is indispensable to set in motion the process leading to our ultimate objective: judicial reform.
15. Indeed, public outrage at judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians must be so intense that it renders judicial reform unavoidable and so far reaching as to include what today is unthinkable, such as the establishment of citizens boards of judges’ accountability and liability to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8).

D. Concrete, realistic, and feasible actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing

16. Can you imagine how much renown you would win if thanks to your knowledge of computers and skills in Internet and journalistic field research you were instrumental in exposing judges’ wrongdoing, precisely now during Election 2016? Can you imagine the boost to your business provided by all those people who thereafter would want to hire you to work on their cases?

1. Exposing by investigating

17. You can bring your knowledge and skills to bear on determining whether there has been:a. interception of communications(jur:105§b) of critics of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:195§4), by your participation in the Follow it wirelessly! investigation (ol:192§B); andb. concealment of assets by judges(ol:194§E-3; jur:102§a), by your participation in the Follow the money! investigation(ol:191§A)

2. Exposing by networking and arranging presentations

18. In addition to sharing with those on your emailing list and posting to websites the letter to presidential candidates(ol:362) as widely as possible, you can:a. use that letter to network with your friends and acquaintances and have them network with theirs until you and they are able to put me in touch with top officers, such as the campaign strategist and policy-maker, and of course, the chief of staff, of any and each of the presidential candidates so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how, as proposed(ol:311, 362), they can denounce judges’ wrongdoing, draw people to their websites, and earn their electoral support; andb. put me in touch with professors, students, and officers at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools and similar entities(ol:197§G) so that I can make presentations to them at video conferences and in person on how they can apply their respective expertise and knowledge to expose judges’ wrongdoing and thereby make a name for themselves and earn other valuable moral and material rewards(ol:3§F) as they pioneer the academic and business field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:119§1).
19. I look forward to receiving your email. Meantime, you may share this article widely. To their recipients and the rest of the national public thanks to your strategic thinking and effort to have them join forces to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform, and even lead them to form a We the People, self-assertive, single issue, Tea Party-like movement for honest judiciaries, the People’s Sunrise(ol:201§J), you can become their Champion of Justice(ol:201§K).

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

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

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 accounts 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.

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

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 
or
http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

Read the outline of the presentation at * >ol:350:

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

This open 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.

[To each of the presidential candidates]

Dear Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you to emerge as the leader who enlightens and reassures the national public when as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino some presidential candidates have misled the public into thinking that terrorism is the main death risk that it runs. You can put terrorism in perspective by comparing it with other leading causes of death that have mortality rates indisputably and even surprisingly higher, e.g., hospital infections and lightning.

By thinking strategically, you can responsibly use the accompanying comparative statistics table in a novel way: to reassure and attract the public to your website through crowd fact-checking and posting.

To that end, you can reassuringly comment at rallies, debates, and interviews on the need to confront terrorism with a sense of proportion so as not to be unduly impressed by the day to day events or even exploited by demagoguery for political gain at the expense to the public peace of mind. Then you can unfold a paper and read its title aloud: Facts against Fear: a table comparing terrorism with other causes of death in America.

That table will be only the first of many on a wide spectrum of subjects and serves as a template for the presentation of verifiable data.

So you can invite the public to contribute to researching the incomplete entries of the table and submit their findings to your website for verification.

You can announce that the most prolific submitters of verifiable and enlightening statistics and analysis[1]* will be publicly recognized and invited to become members of the campaign’s virtual teams of enlighters. Their task will be to turn your website into the most trusted and visited source of presidential election information and the most reliable fact-checking entity. Their mission will be to provide the truth-in-fact foundation for your motto: An enlightening leader leads an enlightened people[2].

* All the square bracketed numbers are references to the endnotes below. They and the parenthetical references are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciary 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

or Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install

 

You can portray the table(s) as your means of running a campaign based on facts, as opposed to fearmongering, that illustrates how you as president would run a transparent, honest administration based on facts verifiable by, and known to, We the People.

Naturally, the public that is attracted to your website to post and check facts will also find there information about your platform and upcoming rallies, and have the opportunity to donate to your campaign.

The above proposal further illustrates the potential of strategic thinking. Indeed, the latter has given rise to another proposal(ol:311):

You can draw electoral support from the huge[3] untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. Their dissatisfaction derives from judges’ self-disciplining authority, their abuse of it by systematically dismissing complaints against them[4], and secretive functioning[5], enabling their disregarding of the facts and the law applicable to cases to gain benefits risklessly.

