A. Who we are and what we stand for

1. We are a group of advocates of honest judiciaries committed to the single issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform.
2. We welcome to the group all people committed to our single issue and who are prudent and disciplined enough to keep all their other personal and public issues and agendas to themselves.
3. We are non-denominational and non-confessional. We do not involve either any god or religion in this effort.
4. We are apolitical. We neither campaign in favor or against any party or candidate.
5. We are neither indifferent to, nor ignorant of, the key role that politicians play in allowing judges to engage in wrongdoing with impunity and the key role that politicians must be maneuvered into playing to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform.

B.  The circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing

6. We recognize that Republicans and Democrats alike have connivingly recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, and donated to, candidates to judgeships. Thereafter, they have protected judges as “their men and women on the bench”.
7. Politicians have disregarded for decades the annual report under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) that shows how federal judges exonerate themselves from any accountability by systematically dismissing 99.82%* of complaints against them.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:10-14

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8 >jur:10-14

or http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf >jur:10-14

 

8. Politicians have also provided judges with wrongdoing-breeding and –concealing secrecy by authorizing them to hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors.
9. These are the enabling circumstances of judges’ wrongdoing: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness. They are the focus of our exposure of judges’ wrongdoing.
10. Legislative efforts to bring about judicial reform are doomed to failure because politicians will not voluntarily act against their own interest by exposing the wrongdoing of those whom they put on the bench. Nor will they divest themselves of the power to keep putting their own men and women on the bench.
11. Politicians will only reluctantly expose judges’ wrongdoing if forced to choose between appearing to come to the defense of a public outraged at judges’ wrongdoing and being voted out of, or not into, office.

C. The need to inform and outrage the national public

12. Only an outraged public can force politicians to expose judges’ wrongdoing and undertake judicial reform.
13. The public of New York or Florida are not interested in the wrongdoing of the judges of California or Alaska, and vice versa; this holds true for the public of each state with respect to the other states’ judicial wrongdoing.
14. The national public can only be outraged at the wrongdoing of the judges of the only national jurisdiction, the Federal Judiciary. That jurisdiction is our initial target. Since it is the model for its state counterparts, what happens to it will have a decisive impact on the state judiciaries.

D. The need for advocates with professional skills and attitude

15. Federal judges are the most power public officers in our country since they are the only ones with a life-appointment and power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine people’s lives.
16. Exposing the wrongdoing of powerful federal judges requires that we have professional skills in crafting arguments, devising and implementing strategy, advocating our single issue in public, lobbying, and fundraising.
17. We need professional skills and attitude to cause the public to take us seriously, join our effort, and make the donations that we need to pay for ads, travel, meetings, etc. Our professionalism will earn us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.
18. Neither judges nor the public will take us seriously, much less give us money or volunteer work, if we appear as mere “disgruntled losers in court”; given to whining; using unprofessional, foul language; making claims and accusations that we cannot prove but that can get us tied up in ruinous and time-consuming retaliatory defamation suits; espousing conspiracy theories that will brand us as a bunch of freaks. Unprofessionalism will lose us the respect of the public at large and the powerful allies that we need.

E. The need for prudence and discipline focused on the single issue

19. Being a victim of judicial wrongdoing does not mean that one automatically has the skills or the attitude necessary to expose the wrongdoing of judges, never mind federal judges. .
20. Being a participant in this group does not turn one’s story of judicial victimization into a factual, accurate, and complete presentation of a case, deserving of the uncritical acceptance by all the other participants, for a party to a case is by definition biased toward his or her story and can only present one side of the story.
21. A competition among us for the title of victim of the most egregious case of judicial wrongdoing is divisive of the group and useless to advance our common issue.
22. We do not discuss our personal, local cases, for they are similar to thousands or even scores of thousands of other state and out-of-state cases and hold no interest but to the person who is a party to it each respectively.

F. More than money, we need powerful allies

23. Money is not indispensable initially to expose judges’ wrongdoing. The Tea Party did not form thanks to receiving grants from any government or private entity. It was organized precisely by people who did not want to give out any more of their money to either the government or anybody else. More important than receiving money is gaining powerful allies and rallying the power of victims of wrongdoing judges.

1. Journalists and politicians as potential powerful allies

24. The most powerful potential allies are journalists and politicians even if they are interested only in their own professional and political advancement and have no interest whatsoever in honest judiciaries. We think and act strategically by applying the principles “he who benefits me by working for himself is my friend” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
25. Journalists are indispensable because they control the means of disseminating our information about judges’ wrongdoing and have enough credibility for their information to be believed and outrage the national public.
26. Politicians are very important because they can use our information to attack their opponents and thereby attract journalistic coverage for our single issue. Presidential candidates are the politicians who can best satisfy both conditions.
27. The expectation of drawing support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems can induce politicians to consider making of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform a central issue of their campaign and thereby appear as national Champions of Justice.
28. How to approach presidential candidates by networking with people that can put us in touch with officers of their campaigns, especially with their chiefs of staff, so that we can make a presentation of how they can benefit from tapping that huge voting bloc is described in the article at * >ol:311.
29. Politicians can also score points against their opponents by revealing two unique national cases of wrongdoing judges in connivance with other officers at the top of government. That can induce them to denounce judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or in an interview with a national media outlet and thereby launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.
30. The content of those two unique national cases and the plan for investigating them is described at * >ol:191§§A,B, E.

2. The power of victims of wrongdoing judges can be developed methodically

31. Each advocate can organize victims of wrongdoing judges at the local, court level and continue developing a core of victims through the courts in his or her city, in adjacent cites, and throughout the state. Eventually they can join into a national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
32. Each advocate can identify other victims of the same wrongdoing judge; bring them together to search for that judge’s patterns of wrongdoing; and on the strength of statistically significant pattern-based evidence affecting many people, rather than a personal, subjective, partiality-suspect anecdotic story, move to recuse or disqualify a judge, or persuade journalists that there is a story of judicial wrongdoing worth investigating because it can give journalists what all those who are ambitious want: a career-advancing scoop on widespread wrongdoing coordinated among judges and between them and other insiders.
33. The method for identifying other victims of the same wrongdoing judge and searching for patterns of wrongdoing has been set forth in the article at * >ol:274.

G. The strategy: to inform and outrage the public and place our issue at the center of the presidential campaign

34. The national televised hearings and the investigations conducted by journalists and presidential candidates into the nature, extent, and gravity of wrongdoing should expose judges’ wrongdoing as their and their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi.
35. The institutional pervasiveness of wrongdoing in the judiciary and the circumstances enabling wrongdoing between conniving politicians and judges will cause the national public to realize the far-reaching reform necessary to detect, punish, and deter it, and scare politicians away from opposing reform and induce them to opportunistically support it.
36. Only after full exposure of wrongdoing will it make sense for us to advocate in earnest our proposals for reform.
37. Our initial strategy has two steps and for taking them we need journalists and politicians:

a. to inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing; and

b. to outrage the national public to the point where it forces politicians to take a stand in favor of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform or risk being voted out of, or not into, office.

38. The strategy’s intermediate objective is to turn our single issue into a decisive one of the primaries, the nominating convention, and the presidential campaign and election; and cause politicians to call for nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing and reform similar to those held by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee.
39. The strategy’s long term objective is judicial reform that includes such measures as the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability empowered to publicly receive and investigate judicial complaints, and hold judges and their judiciaries liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing; and if the constitutional convention petitioned by 34 states is held, a key role in drafting the article on the judiciary.

H. The expected outcome of the video conference

40. We want to hold:

a business conference on the single issue of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform advocacy;

b. among people with skills and professional attitude;
c. on a concrete proposal studied by all, consisting of this white paper of common principles and the articles enlarging upon them at ol:190, 274, and 311; and

d. discussed constructively with the aim of agreeing on realistic action that recognizes that time is of the essence: We must not miss the special opportunity that the presidential campaign offers to advance our single issue.

41. The objective of the conference is to start the process of identifying a nucleus of people who can work together harmoniously and cost-effectively as the steering committee of a group dedicated to advancing our single issue with a view to developing a Tea Party-like national movement for judicial accountability and reform.
42. If thanks to our recognition of the imperative need to join forces and our self-discipline to work prudently and in the common interest we succeed, we all can become We the People’s Champions of Justice.
43. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
44. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

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

Continue reading White paper on common principles for the video conference of Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

A. The stages of dealing with a problem such as judges’ wrongdoing

1. In dealing with a problem, there are several stages. In principle, they can be identified as follows:
   a. recognizing a situation as a problem;

b. examining the problem to understand its nature, extent, and gravity;

c. devising a strategy to solve the problem (a proposed solution without a strategy is only wishful thinking);

d. implementing the strategy while ascertaining its effect to modify it as needed to solve the problem;

e. managing the situation resulting from a problem-solving strategy so as to maximize its benefit, prevent the recurrence of the problem, and forestall the emergence of new ones.

B. Judges’ wrongdoing analyzed in a study based on official statistics

2. As far as judicial wrongdoing goes, we have empirical knowledge of the nature, extent, and gravity of the problem. Many of us have experienced it first-hand. Some of us have paid a very high price for trying to expose it. All of us are victims of wrongdoing judges.
3. In addition, there is scholarly knowledge of the problem. It has been analyzed in my study of the judiciary and its judges, 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/1IkvhB8

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 780 pages and is more than 52 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

4. I gathered official statistics from the judiciaries themselves and analyzed them. While you are unlikely to read the hundreds of pages of my study, you can read its executive summary at page ol:190.
5. Upon the basis of such factual and self-incriminating foundation, the problem of judge’s wrongdoing can be traced back to four enabling circumstances: unaccountability, secrecy, coordination (among judges and between them and politicians as well as other insiders of the judicial and legal systems, including attorneys), and risklessness.
   
   C. At the stage of finding a solution through the process of strategizing
   
6. We are past the first two stages of identifying and examining the problem. More cases involving, or articles about, judge’s wrongdoing will only amount to cumulative evidence with no additional probative value.
7. We are at the third stage: Devising a solution and strategizing its implementation.
8. Many solutions have been proposed. However, a solution that does not come with a strategy to implement it is only an address in Fairy Land without directions for getting there. Laying down those directions must take into account the obstacles along the path.
9. “The devil is in the detail” applies here: Strategizing can show whether a solution is realistically attainable taking account of the interests and means against and in favor of any change in the current situation.
10. I have proposed two solutions accompanied with the details of their implementing strategy. They are mentioned below and laid out in detail at * >ol:274 and 311.
    
    D. A business-like conference based on a white paper on common principles
    
11. Those proposed solutions can be discussed at a video conference of advocates of honest judiciaries who are willing and ready to transition from talking about the problem to taking concrete, realistic, and feasible action to solve it.
12. This video conference should be conducted business-like. In the professional world, meetings are held based on a white paper distributed in advanced, studied individually with due diligence, and orderly discussed in the group to achieve consensus for joint action that encompasses agreement on division of labor.
13. A meeting that has no concrete proposal as the basis of discussion is doomed to degenerate into a free-for-all, brainstorming session for dishing out half-baked ideas and jockeying for position. It leads to a frustrating waste of time, hurt feelings, and no action. Such fiasco would be the kind of meeting that only wrongdoing judges would applaud.
14. Advocates that make the effort and spend the time preparing for a business-like meeting give each other the first sign that they are serious about taking action and are reliable in their statements of the action that they commit themselves to undertaking.
15. For advocates to take joint action and for it to be effective, they must hold in common some principles that express their unity-building understanding of the problem, of a concrete, realistic solution, and of a feasible strategy to journey together from the former to the latter. The white paper below proposes those common principles.
    
    E. A conference aiming to build a movement for judicial accountability
16. We can prepare ourselves both intellectually and emotionally so well that we come to the conference determined to contribute our most to make it a success:

An inspiring, forward-looking meeting that elicits the best in each other so that we are willing to work hard jointly to turn it into the first of a series that leads to the building of a steering committee of a national movement for judicial accountability and reform. This is a realistic ambition whose precedent and model is the Tea Party. We can join forces and help each other become nationally recognized Champions of Justice.

17. In that spirit, I invite you to a video conference to be held on Sunday, December 13, at 1:00 p.m. EST on Skype. My Skype name is DrRCorderoEsq.
18. Skype has a limited capacity to provide an interactive video feed. Therefore, to assess the technical requirements of the conference, it is necessary that those who want to connect to the conference as well-prepared advocates to discuss the white paper(next) and its supporting articles(* >ol:190, 274, 311) or as attendees to listen to the discussion let me know.

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

Continue reading Principles for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to hold a video conference on becoming an effective group that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform and gives rise to a national movement for judicial accountability and reform

Messrs. Daniel Lewis, CEO; Nik Reed, CEE;
Adam Pingel, VP of Engineering; and Cory Bray, Director of Sales
Ravel Law
San Francisco, CA

Dear Ravel Law Management Team,

I read with great interest the article “Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age”[1] and reviewed your website[2], which was referred to therein. The article quotes you as saying that you hope to make analytical tools available that will allow “a lawyer to see how a particular judge has responded to certain kinds of motions in the past” and that you and Harvard will “share the entire underlying database with scholars that wish to develop specialized applications”. It also states that the rationale of your partner, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Winow, for opening HLL’s trove to the public is that “Improving access to justice is a priority”.

I am a scholar and my study of judges and their judiciaries is titled:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting[3].

If the official statistics collected and analyzed there(id. jur:65§§1-3) give you probable cause to believe that regardless of whether lawyers or pro ses^[4] access judicial decisions for free or for a fee judges do not read their briefs,

1. will you continue to be “passionate about delivering ground-breaking new products to the industry”, thus offering a product not fit to attain the intended purpose of enhancing ‘access to justice’ through better researched briefs; or
2. will you use your product in a different way reasonably calculated first to expose judges’ pervasive failure to read briefs and then to lead to profound judicial reform that ensures that access to a law database is added to several new steps(jur:158§§6-8) toward enhancing the chances of ‘accessing justice’?

This alternative confronts you with the choice between being a salesman of an ineffective product and a national Champion of Justice.

Indeed, the federal circuit courts –the model for their state counterparts– dispose of circa 75% of all appeals by reasonless summary orders^66a and up to 16% more by decisions so “perfunctory”⁶⁸ that the judges themselves mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”⁷⁰, thus turning them into arbitrary, secret, and ad hoc fiats of raw judicial power.

They risklessly issue such decisions because their chief circuit^22a judges dismiss 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints^18a against them; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b). So in the 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 were on the bench on 30sep13¹³– impeached and removed is 8¹⁴!

If judges strained to read every brief and write excellent decisions in every case, they would not be rewarded with a salary increase or promoted by their chief judges, for those decisions are made by politicians and on other grounds.

Having no deterrence from deciding cases without reading their briefs or incentive to read them, judges skip briefs to work less and make decisions to grab material, professional, and social benefits(ol:173¶93).

If you held your job for life with a salary that could not be diminished¹² and power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives, would you too abuse it for your own and your peers’ gain?

I wish to develop judicial decisions auditing. I have worked out several proposals in detail, from:

1. collecting even the unpublished 9 out of 10 decisions and using their analysis in litigation(ol:274); to
2. conducting academic research on them(ol:60, 115);
3. subjecting them to advanced statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis to develop a high end commercial IT product(ol:42; jur:131§b); and on to
4. showing the need(jur:5§3) for judicial reform in the People’s interest in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law'(ol:201§§J-K).

I can make a presentation thereon at a video conference or in person. So 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
New York City

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

__________________________________

[1] http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2015/10/harvard-law-library-readies-trove-of.html 

[2] https://www.ravellaw.com/

[3] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

This letter with all its ^footnote and (parenthetical) references as active links to their supporting or additional materials is found in the study at page ol:327. Just click on any such reference to jump to its corresponding material.

[4] In the Federal Judiciary, 52% of all appellants are pro ses; see footnotes ^{35, 38, 64} in the study. That percentage has been trending upward for years and is likely to find a parallel in the percentage of parties that appear pro se at all levels of the federal and state judiciaries because counseled representation has continuously become less affordable.

Moreover, it is highly more realistic to expect the users of your database to be pro ses rather than lawyers because the latter were trained at law school to use Westlaw and LexisNexis and realize the significant advantage of conducting research and writing with the guidance of their editorial enhancements, such as key numbers, headnotes, digests, synopses, encyclopedic overviews, analytical commentaries on points of law, etc. Lawyers can access those commercial databases, not only by a law firm or solo practitioner subscription, but also through their law schools and, on a reciprocity basis between schools, at other schools; court and public libraries; bar associations; etc.

However, at issue here is not which law database is more helpful, but rather whether the use of any database helps lawyers and pro ses in any way whatsoever to ‘force’ judges to read the briefs filed with them and make their decisions based on the statements of facts and legal arguments contained therein.