You can tap the bloc’s support[6] by presenting at a press conference and rallies the evidence[7] thereof contained in my study Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing (see above).

You can invite the public to post on your website its judicial complaints so that it can analyze them for coordinated wrongdoing patterns[8], thus attracting Republicans and Democrats alike; and to join you in calling for nationally televised hearings (to be known as your hearings) on judges’ wrongdoing and journalistic and official investigations even as your teams of enlighters conduct their own(ol:194§E).

Judges who give “even the appearance of impropriety”[9] can be led to resign[10]. As president, you can fill their vacancies to secure your legislative agenda’s constitutionality[11].

By leading We the People’s “petition for a redress of grievances”[12], you can emerge as their Champion of Justice[13].

I offer to make a presentation[14] to you and your officers at a video conference or in person.

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

Sincerely,

s/Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Endnotes

[1]^. You can post the accompanying table(ol:365) and ask people to use it as a template when submitting their research findings. The latter will be subject to an initial phase of vetting by the public. Findings that surmount such vetting will be posted as your campaign’s official facts.

[2]^. After presenting to your audience the Facts Against Fear table, you can ask it and the rest of the American public poignant rhetorical questions to cause them to perform a balancing test:

a. Given the comparative statistics already presented, would you prefer to take your chances with falling victim to terrorism or becoming a victim of any of the other causes of death in America whose chance of occurrence is 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of time higher?

b. When a member of your family, a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a workmate or fellow American dies in a car accident, a house fire, a drive-by shooting, or by food poisoning, do you say that their deaths do not count because they did not die a victim of terrorism?

c. The federal government spends more than it collects in taxes, which explains why its borrowing limit has to be raised so often; otherwise, it would run out of funds and have to close down. Imagine that the government manages to gather $5 billion to reduce the mortality of one of the causes of death in America. If you could vote on how to allocate that money, would you vote to allocate it to fight terrorism or to combat any of the other causes of death with significantly higher mortality rates, such as cancer or car crashes?

[3]^. In the federal and state courts, there are filed 50 million new cases(jur:8fn4, 5) annually. They involve at least 100 million parties, each of which may be constituted of two, ten, a hundred persons or the thousands of members of a class. In addition, every case affects the parties’ relatives, employees, clients, shareholders, similarly situated people, etc. To those cases must be added the scores of millions pending and those deemed by parties to have been wrongfully decided to take their property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives.

[4]^. Official statistics cited in my study(jur:21§1) show that:

a. Federal judges dismiss 99.82% of complaints against their peers and deny up to 100% of petitions to review dismissals(jur:10-14). They cover for each other due to the principle of mutually dependent survival(Lsch:16§1).

b. In the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were in office on 30sep13(jur:22fn13)– impeached and removed is 8! So they not only are appointed for life “during good Behaviour”, but also know based on that historical record that they are in effect irremovable. Impeachment is a useless mechanism for judicial integrity.

c. They rely on the constitutional provision that prohibits diminishing their salary(jur:22fn12).

d. They dispose of around 75% of appeals to the circuit courts with reasonless summary orders, and of up to an additional 15% with decisions so “perfunctory” that they mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”, turning them into arbitrary, ad hoc fiats of raw unaccountable power. They are in practice secret because hardly findable, but if found, they are useless since they do not establish a precedent; hence not worth looking for. They are anathema to a legal system based on precedent as a means of keeping judicial power in check and predictable.

If you were in their position, would you be irresistibly tempted to abuse your power for your benefit and that of your peers, other insiders, and your protectors since to do so was riskless?

[5]^. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the most secretive(jur:27§e) branch and public officers, holding all their policy-making, administrative, adjudicative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors. Wrongdoing festers in secrecy, which makes it infectious. This calls for ‘the best disinfectant, sunlight’, as Justice Brandeis put it(jur:158¶350b).

Today, the sun of information and knowledge shines through the Internet. A presidential candidate can out of principle or opportunism use his or her website, in addition to stump speeches and access to journalists, to shine light on judicial wrongdoing and cause an outraged national public to follow his or her bright lead.

[6]  People feel offended by judges who took advantage of their ignorance of the law, inability to afford lawyers, lack of access to the media, and impotence before judges who abused them because they could get away with it. For them, vindicating their position is a driving personal matter. They make for passionate supporters of one who can help them in their quest for justice.