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

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. Unaccountability makes power absolute and corruptive, which leads to wrongdoing

1. Can you imagine what would happen to you if all police officers, doctors, and priests:

a. held their jobs for life(* >jur:21§a) together with self-disciplining authority^*>18a that enabled them to assure their impunity by systematically and without any investigation(jur:25§c) dismissing 99.82%(jur:24§b) of your complaints(jur:10-15) against them;

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8|
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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

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

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:324). _________________________

b. were in fact beyond investigation by law enforcement authorities, never mind prosecution, and thus had no fear of suffering any adverse consequences from their wrongdoing, not even losing their jobs(jur:54§d) or having their salaries docked¹², let alone having to compensate their victims; but instead

c. ruled on $100s of billions annually(jur:27§2)…

d. in the secrecy of closed-door meetings(jur:27§e); and

e. by disposing of 75% of their cases through summary order forms(jur:43§1) with no reasoning and only one operative word, overwhelmingly “Denied”; and of up to another 11% of cases by decisions so perfunctory that they marked them “Not for publication” and “Not precedential”(jur:43§1), allowing those decisions to be inconsistent, arbitrary, in principle unfindable and in effect unreviewable(jur:45§§2-3, 48§2) but capable of depriving you of your property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determined your life and that of everybody you dealt with?(ol:190¶¶1-7)

 

2. Would those police officers, doctors, and priests be likely to abuse such absolute and corruptive power²⁸ risklessly for their own benefit(ol:173¶93)?

 

3. The life-tenured, unaccountable judges of the Federal Judiciary, the models for their state counterparts, wield that kind of power(jur:65§§1-3).

 

B. Recruiting a team for the business venture of exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing

 

4. My study of judges and their judiciaries analyzes(jur:21§§1-3) official judicial statistics, reports, and statements(jur:iii/fn.ii) that reveal that judges are unaccountable. Consequently, they risklessly grab benefits through wrongdoing(jur:3§5; ol:154¶3) even as they harm millions of parties and the rest of the public, from lowly pro ses to the largest companies in business(jur:29¶46).

 

5. Knowledge is Power…and stronger if used with discretion: One need not accuse any judge of wrongdoing to be able to use the knowledge of judges’ wrongdoing to protect oneself from those judges and gain a competitive advantage over opposing parties that know less or nothing about it.

 

6. My study contains a business proposal that appeals to recruiters of lawyers and journalists, particularly those involved in investigative journalism, as well as other professionals(jur:128§4), such as accountants, statisticians, and Information Technology experts(jur:130§b). This is so because a recruiter can put together a team that can make money(jur:156§f) as well as a nationally recognized name for himself or herself by:

a. “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:119§E); and

b. providing legal advice and representation to the many parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”^123a, will want to retain lawyers celebrated(ol:258¶18) for having exposed such impropriety, to recuse such judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused those parties. Other people and entities that were foreseeably harmed by wrongdoing judges will also prefer to hire such lawyers because of their expertise in the issue.

 

C. There is money in holding people with a duty of care accountable

 

7. Judging from the flood of motions provoked by cases of judicial wrongdoing and police corruption, the high damages awarded in medical malpractice cases, and the well over $2 billion already paid by the Catholic Church due to its cover-up of pedophilic priests, the market for holding also judges accountable is likely to be huge and very profitable. This is especially so if it implicates judges who have been on the bench for a long time, are sitting on the highest court of their jurisdiction, and have operated in coordination with other judges; their appointed officials, such as trustees, guardians, and receivers; lawyers who appear before them; and parties that are rich, influential, or related to them; all of whom form a deep pocket.

a. Cf. The Youth Law Center helped expose the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges in Pennsylvania committed juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and which gave the judges a kickback per committed juvenile. The Center reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against those jails.

 

D. The accountability of other professionals is precedent for treating judges equally accountable

 

8. Police officers, doctors, priests, and their respective institutions can be held accountable and liable to compensate their victims. They are precedent for the proposition that judges must hold their wrongdoing peers and judiciaries likewise liable, lest they violate the due process and equal protection clauses(ol:297:Excerpt) by exonerating themselves from any accountability and liability, thereby arrogating(jur:26§d) to themselves the status of Judges Above the Law.

 

9. Judges’ wrongdoing can outrage(ol:135) and attract the attention of everybody who believes to be entitled to Equal Justice Under Law as part of the American birthright and that has at least an intuitive notion of ‘fair play and substantial justice’.

 

E. Taking advantage of the need of each of the all-too many presidential candidates to stand out and win over a huge untapped voting bloc

 

10. There are 20 presidential candidates and counting. Each one needs to stand out of the pack. A recruiter can take advantage of that need by offering to any and each chief of staff of a presidential candidate to hold an individualized presentation(ol:197§G) to the candidate, the chief, and their aides on:

a. the already available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B);

b. the proposal for them to voice in their own electoral interest the complaints of those dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges, for they constitute a huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc in search of their Champion of Justice, whom they would reward with significant donations, volunteer campaign workers, and so many attendees at rallies as to warrant journalistic coverage; as well as

c. the proposal for the candidate to turn the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing into his or her hallmark by pursuing with the recruiter’s team and the candidate’s own opposition research team two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B) apt to starkly illustrate the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.

 

11. To that end, a recruiter can put together a team of lawyers, journalists(jur:xlv§§G,H), and other professionals(jur:128§4) to investigate(ol:194§E) as discreetly as wanted those two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B), which makes for a pinpointed and hence cost-efficient investigation.

 

12. Those stories can most effectively grab national attention if first broken by one or more presidential candidates(ol:311). Indeed, by making the initial, Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(jur:98§2) denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or national network interview, a candidate can provoke such national outrage as to stir up the public to demand of every candidate that he or she call for nationally televised hearings –similar to those held by the Watergate Senate Committee(jur:4¶¶10-14) and the 9/11 Commission– on judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform. A candidate who refused to do so could be identified as a wrongdoing politician(jur:22§31) protecting wrongdoing judges. This could cause the candidate to lose so much popular support as to be forced to drop out of the race.

 

13. As a result, the outrage can set off a scandal(ol:64§C) that would generate:

a. insatiable demand for updating news and analysis;

b. a flood of motions to revisit every decision and ruling made by judges who have failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:92§d); and

c. an issue so important to the integrity of our ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’^ol:5fn6, as to make judges’ wrongdoing dominate the campaign and be decisive of the presidential election.

 

F. Recruiting and working with journalists and lawyers can prove very profitable

 

14. Ever more journalists covering presidential candidates will jump on the investigative bandwagon to further investigate and expose judges’ wrongdoing because ‘scandal sells copy’. It follows that journalists could not afford not to cover the scandal since that would drive their audience away from them and to the competitors who offered the coverage that the audience demanded.

 

15. In addition, ambitious journalists will see the judicial wrongdoing scandal as an opportunity to make a scoop or provide the most insightful analysis and thereby win a Pulitzer Prize.

 

16. Moreover, journalists’ cumulative findings that will by drip-drip reveal judges’ wrongdoing as the judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4), will keep the scandal on the front pages and the top of newscasts for years to come, as was the case with the Watergate scandal, which caused the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides³.

 

17. Those findings will provoke new motions to join the flood of motions and give rise to class actions to revisit the rulings and decisions of judges who failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” and obtain compensation from the judiciary that enabled(jur:88§§a-c) judges to abuse their power at the expense of parties and other people. Moreover, it will give rise to a demand from many different parties for legal advice on, and lobbying for, judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) that advances their respective interests.

 

18. Such steady work for the team can keep a strong revenue stream flowing for a long time even after Election 2016 is over. It supports the projection of a high return on the investment in forming the team and making the effort to present the proposal to presidential candidates(ol:331).

 

G. Offer to make a presentation on this proposal to you and your clients

 

19. I offer to present this business proposal to you and your colleagues and clients at a video conference or in person. Therefore, you may share this proposal with them.

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

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

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. Anecdotic allegations v. pattern evidence of judges’ wrongdoing

1. A party to a lawsuit cannot merely allege in court that the judge is biased or is engaged in other wrongdoing and thereby cause a judge to recuse herself or have her disqualified. The party must provide evidence of his allegations; otherwise, the allegation will be dismissed as impressionistic and anecdotic, and the party will be disparaged by being labeled ‘a disgruntled loser’.

 

2. The most convincing way of making such allegations is by identifying in one’s case an instance of conduct, an event, statement, position, person, name, address, date, number, quantity, etc., that is the same as, or similar to, another in the same case or in several of them, or better yet, in a statistically representative sample of related cases, e.g., those presided over by the same judge or in the same court or jurisdiction: These are commonalities.

 

3. When connected, they form a pattern of wrongdoing(* >ol:154¶3). It is like finding in a judge’s conduct and written or oral statements dots with a common color or shade that when connected reveal a figure: the face of a wrongdoing judge(* >jur:10:Nature of…).

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8
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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

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

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:274). _________________________

4. Pattern evidence is the picture in, “A picture is worth a thousand words” of mere allegations of parties, never mind pro ses. That is what auditing a judge means.