[7]  Official statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and official reports, and statements from justices and judges are presented and their implication analyzed at jur:21§§1-3. Those sections contain the most compelling general evidence of judges’ wrongdoing. For evidence concerning specific justices, see jur:65§§1-4. For the enabling circumstances of wrongdoing, i.e., unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness, see ol:191¶6.

[8]  Judges can be unfair, partial, and dismissive of the rule of law because doing so does not constitute in practice a breach of their oath of office and dereliction of duty that carry adverse consequences; rather, it is merely an option.

Hence, they do wrong individually, and worse yet, engage in wrongdoing coordinated among themselves(jur:86§§4-c) and with other insiders of the judiciary and legal systems. Among the latter are the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, and co-opted them into their party list, and who protect them as ‘their men and women on the bench’.

Coordination renders their wrongdoing more secure, routine, capable of extension into more areas, able to develop the complexity of schemes, e.g., a bankruptcy fraud scheme and concealment of assets(jur:65§§1-3), and thus more profitable.

[9]  Their Code of Conduct enjoins them to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123).

[10]  Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas failed to meet this standard and was led to resign on May 14, 1969, even though he had been nominated to the chief justiceship by Pres. Johnson(jur:92§d).

[11]   Packing the courts due to vacancies is different from what P. Roosevelt tried to do(jur:23fn17a).

[12]  Only a national figure with ample access to journalists can lead an enlightened and outraged(ol: 333§G) national public in successfully exercising its 1^st Amendment right to “assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130¶b) against judges who self-exempt from any responsibility, e.g., by invoking their unconstitutional doctrine of judicial immunity.

[13]  This requires strategic thinking: being perceptive, nimble, and astute to quickly detect even slight developments, such as the above proposals, and react promptly to change one’s plan of action as required to turn those developments into opportunities to advance one’s interests.

[14]  I offer to present also to groups interested in a multidisciplinary academic(jur:128§4) and business(jur:119§1) venture to research the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and expose it to outrage the national public and cause it to assert its status as We the People, the masters of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, where none of their public servants, such as judges, is above the law, so that all are accountable to the People and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. This calls for judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@aol.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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.

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your interest in the presentation that I made as a guest on Ms. Lidya Radin’s radio talkshow program Crooked Doctors.

A. The oral presentation in an mp3 file

1. The presentation is contained in an mp3 file, which can be downloaded through these links:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

2. I can also send the file itself through Skype. Search for Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. or DrRCorderoEsq, and after finding me, send me a request for it

B. The written study of judges and their judiciary in a pdf file

3.  I would appreciate it if in close proximity to the presentation links, you would prominently indicate that the research and evidentiary basis for the presentation is my study of the judiciary and its judges, and that 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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 810 pages and is more than 53 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/

Mozilla-Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

C. The outline linking the presentation to the study

4. The outline of the presentation is in the study file at * >ol:350. I encourage you to listen to the presentation as you follow it in its outline.

5. The outline has numerous internal links to sections in the study and articles accompanying it. All of them provide supporting and additional evidence and analysis concerning judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

6. All links are active so that by clicking any of one of them the referred-to section in the study and accompanying articles is called up to the screen. This greatly facilitates its review, after which you can click the Previous View tool on the pdf Navigation Toolbar, i.e., the icon consisting in a left-pointing arrow inscribed in a circle. If that tool is not installed, click anywhere in the toolbar and go to More Tools >Page Navigation Toolbar and check Previous View.

7. The outline its worth reading on its own to get an overview of the subject. It is also a guide to my novel series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions identified through strategic thinking to advance such exposure and reform, as opposed to the traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about wrongdoing judges.

8. This highlights the substantive difference between:

a. complaining against a rogue judge, who, if removed, is merely replaced by another one of his or her ilk by the same conniving politicians, whereby the wrongdoing continues essentially undisturbed; and

b. exposing coordinated wrongdoing that has become the institutionalized modus operandi of judiciaries so that an informed public may become so outraged as to pressure politicians to take a stand on such wrongdoing and call for investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts, as well as for nationally televised hearings.

9. The politicians who can be most easily so pressured are those running for election or reelection, who need to appear sensitive and responsive to the public mood. In turn, the ones among them more susceptible to that pressure are those who must stand out in the overcrowded field of presidential candidates.

10. It is such exposure that opens the way to judicial reform. Consequently, it commands most deservedly the joint effort of all advocates of honest judiciaries.