 

5. So a party can either: 

   a. whine about allegations without evidence, which are unconvincing and self-defeating; or

   b. think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3;   ol:52§C; ol:8§E;  jur:xliv¶C) to expose the judge’s disregard of facts and the law, bias, conflict of interests, etc.; obtain relief now; and for the wrong done to the party by the judge as well as by the judiciary that failed to supervise and discipline her obtain perhaps even compensation from both in future.

 

6. A party that chooses the latter, strategic course of action can:

a. gather raw data, e.g., judges’ calendars, rulings, and decisions or even the whole record of cases to glean her statements from transcripts, dockets, party contact information; and

b. examine them and compare notes with other parties in search of commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that deny parties due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the state and the U.S. constitutions, the laws thereunder, court rules, etc.;

c. use such pattern evidence in an appeal to the highest state court and thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it hardly ever reaches because most pro ses do not know how and cannot afford to appeal, so that a case that does make it there can become a test case; and

d. additionally produce concrete, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing(jur:5§3) reasonably calculated to attract the attention of journalists(ol:197§1) in search of a scoop(ol:199§H) and so outrage the public(ol:193§D) as to stir it up to force politicians to call for judges to be held accountable and investigated at nationally televised hearings (ol:273¶¶5-7).

 

7. Exposing judges in court with convincing evidence does not mean obtaining relief from the presiding judges. Relief can come through its publicity effect on outsiders(ol:271):

 

8. The all-too many presidential candidates that have entered the 2016 Campaign are in dire need to be among the limited number of them who will be invited to the candidates’ debates, and survive the early primaries. Whether honestly or opportunistically, they can choose to become the champions of the huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the legal system, especially those among them most passionately committed to exposing wrongdoing judges: their victims.

 

9. Patterns can be expressed in percentages of all cases of a given type, e.g., how many times a commonality pointing to bias was detected, such as how many times a judge dismissed a case brought by a pro as compared to similar cases brought by a represented party where she denied a motion to dismiss. Patterns can be represented in charts(jur:9); tables(jur:10,11,15,16); and classic graphs of X,Y coordinates(jur:12-14).

 

10. There are many forms for visually representing sets of values, e.g., side by side columns to compare percentages; bell curves for normal distributions; pie charts for shares of a whole, time lines that indicate fluctuations over time as well as trends; intersecting circles for shared characteristics, etc. These are statistical concepts that go from the very simple, which parties may be using without knowing it to represent the ups and downs of their income and their home budget, to the more sophisticated.

 

11. The above describes how the pursuit of an unconventional, strategic course of action in court by go-getters can provide support for, and lead to, an out-of-court strategy(ol:236) for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform at a politically favorable juncture.

 

1. The use of statistics in court was introduced by Then-Attorney Brandeis

 

12. Statistics have been used in courts for a very long time since the first time, one which provides an illustrious precedent: Before Louis Brandeis became a justice of the Supreme Court in 1916, he was an effective litigator advocating progressive causes. He won his cases, not only by arguing the law, but also by writing briefs where he presented socio-economic data and treated it with as much rigor as if it were legal evidence.

 

13. The best known of such briefs of his was filed in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S.Ct. 324 (1908). There Then-Attorney Brandeis used social and economic studies to argue successfully to the Supreme Court that it should uphold statutes limiting workdays for women to a maximum of 10 hours. His briefs were so innovative and persuasive that they gave rise to a new type of brief: the Brandeis brief. They contributed to ushering in a more just society and thus, to making history. In time, Brandeis became a justice.

 

14. Programs such as Excel and PowerPoint turn massive amounts of numeric data into color graphs that Brandeis could not dream of and that substantially enhance their understanding(cf. dcc:11).

 

B. Parties joining forces to audit judges so as to advance their common cause

15. Each party need not work alone to examine the data concerning the judge in his or her case in search of pattern evidence of wrongdoing. Parties who have appeared before the same judge or have an ongoing case before her can join forces to do so. These similarly situated parties can form a group of strategic thinkers and doers, rather than remain as isolated whiners and losers.

 

16. Parties will not be joining forces to search for pattern evidence so as to form a class that brings an action in court against judges. That is a futile exercise, doomed to fail at the hands of the defendant judges’ peers, colleagues, and friends, who will preside over their trials and any appeals, and protect their own and themselves(ol:158).

 

17. Rather, it is an exercise in gathering evidence in support of the two-pronged approach(supra ¶4c,d; ol:248) to exposing judges’ wrongdoing.

 

18. The parties must join forces to advance a common cause rather than each one work alongside others only to benefit his or her own personal case. They should realize that it is useless for each of them to take on coordinated(jur:88§§a-c) judges in their turf, the courts, where they arbitrarily handle and make rules as they go, and their staff, who must execute their wrongdoing orders lest they be fired without recourse(jur:30§1).

 

19. It is foolhardy to take all of them on with the arms of a pro se: ignorance of the law, TV notions of court procedure, lots of self-defeating, disruptive, blinding emotions, and wishful thinking that is no substitute at all for strategic thinking.

 

C. How a party can go about locating others wronged by the same judge

20. A party looks up the list of cases on the calendars of the judge in its case, which are:

a. posted on the court’s website or the judge’s webpages on that site; or

b. affixed on the wall outside the judge’s courtroom every motion hearing and trial day and of which a picture can be taken with a smartphone or tablet.

 

21. The party extracts from the calendars party names and case docket numbers to find:

a. briefs

1) on the court’s website to download them;

2) in the court’s research room or law library, where they are in paper form;

3) through computer research in the legal databases of:

a) PACER (Public Access to Courts Electronic Records), https://www.pacer.gov/, accessible through any computer;

b) Westlaw, http://web2.westlaw.com/signon/default.wl?vr=2.0&fn=_top&__lrguid=i1eb21045275b4acf89cde9be245fb745&rs=WLW15.04&bhcp=1, and

c) Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/legal-solutions/default.page,

which are accessible through computers and WIFI at the court and public and law school libraries or a subscription later on bought by a group of parties.

4) Those briefs have the contact information of similarly situated parties. Most likely they will be persons, not companies. Ordinary cases brought by persons, even if represented, neither hold as much interest for judges nor command as much of their respect for due process as those filed by the likes of Pacific Coast Docks against NY Association of Importers, represented by big law firms and top lawyers ready to appeal and embarrass sloppy and wrongdoing judges(jur:45¶86).

5) Pro ses are trampled. Their cases can be identified by the absence next to their names of an attorney’s name. Person cases and pro ses are easy prey for wrongdoing judges; and

b. their phone numbers.

1) The phone numbers of parties are not on calendars, but should be on the cover page of their briefs; otherwise, the party names found in the calendars can be used to look up their phone numbers in the phone book or the Internet white pages.

 

22. The party uses a well-rehearsed brief message to contact those similarly situated parties, e.g.:

a. I have a case before Judge Z and found out that you do too. She has disregarded the facts and the law in my case. If you feel that way as to your case, you, I, and others like us can join forces to expose her by detecting common points of her wrongdoing that reveal a pattern of wrongdoing. That is convincing evidence to be used in a test case to go before our highest state court and as an incentive for journalists and politicians to expose her.

b. You and I can find other parties using the method I used to find you. When there are five of us, we can meet at a party’s home to search for common points. I can share with you an article explaining this search(ol:274) and templates(ol:280,282) for organizing our work.

D. Meetings of parties are sessions for division of labor and getting work done

23. Meetings are not social occasions where people who do not want to be alone come together to commiserate. They are not for chatting, so wasteful of time and effort. Sobbing together as they pass the box of Kleenex is not the same as professionally gathering the data, detecting their commonalities, and using them to establish patterns of judges’ wrongdoing.

 

24. Meetings are occasions for working. Everybody should come to the meetings with a laptop, a tablet, or a yellow pad and a smartphone. The best meeting place is where there is a large table where people can sit at in business-like fashion. There should also be power strips to plug in all the electronic devices so that nobody need stop working because their device ran out of battery power.

 

25. It should be a quiet place. A pool table in the back of a bar on a Saturday night is not conducive to working. The box of Kleenex is for the group members’ profuse sweating, but not because the place is hot and stuffy.

 

26. The invitation to the meeting must set forth the preliminary work that each party should have done in preparation for the meeting; and the agenda of the meeting; at the end of it, the agenda will provide the measure of what the group accomplished.

 

27. Everybody must bring their documents organized chronologically in a binder or on a pdf, not thrown together in a supermarket plastic bag.

 

28. Documents yield the most information when they have been scanned into a searchable pdf. Then when a group member proposes key terms to search for a possible point of commonality, such as a name of a lawyer or a clerk or a date, all group members can open the pdf’s binocular icon and enter those key terms in the search box to look for that term in all their documents.