 

D. Offer to make presentations so We the People may hold our public servant judges accountable

11. I offer to make a presentation, whether in person or at a video conference, to you and your colleagues as a means of so informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing.

12. Therefore, I respectfully request that you network me to other people who can conceivably network me to top officers of any and all presidential candidates’ campaigns, such as their respective chief of staff and campaign strategist:

a. to present to them, and thanks to them to their candidate himself or herself, a strategy for drawing electoral support from the huge(* >ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems.

E. Your choice and opportunity to become a Champion of Justice

13. You can continue being a lonely victim of wrongdoing judges and keep complaining through ways that judges steer to failure for the worst reason, because they can, thus turning your effort into yet another exercise in futility; or you can join a courageous and visionary group of pioneers as they start to expose them through a series of novel, imaginative, and realistic actions(* >ol:349).

14. Thereby you can help yourself and We the People, the masters in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, assert their status and the right flowing from it to hold all their public servants, including judicial ones, accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

15. By so doing, you can become nationally recognized by the People as one of their Champions 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

Sincerely,

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

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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 accounts 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.

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

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

Outline of the Presentation
on how advocates of honest judiciaries can join forces to pursue a series of
concrete, realistic, and feasible actions
identified through strategic thinking
to expose judges’ wrongdoing and
lead to judicial reform
that turn advocates into national 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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

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.

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

or http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

A. Pragmatic two-fold objective: help parties and reach out to national public

1. Help parties before same wrongdoing judge join forces and confront them

a. Ever more parties are pro se(jur:28fn35, 38, 64)

b. Organize court strikes to protest coordinated wrongdoing in a court

2. Inform and outrage the national public about judges’ wrongdoing(ol:333§G)

a. Turn the issue into a key one of Election 201

b. Develop a single-issue national movement to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing

c. Tea Party precedent and model for developing single-issue movement

B. Failure to make any progress in holding judges accountable(jur:21§§1-3)

3. Judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3): disregard of the facts and the applicable law

4. Only 8 federal judges impeached & removed in the 226 years since 1789

5. 99.82% of complaints against federal judges are dismissed(jur:10-14)

6. 75% of appeals disposed by summary orders + 11% by perfunctory orders

7. Judges cover for each other: systematic denial of en banc review motions

C. The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing(jur:1§1)

8. Secrecy: adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, disciplinary meetings

9. Unaccountability: abused self-disciplinary system; state within state

10. Coordination: among judges & between them and other insiders

11. Risklessness: all gain, no loss, attraction makes wrongdoing irresistible

D. Traditional, tried & failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:336¶68; 340§B)

12. In-court/judges-judging-judges; in-Congress/appointers-protecting-appointees

E. The need for strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C)

13. Dynamic analysis of harmonious & conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2;ol:52§C)

14. Advancing potential allies’ interests; not asking for their help(jur:xxxix, xliii)

15. Creating and undermining alliances according to their interests(dcc:8¶11)

F. The need to inform and outrage the national public(ol:331§§C, G)

16. Out of court, two step, strategy(ol:135)

17. The nature and ranking of outrageous information(jur:5§3)

G. Natural and potential allies(ol:332§F)

18. Victims of wrongdoing judges

a. parties: easy prey pro ses; those represented by solo-medium law firms

b. not ‘well-connected’ lawyers

c. court and law clerks and judges disgusted with the wrongdoing(jur:100¶b.6)

19. Journalists

a. not a monolithic industry

b. scandal sells

c. fiercely competitive: the Nielsen ratings

20. Politicians

a. of different parties

b. incumbent v. challenger

c. top senator v. first term member of the House(ol:231§3)

d. presidential candidates

H. Concrete, realistic, feasible actions: the three at the core(ol:337§2)

21. Auditing judges(ol:274, 284, 304)

a. Identifying 4 or 5 dissatisfied parties before the same judge

b. Searching for commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing

c. Presenting journalists with patterns of wrongdoing, not one case

d. Court strike by parties and lawyers

1) ‘the Spring the Courts’ campaign on social media

22. Presidential candidates(ol:311)

a. Candidates: need to say something to attract media & public attention

b. Outraged voters compel candidates to take a stand on the issue

c. Networking to top campaign officers, e.g., the chief of staff

d. Presentation on their drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems

e. A candidate’s denunciation(jur:98§2) at a press conference or rally of evidence of, and statistics on, judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§1-3)

f. The two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B; ol:138; 321)

1) P. Obama-SCt Justice Sotomayor: concealment of assets (jur:65fn107a,c) and the Follow the money! investigation

2) Federal Judiciary-NSA: electronic transfer of concealed assets between hidden/declared accounts; interception of exposers’ communications(ol:344§§B,C): the Follow it wirelessly! investigation

g. A Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation:

1) Trojan horse-like(ol: 269§1) investigation(ol:194§§1-2) of the two stories leads to enabling coordinated wrongdoing, causing

2) systematic investigation of judges’ wrongdoing, results in

3) pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:2§2) first at federal, then state, level

h. Turn judges’ wrongdoing into a key issue of Election 2016(ol:269§2)

i. Nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing

23. Radio and TV talkshow hosts(ol:146, 308)

a. holding a meeting of network officers and talkshow hosts

b. making a presentation at each talkshow

c. each host to hold a weekly show on judges’ wrongdoing, how to audit judges(ol:274) & progress thereof; shows as victims’ rallying point

d. forming coalition that becomes a powerhouse of American politics

I. An effort at presentations(ol:197§G)

24. Journalism schools and associations(Lsch:23; ol:319)

a. not even judges can retaliate simultaneously against all journalists

b. investigator can become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame

c. enhance portfolio for student’s first job or journalist’s promotion

d. conducting team investigation of the two unique national stories

25. Law schools(Lsch:1, 2, 21)

a. glut of unemployed law school students and attorneys(a&p:23§W)

b. create a niche market(ol:257§2) for motions to recuse, and vacate orders of, judges who failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”

c. offer a seminar on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(ddc:1)

26. Business schools(jur:119§a; ol:324)

a. Fraud and Forensic Accounting Investigation

1) Follow the money! from bankruptcy, tenant, probate courts

2) Statistical analysis of judges’ wrongdoing to detect patterns of individual and coordinated wrongdoing, and trends(jur:131§1)

27. Information Technology schools and institutes(ol:42, 60)

a. Conduct Follow the money! & Follow it wirelessly! investigations

1) concealing assets for tax evasion and money laundering

2) abused access to confidential information in sealed case files

b. Develop commercial software to perform statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing of judges’ writings(jur:132§§2-9)

J. Supporting actions(ol:337¶74)

28. Pitching the judges’ wrongdoing study(jur:1)to book publishers(jur:l)

29. Contacting and coalescing bloggers and website owners; and inducing digital news media start-ups and documentarists(ol:313) to investigate

30. Identifying authors of scandal books & private investigators to persuade (jur:21§§1-3) to investigate judges’ wrongdoing(jur:65§§1-3; ol:191§§A,B)

K. Material and moral rewards(ol:3§F)

31. A scoop, Pulitzer Prize, and interviews on news casts and talkshows

32. Bestseller on the two unique national stories & institutionalized wrongdoing

33. Blockbuster movie, e.g., All the President’s Men & President Nixon’s resignation

34. In-house promotion and advancement to a more prestigious company

35. Appearance on the cover of Time magazine as Person of the Year

L. Your choice and what is next

36. Traditional, tried and failed ways of complaining about judges(ol:347§A) v.

37. Novel, reasonable strategy for appealing to people’s interest in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform: the agenda(ol:329)

38. A statement of your contribution

a. experience, qualifications, skills, networkable relations

b. commitment to an action and hours per week

c.  money; mass emailing; library research and field investigation

39. Key effort: organizing presentations to colleagues, schools, institutes, etc.

40. Forming a multidisciplinary academic(ol:115; 327) and business venture team of people with professional skills and work ethos(jur:128§4)

41. Building a movement for judicial accountability(ol:201§§J,K)

a. Tea Party-like single-issue the People’s Sunrise movement(jur:164§9)

b. first expose nature, extent, & gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:49§4)

c. then discuss means to detect, punish & prevent exposed wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8)

1) e.g. establishments of citizen boards that publicly receive and investigate complaints against judges and hold them account-able and liable to compensate their victims(jur:158§§6-8)

42. Exposers & advocates recognized as We 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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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 accounts 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.

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

NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series of concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidential campaign, at .

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/frontpage/OL/DrRCordero_presentation_exposing_judges_wrongdoing.mp3 

or

http://1drv.ms/1PctK5z

The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:

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

or

http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

or

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf

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