 

29. Rummaging a hundred or hundreds of pages manually and visually every time a term must be searched is time-consuming, exhaustive, and unreliable.

 

30. Moreover, pdf’s can be annotated with electronic sticky notes that do not deface the document and can be searched with the search function. Ideas can be committed to writing, not to memory.

 

31. The parties should bring their documents preceded by a table listing each one’s title, sender, addressee(s), date, and page number, and bearing a note on whatever makes that document relevant; cf. the summarizing title of this article(ol:274).

 

32. A well-prepared table of documents serves as a summary of a party’s case. It can be shared with the group by email in advance so that as the members read it, they can spot a possible point of commonality to search.

 

33. See the table of documents template(* >ol:280); see also the table of documents of the main file(* >ToC:i) and its bookmarks.

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:280

 

34. Meetings are also opportunities for the parties to realize that they eventually will have to contribute financially to the effort to find commonality points; establish patterns; bring them to the attention of journalists(* >ol:250) and politicians; appeal to the highest state court and the U.S. Supreme Court; publicize their effort through intense mass-emailing and social media use.

 

35. The parties who agree to join forces must proceed methodically. They can elect a meeting leader. The latter can organize group work by applying the fundamental principle of any organization, i.e., division of labor in accordance with each person’s skills and preferences and the organization’s needs and objectives.

 

36. Some members may be more adept at searching for parties’ contact information; if so, they may pass on that information to those members who are more articulate and can communicating with others on the phone or in person.

 

37. Every effort should be made to contact and attract the attorneys of represented parties. Their knowledge of the law is priceless.

 

1. Tasks of the group of searchers of judicial wrongdoing pattern evidence 

 

38. The initial task of the group is to:a. identify each instance of apparently disregarded or falsely alleged facts, and the law, court rules or any ethical or professional^123a provision deemed to have been violated by the judge, clerks, and other insiders¹⁶⁹; and apparently relevant characteristics of people, which may later on prove to be correlated, e.g., dismissals and form denials are signed on Fridays when the judge leaves early to play golf at his country club with some lawyers;

b. tabulate the data in a table:

1) with a top horizontal row of labels for classifying facts and provisions:

a) facts, e.g., deadline alleged missed, affidavit missing; date manipulated by clerk; ex parte meeting with opposing counsel; unadvertised auction of assets; prevented or cut short examination or cross-examination of witnesses; and

b) provisions and their citations: e.g., judge appointing spouse, Rules of the NY Chief Judge, 22 NYCRR Part 36.2(c)(3); and

2) in the vertical column on the left are listed the characteristics of people, e.g.:

PARTIES

a) pro se

b) represented by counsel

(1) a solo practitioner

(2) law firm with between 2-10, 11-50, 51+ lawyers

c) parties income range

d) parties educational level

e) area of residence

f) plaintiff or defendant

g) male or female and age

h) kind of party: creditor, debtor, driver, pedestrian, banker, professional, etc.

JUDGES

a) size of law firm where the judge worked before coming to the bench

b) work experience the judge had before coming to the bench:

(1) prosecutor

(2) lawyer at a government agency or legislative branch

(3) lawyer for a company or a public interest entity; etc.

c) gender, age, and years on the bench

d) party affiliation of judge or of appointing officer; etc.

3) square of intersection between the row of headings and the column of characteristics:

a) name of case with docket number and date

b) case decided or pending; etc.

Other people

a) law/court clerks, lawyers, auctioneers, accountants, real estate developers, etc.

E. From groping for sense in a fog of data to becoming Champions of Justice

39. Auditing a judge’s decision is an investigative exercise. At the beginning, the group will not know what is a commonality point or, if so, whether it has any evidentiary value. Patterns are not even suspected until much later, when sense starts to emerge from the points’ relatedness.

 

40. To perceive meaningful commonalities, the group must apply the two key elements of social intelligence to understand the dynamics between parties, judges, clerks, lawyers, etc.: what makes people tic –power, money, love, hate, safety, fear, job insecurity, etc.– and what makes the world turn around –interpersonal relations, clan mentality, tradition, values, ideals, the economy, politics–.

 

41. This will allow identifying harmonious and conflicting interests between parties so as to recognize who is an ally and who is a foe(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11).

 

42. The effort to find commonalities in cases, parties, and judges can reveal a pattern of bias, conflict of interests, dysfunctionality in the court, turf fighting, schemes among connected people, prejudice, etc.

 

43. The tabulation is a data organizing exercise. In its initial stage, the group will not know what is statistically relevant: what happens so frequently or infrequently for that judge, other judges, or people generally that it can only have happened intentionally. So it is a commonality point that forms part of a pattern of some form of wrongdoing(Lsch:17§C).

 

44. This requires that at the outset everything be listed. Later on the data will be sorted out into what is or is not a commonality point showing wrongdoing; see the table of commonalities and patterns template(ol:282).

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

 

45. At the end of each meeting, the agenda for what the members should do at home and what they will do at the next meeting should be set. That includes growing the group; getting documents; and networking to be able to present at the right time any incriminating audit results to journalists and presidential candidates(ol:269§2).

 

46. The meeting will have been a success if the consensus is, not ‘that guy is a lot of fun. I wish him well’, but rather, ‘Our group leader is a slavemaster… but we got a lot done. We’re gonna get that judge! I’m coming to the next meeting with my friend’.

 

47. Working together breeds enthusiasm and optimism. It can coalesce ineffective single parties into a team of achievers with valuable skills that they can teach others in their own and the public interest.

 

48. The members will be asked to invest effort, time, and resources to grow the group of parties before their and other judges; and to spot insiders who can be persuaded to become confidential informants(jur:106§c). That is how they can become the organizers of their court’s questers for justice. As such, they will organize other courts in their city, in other state cities, and in other states.

 

49. A group that first met in an apartment garage and had to put their computers on a door resting over two trash cans can grow to become a Tea Party-like entity: a national civic movement of people who pursue strategically and with determination their conviction that We the People are the masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, and are entitled to hold them accountable and liable to their victims.

 

50. We can become the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:235§C).

This article and its templates are at

* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:274

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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

Dear Users of the legal and judicial systems,

I would like to submit to you and friends, relatives, and colleagues of yours who have been harmed by wrongdoing members of the legal and judicial systems the proposal below as a means to expose wrongdoing and set in motion a process of legal and judicial reform that takes advantage of the electoral needs of presidential candidates.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest that you and they read the proposal and contact me to discuss ways in which we can work together in behalf of you, us, and We the People.

I offer to make a presentation of this proposal to all of you at a video conference or in person.

So I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Proposal
for Presidential Candidates
to raise the issue of
unaccountable judges risklessly doing wrong
in order to break out of the overcrowded pack of candidates and draw support from
the huge untapped voting bloc of  dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems

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

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 Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you, as presidential candidate, to raise an issue that can make you stand out in an overcrowded field of presidential candidates and draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc:

a. unaccountable judges who consequently engage in riskless wrongdoing(* >ol:224§A) for their own and their class’s benefit(ol:173¶93); and

b. the consequent dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems; they are among the 100 million parties to the 50 million cases(jur:8fn4,5) filed in the federal and state courts every year, plus the parties to the scores of millions of pending cases as well as cases deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided.

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8|
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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

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

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:311). _________________________

A. In practice irremovable, they are Judges Above the Law…and abusers too

In the last 226 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!(jur:21§1). Without fearing for their job or salary(jur:22fn12), judges wield enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine their lives.

If you were in their position, would you abuse your power for your and your colleagues’ benefit?

Judges do so individually and, worse yet, in coordination among themselves(jur:86§§4-c). Hence, the dissatisfied users are so numerous and yearn for a champion.

B. Tapping on the dissatisfied and abused by asking for their complaints

There are no more resentful people than those dissatisfied users who feel abused and betrayed by judges, the very ones duty-bound to administer Equal Justice Under Law. For them, it is personal. They will be the most passionately committed supporters of a presidential candidate who raises the issue of judges’ wrongdoing and credibly promises to do them justice and hold judges accountable(jur:2fn1).

You can tap their voting bloc by asking them to submit to your website for the public to compare and search for patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:274) their complaints on a template(ol:306) or those that they filed with federal chief circuit judges, who dismiss 99.82% of them(jur:10,11; 24§§b-d), and with state judicial performance commissions.

C. Giving the media two stories to ensure the reciprocal reinforcement of your and their covering of your judges’ wrongdoing issue

You can also attract sustained media coverage, especially by journalists in quest of the scoop of a lifetime(jur:4¶¶10-14): At the root of judges’ wrongdoing lies connivance between the president who nominates people to the Judiciary, and the senators –including some candidates– who confirm them, who thereafter protect ‘their men and women on the bench’ by allowing them:

a. to hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors;

b. to keep complaints secret; and

c. never to appear at a press conference to explain their conduct so that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(jur:44fn71).

Secrecy is one of the circumstances enabling wrongdoing(ol:190¶¶1-7) in the Judiciary. The media will keep investigating them, thereby drawing attention to you and helping you stay on the stump with your judges’ wrongdoing issue, if you break two Trojan horse-like unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B):

a. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story was first pursued by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a), which suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets.

b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story will provoke a scandal graver than that caused by E. Snowden’s disclosure of NSA’s illegal surveillance because it points, not to a national security interest, but rather to a crass class interest: Federal judges approve up to 100%(ol:5fn7) of NSA’s secret requests for secret orders of surveillance; and the NSA uses its IT expertise and/or infrastructure both to transfer assets between illegal sources(jur:65§§1-3) and money laundering accounts(ol:1,2); and to intercept communications among critics(ol:227§A, ol:19fn2 >ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C) of wrongdoing judges(ggl:1 et seq.).

1. Ensuing question and request to redirect Campaign 2016 and American governance toward public accountability and transparency

Based on these stories and updating a historic devastating question, you can ask one capable of dominating Campaign 2016 and tarnishing presidential opponents as well as the other party and its top officers:

What did the President(jur:77§5),
Sen. Schumer(jur:78§6), and the justices(jur:26fn23b) and judges know(jur:71§4)
about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107a) and
tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and
other judges’(jur:105fn213) coordinated wrongdoing and
when(jur:75§d) did they know it?

You can follow up that question with an embarrassing request for transparency: that they support their denial of wrongdoing or explain their silence by releasing the three FBI vetting reports(jur:102¶231a.4-6) on Justice Sotomayor.

Although judges wield enormous power, they cannot retaliate simultaneously against all journalists and candidates critical of them without revealing their abuse of power to implement their unlawful motive of preserving their status and benefits, their duty to uphold the law notwithstanding.

On the contrary, they are the most vulnerable officers to the public exposure of their failure to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).

Their resulting resignations, even of justices(jur:92§d), and impeachments will open vacancies that will allow the next president to “pack”(jur:23fn17a) the Supreme and lower courts.

D. Offer to present the judges’ wrongdoing issue in your political survival and the public interest

Your survival entails being invited to the next prime time presidential debates and not being demoted to the afternoon ones thanks to your courage in addressing an issue that threatens the wrongdoing powerful as it defends We the People’s birthright to ‘government by the rule of Law that ensures Equal Justice’.

Your courage can be rewarded with donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, particularly by the scores of millions of the untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied with the legal and judicial systems.

Therefore, I respectfully request you too the opportunity to present to you and your aides at a video conference or in person this proposal for using the judges’ wrongdoing issue as a means to survive in an overcrowded presidential field.

Indeed, the judges’ wrongdoing issue can make of a candidate like you the Champion of the Dissatisfied as well as of all the People who demand a new America of public accountability and transparency.

So, 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
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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

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/

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. ‘Outside the box of reality’: a suit in the International Criminal Court

 

1. The suggestion of a RICO suit against public officers comes from advocates with a box full of only good intentions

 

1. A well-meaning advocate lawyer made this statement:

 

2. A well-meaning layperson commented on it thus:

 

3. The need to think like a lawyer: attention to detail and stepping into the adversary’s head

 

1. Pragmatic considerations about a class action: very expensive and risky

 

1. Walking in front of a building will not chase away the wrongdoers inside

 

1. Advocates interested only in their personal local case cannot be expected to create an organization in the public interest

 

1. Thinking and proceeding strategically: auditing judges for patterns of wrongdoing and seizing the opportunity presented by presidential candidates desperate to stand out in an overcrowded field

 

1. 1. Victims of the same wrongdoing judge joining forces to audit him for patterns of wrongdoing

 

2. From auditing a wrongdoing judge common to the parties in a group to developing a civic movement for judicial accountability and reform

 

3. Taking advantage of presidential politics to turn presidential candidates into unwitting allies in exposing judges’ wrongdoing

 

1. It is time to take action: Plans of concrete, feasible, and realistic action proposed to victims and advocates

 

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

 

1. ‘Outside the box of reality’: a suit in the International Criminal Court

 

1. Filing a suit in the International Criminal Court is not an ‘outside the box effort’. It is merely an effort outside reality:

 

2. The United States is not a signatory to the ICC. Therefore, a judgment of the ICC has no legal validity in a U.S. court. It is unenforceable. Consequently, the effort to seek such a judgment is an exercise in futility.

 

3. Moreover, the jurisdictional scope of the ICC is very limited. It only entertains suits concerning genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

 

4. Those are not crimes with which a reasonable, sober person would even consider charging the wrongdoers inside the courthouses and other federal buildings in front of which some advocates have proposed to walk with banners. By its own terms, the ICC was “established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”; http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx.

 

 

1. The suggestion of a RICO suit against public officers comes from advocates with a box full of only good intentions

 

5. It has been suggested that wrongdoing public officers, including judges, could be sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provisions or RICO(jur:111fn249).

.

.

NOTE: All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the only national jurisdiction and the models for their state counterparts:

.

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:1)

.

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

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 740 pages and is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:

.

Google Chrome:

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

or

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

.

.

1. A well-meaning advocate lawyer made this statement:

 

10. Thinking “outside the box” must not mean thinking outside the realm of reality. Nor can it involve a suit against public officers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), which is a highly technical law far beyond the scope of pro ses.

 

1. Do you have any idea of the elements of racketeering, not to mention racketeering enterprise, that must be proved to establish the charge? If you do not and your charge is found to be frivolous, the judge can impose sanctions (e.g. under FRCP Rule 11) and uphold the defendants’ request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and even punitive damages. They can ruin you just to teach you a lesson. Think ahead at how things can go badly for you!

 

1. Do you have the money to search, find, and analyze the evidence, and argue it against the team of the best and the brightest lawyers to whom public officers have access?

 

1. Do you think that the judges who were recommended, endorsed, confirmed, given donations, appointed, and held unaccountable by politicians, who are the ones who can elevate them to a higher court, are going to allow a RICO suit against those politicians and their friends to stand?(ol:158)

 

2. A well-meaning layperson commented on it thus:

 

Would like to suggest that your comments about RICO are a bit off the mark.   While it is a complicated “civil procedure” [RICO is a criminal act, found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the title constituting the criminal code of the U.S.; its citation is 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.*; the fact that §1964(c) allows “any person” to sue for treble damages and attorney’s fees does not exempt that person from having to prove all the racketeering elements of the act and caselaw], the matter becomes a horse of a different color when defendants are “public servants” who have commandeered government office to commit crimes against citizens. When ‘government’ is the defendant, in my case, ‘state’ government defendants, there is a “contract” that comes into play — it is the “state constitution”. [The replier misses the point that RICO is a reference to the federal law, not to whatever may be its equivalent under state law.]

 

For example, the standard of pleading RICO, which is usually governed by Twombly and Iqbal, is replaced by state common law standards, as 28 USC 1652 requires. In our state, by the express language of our state’s Supreme Court, Twombly and Iqbal standards have been rejected. Furthermore, ‘federal rules of civil procedure – such as 12(b)(6)’ are NO LONGER operative as they are customarily applied. [This is statement is at odds with the very nature of federal law, which is national law that applies uniformly throughout the nation, lest ‘equal protection of the law’ be denied; that statement can only mislead other pro ses into disregarding the federal procedural rules.] Here again, state constitutions must be argued because this forms the “contract” between plaintiff and defendant. A court rule procedure “could” and in my case ‘would’ eviscerate a number of our state constitutional provision that specifically address “governments role with respect to the individual and the general government oversight of the people.” This prohibition in using ‘court rules to abridge, modify or to enlarge substantive rights’ is spelled out in 28 USC 2072(b).

 

These elements in the pleading of RICO when state officials are defendants, have not been fully addressed with respect to the state constitutional provisions and the Code’s noted above. [RICO is federal law; by definition it is not subject to the provisions of state constitutions. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between federal and state law. In addition, the replier is failing to realize that he is unwittingly confirming the attorney’s point: RICO is too technical for pro ses to enforce; and those matter that “have not been fully addressed” only make it more difficult for pro ses to prosecute under it].

 

Sometimes lawyers are too handicapped by the indoctrination they receive from the very system that produces corrupt lawyers and judges. [A box empty of knowledge of the law always ‘unhandicaps’ pro ses, allowing them to become lighter and float into ‘fantastic’ statements of the law prompted by wishful thinking that only mislead other pro ses.]

 

3. The need to think like a lawyer: attention to detail and stepping into the adversary’s head

 

6. The lawyer above argued that non-lawyer pro ses do not have the necessary knowledge of the law to prosecute a RICO suit and illustrated his argument with three distinct points.

 

7. The layperson below responded with a general comment on how to sue public servants under some mismatch of federal and state law.

 

8. The layperson missed the point of the lawyer. This is a most frequent occurrence among well-intended pro ses who improvise themselves as lawyers:

 

1. They miss the points, or “elements of the cause of action”, that the law requires to be proved to make a case under the law in question.

 

1. They miss the fact that in addition to the code of civil or criminal procedure, there are also the rules of each particular court, which can add requirements and can differ from those general rules in reliance on a code rule authorizing variance by courts and even by “the judge in his discretion”.

 

1. They miss the implications of their own points, thus arguing inconsistently:

 

1. i) Pro ses accuse judges of being wrongdoers because they abuse their power to disregard the facts and the law of cases before them.

 

1. ii) Yet, in self-contradictory fashion, they expect those same judges to be fair and impartial in a suit where the defendants are precisely those public officers who sit in the legislature or in the executive branch and who are the very ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, donated to, the judicial candidates who are now the judges, whose turn it is to protect the defendant officers.

 

9. Being a victim of a wrongdoing judge is not a qualification for realistically challenging in court judges and the public officers with whom they connive.

 

10. A pro se’s wishful thinking about himself and the law, untrained legal research, and pinpointed legal knowledge riddled by logical gaps provide an inadequate basis for action in court.

 

11. Thinking like a lawyer begins with three years of training in law school after four years in college:

 

1. That training is necessary to force oneself to pay attention to the numberless, fastidious, and confusing details of the law and its procedural rules.

 

1. It also develops the indispensable habit of thinking as the opposing counsel to anticipate her arguments and maneuvers. Lawyering occurs in an adversarial context so that “A good lawyer carries his adversary on her left shoulder…when the lawyer is alone ‘on the right’, she talks crazy” Dealing with that adversary requires strategic thinking. That is shown in the two articles below.

 

 

1. Pragmatic considerations about a class action: very expensive and risky

 

12. A class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not only highly technical –read the official comments on it(jur:47§79)– but also extremely expensive and fraught with risk.

 

13. A class action is prosecuted on a contingency basis, that is, the lawyers earn money only if they win and the sum that they may win is never certain, much less the sum that the judge may allow them to earn…after covering considerable out-of-pocket costs.

 

14. To begin with, class action lawyers have to define the common legal and factual characteristics of the members of the class. Then they must search for all potential members and compose, print and mail a statement to notify them of the purpose of the action; and give them the opportunity and means to opt in or out of the class. All that work can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, depending on the size of the class.

 

15. Additionally, the members must be registered, whether they opt in or out; the in-members may have to be mailed several notifications during the course of the action; given access to pleadings and other relevant materials; afforded the opportunity to submit comments, objections, and other papers to determine their eligibility for any recovery and the amount thereof, if any; etc. Consequently, the costs of prosecuting the action add up very quickly for the lawyers.

 

16. Moreover, the lawyers must also convince the judge that they are capable of representing the legal interests of the class competently: They have to be certified as the lawyers for the class. If the judge does not certify them as such, whether based on fair or biased considerations, the lawyers are out of the action and out of the money that they have invested up to then.

 

17. Only people who indulge in wishful thinking can imagine a judge certifying pro ses as class action lawyers to represent the legal interests of all the members of the class even though pro ses cannot competently represent their own interests.

 

18. If you can provide at least $1 million as seed money and find lawyers willing to risk their time, effort, and livelihood suing wrongdoing judges and other public officers in a class action, you can sponsor the filing of such action.

 

19. To remain tethered to the ground, keep in mind the lawyers who took their 2,000,000 Walmart employee class action all the way to the Supreme Court only to be told by the justices that the class was improperly constituted by members with too divergent characteristics. The action was dismissed and they had to bear the loss.

 

 

1. Walking in front of a courthouse will not chase away the wrongdoers inside

 

20. Neither a few nor many people holding banners, chanting, and walking in circles in front of a courthouse or other federal building are going to achieve anything, for there will always be another group that will also walk for the opposite proposition. Indisputably, there will always be people in favor of, and against, Obamacare, gay marriage, elective abortion, bearing arms, police accountability, appointed guardians, NSA blanket collection of communication metadata, etc.

 

21. The public officers who abusively benefit from the system as it stands now are not going to give up those benefits simply because a group of their victims spend a couple of hours walking in front of a building with logos against them and thereafter go home to rest in their couch as they eat another bag of potatoes…and that’s it.

 

 

1. Advocates interested only in their personal local case cannot be expected to create an organization in the public interest

 

22. Only a sincere desire for honest judiciaries is not an adequate means to take on judges and their supporting public officers in the legislative and executive branches.

 

23. Mr. Andrew Kreig wrote insightfully:

 

Creating a brand new civic organization can be, as envisioned by the email I received, a very worthy effort. But a great deal of effort (as I’ve seen from leadership or membership in many groups) goes into the bureaucratic tasks of organizing, messaging, fund-raising, etc., with relatively little time and resources actually available to get the message out in effective ways.

 

24. There are more problems than just administrative and logistical ones. An organization cannot be set up and expected to function, never mind be effective, with advocates of honest judiciaries who only want to chat or debate ‘fantastic’ points of law against their background of sparse legal knowledge.

 

25. Nor can an organization be created by advocates who despite being 100% sincere only want to continue pursuing by rote in court their own personal, local case through the same failed method of suing judges(* >ol:158) and their conniving public officers.

 

26. The courts are the turf of judges, who there make rules as they go and disregard those in the books at will without fearing any adverse consequences. It is hardly the place where pro ses can force judges to hold other judges accountable.

 

27. What would be the winning record and survivability chances of an organization created to sponsor such suits? Moreover, no organization is needed, as shown in the Two-pronged Approach article(* >ol:248), to prosecute before the highest court of a state a test case requesting on grounds of due process and equal protection of the law that judges be officially and publicly supervised and held accountable and liable to compensate their victims. In the same vein, examine the template for properly arguing before an intermediate appellate court and, if need be, preserve the necessary issues to obtain leave to appeal to the highest state court(ol:244).

 

28. By the same token, it is wishful thinking for an individual victim or advocate to expect a lawyer to drop whatever he is doing to help her against the wrongdoing judge in her personal, local case and do so in another state and pro bono. That is outside the box of reason and reality.

 

29. Creating an organization in the public interest of exposing wrongdoing judges and advocating judicial reform can only be realistically envisaged after a group of victims and advocates have demonstrated by their sustained action that they are willing to contribute effort, time, and money to advancing the public interest rather than just their personal, local case.

 

30. By contrast, with people committed to advancing that public interest and who are able to think and proceed strategically(infra §F), even the termination of millennial impossibles(jur:xlv§§G,H) can be achieved.

 

31. With such people, I have proposed creating an organization: an institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5). It is part of my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(supra ¶5 NOTE).

 

 

1. Thinking and proceeding strategically: auditing judges for patterns of wrongdoing and seizing the opportunity presented by presidential candidates desperate to stand out in an overcrowded field

 

1. Victims of the same wrongdoing judge joining forces to audit him for patterns of wrongdoing

 

32. A sincere advocate of honest judiciaries can advance her own interest in her personal local case by thinking and proceeding strategically(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C): She can identify other parties that have appeared or are appearing before the same wrongdoing judge as in her case so that together they can audit his decisions in search of patterns of wrongdoing running through their cases.

 

33. Such patterns can provide a group of similarly situated parties verifiable, solid evidence that can replace each individual party’s mere allegations of wrongdoing by the judge in his or her personal case. The audit of their common judge can show that his wrongdoing is widespread, routine, and coordinated. That can provide persuasive evidence for the disqualification of that judge or the vacancy of his orders and decisions and the remand of their cases to other judges or the reopening of their cases.

 

34. The method for identifying such other parties and detecting the judge’s pattern of wrongdoing is described in the Auditing Judges article below(also at * >ol:274).

 

2. From auditing a wrongdoing judge common to a group of parties to developing a civic movement for judicial accountability and reform

 

35. To audit their respective wrongdoing judge, their victims need not create an organization. They only need to join forces in a group to detect and expose their common judge’s patterns of wrongdoing.

 

36. Nevertheless, the victims’ successful effort to audit that judge can motivate them to broaden the scope of their initial interest from only prosecuting their personal local case to sharing their experience with other victims to help them audit their respective common judge in the same court. Progressively, they may join forces to help others in other courts in the same city audit their respective judge; and later on reach out to victims in the courts of other cities, and subsequently in other states.

 

37. That is how a civic movement for exposing wrongdoing judges and advocating judicial reform that holds them accountable and even liable to compensate their victims(* >jur:158§§6-8) can develop. The precedent for such unimaginable, unintended, and eventually unstoppable development is found in the people who had had enough of being taxed and little by little formed the single-issue, now national, and politically unavoidable Tea Party.

 

38. Thinking and proceeding ‘outside the box’ need not be done in a world of fantasy. It can be done strategically on the firm ground of precedent and sound reasoning.

 

3. Taking advantage of presidential politics to turn presidential candidates into unwitting allies in exposing judges’ wrongdoing

 

39. The judge-auditing groups can bring to light verifiable evidence of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing that can outrage the public. Only an outraged national(* >ol:191§§A,B) public can generate the political pressure necessary to force politicians to take a supportive stand, albeit opportunistic, on the issue and even call for official investigations of judicial wrongdoing by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts.

 

40. Indeed, this is the most propitious juncture to join forces to audit judges as proposed: There is a presidential election campaign underway and it has an overcrowded pack of candidates: 21 and counting! We can take advantage of each candidate’s need to stand out of the pack.

 

41. The candidates can realize from the depth and breadth of the public outrage at judges’ wrongdoing that those dissatisfied with the legal system, particularly the victims of wrongdoing judges, constitute a huge (see the Business Proposal below; also at * >ol:273¶4) untapped voting bloc in search of a political leader. That bloc grew larger after the Supreme Court’s decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage.

 

42. This justifies the application of two principles of strategic thinking and proceeding: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, applied by victims and advocates; and ‘He who needs my help is my friend’, applied by candidates.

 

43. Candidates who voice that bloc’s complaints and call for the investigation of judicial wrongdoing can become its leader. Thereby they can earn free publicity from the media covering Election 2016, mount in the polls, and attract donations, volunteers to their campaigns, and invaluable word of mouth support. They can become the unwitting allies of the victims of wrongdoing judges and of all other advocates of honest judiciaries.

 

44. That can generate a business opportunity(Business Proposal; ol:271) and lead to a multidisciplinary business and academic venture(jur:97§1), which can be the precursor to the creation of the proposed for-profit institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(¶31).

 

 

1. It is time to take action: Plans of concrete, feasible, and realistic action proposed to victims and advocates

 

45. Therefore, to victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries who actually want to undertake an ‘outside the box effort’, I respectfully propose novel plans of action in the following two articles.

 

46. The action is concrete, feasible, and realistic. The plans are based on a strategy reasonably calculated to move forward our common cause of holding judges and conniving public officers accountable for their wrongdoing and even liable to compensate those whom they have wronged:

 

47. Recognizing the futility of suing judges in court, where judges will hold their defendant colleagues, peers, and friends harmless, an out-of-court strategy aims to inform the public about judges’ patterns of widespread, routine, and coordinated wrongdoing and to so outrage the public as to stir it up to force politicians when they are most vulnerable, while they are campaigning and desperately trying to survive politically, to investigate judges officially and hold them accountable and liable to their victims.

 

48. Hence, if you realize the importance of informing the public about, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing, you can:

 

1. follow the steps in the Auditing Judges article below to identify other parties before the same wrongdoing judge that has victimized you; and join forces with them to detect instances of wrongdoing in your cases that form patterns of wrongdoing;

 

1. use the resulting verifiable pattern evidence and/or the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing contained in my study(* >jur:21§§A-B) to interest journalists and campaigning politicians in further investigating and exposing judges’ wrongdoing; meantime, share and post the article as widely as possible to induce many other victims and advocates to do likewise; and

 

1. network your way together with the other parties and through your and their colleagues and friends who have acquaintances who know people in any of the presidential campaigns, to put me in touch with their chiefs of staff so that I may offer to make a presentation, either at a video conference or in person, on how it is in the interest of their respective presidential candidate to stand out of the pack by voicing the complaints and thus becoming the leader of the huge untapped voting bloc (see the Business Proposal below) of dissatisfied users of the legal system, particularly the victims of wrongdoing judges.

 

49. The implementation of those plans calls for victims and advocates who are willing to pursue their cases reasonably and contribute their realistically assessed experience, skills, and knowledge to advancing the public interest; competent lawyers; and other professionals as well as students, especially those in law, journalism, business, and Information Technology(jur:128§4).

 

50. If we manage to join forces and think and proceed strategically, we can become nationally recognized by a grateful nation as We the People’s 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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

 

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/

A. Dealing constructively with proposers of marginal ideas to propose that they join in reaching out to the national public and in its interest

1. I am not associated in any way whatsoever with people who spouse ideas that bar associations are the source of the legal problems in our country and that they are owned and controlled by foreign entities. Nor do I share the opinion of those who support conspiracy theories or the application of medieval and thus, foreign documents to solving our current legal and constitutional problems.
2. Their ideas and opinion can only appeal to tiny minorities of the public. Disproving them is a negative, destructive effort. It does not create conditions necessary to achieve my objective.
3. Far from it, I try to appeal to the national public. My objective is to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform. My strategy to attain it is to inform the national public about judges’ wrongdoing and outrage the public at it(* >ol:236).

_________________________
* This article is part of the 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
or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8|
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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 760 pages and is more than 50MB in size, does not download, try using the other links:

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

All (blue text)^references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:292). _________________________

4. Only an outraged national public can bring to bear the condemnatory sentiment and demand for accountability that can generate the menacing pressure, eventually exerted with the greatest effect at the polls, to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to even if only reluctantly, unwittingly, and opportunistically:

   a. expose wrongdoing judges and call for official investigations of judicial wrongdoing by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts; and

   b. reform the judiciaries to ensure that they administer Equal Justice Under Law because its judges, as public servants, are held by the public accountable for applying the rule of law and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(jur:158§§6-8).

5. It is with those who can reasonably be expected to support that objective that I associate, namely, the dissatisfied with the judiciaries, especially the victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries. I try to persuade them to adopt and implement that strategy in their own and the national public interest.
6. Consequently, I invest my efforts, time, and money in the positive, constructive endeavor of proposing reasonably calculated actions for advocates and victims to inform the national public about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing, and bring about judicial reform(e.g., ol:244, 274, 231).
7. However, I treat politely and with professionalism everybody. With those who do not conduct themselves in a respectful way or diminish themselves by using foul language, I do not deal at all. I do not feel any compulsion to retort or have the last word. I move on.
   
   1. A counter-proposal to welcome the largest number of contributors
   
8. To deal with well-meaning people who propose to me ideas that only appeal to tiny minorities, I make a counter-proposal: Join the effort to implement the inform and outrage strategy(ol:219).
9. We need the contribution of the largest number of people to the cause of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. So I invite everybody to join in advancing that cause even if they hold incompatible ideas among themselves. Eventually, if the judiciary is reformed, they will on their own appeal to honest judges to resolve their controversies.
10. It follows that do not take a position on any issue other than judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. That is part of strategic thinking and of strict intellectual and emotional discipline. All are welcome who support the single objective of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.
11. Accordingly, I respectfully encourage you to shift the totality of your acumen and efforts away from disproving ideas that you do not support and into accepting and contributing to the implementation of the inform and outrage strategy to attain that objective.
    

    B. Reaching out to the national public through presidential candidates
    

12. Right now your greatest contribution would be to network your way, through people who know people who know people, to the chief of staff of any of the presidential candidates to afford me the opportunity to make a presentation to the candidate, the chief, and their aides, on this:

    a. How it is in a presidential candidate’s electoral interest to voice the complaints and support the demands for compensation of all those dissatisfied with the judicial system, especially the victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries, because they form a huge untapped voting bloc(below and at ol:274¶4).

13. The candidate may become their standard-bearer and draw support from them in the nature of donations, volunteer work for the campaign, word of mouth endorsements, and votes in the primaries. That can make the difference between having to drop out of the race very soon and staying on it all the way to the nominating convention, through it, and winning on Election Day 2016.

1. Helping to make the case to presidential candidates by helping parties audit their wrongdoing judges

14. You can contribute to strengthening the presentation to presidential candidates by helping parties to lawsuits gather evidence of patterns of wrongdoing through the auditing of the rulings and decisions of the judges who have victimized them. To that end, you can help those parties implement the proposals in the Auditing Judges article(below and at * >ol:274)
15. Thereby you can simultaneously contribute to finding invaluable evidence in support of the test case that I have requested leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals on grounds of denial of due process and equal protection of the law by judges’ holding themselves unaccountable and not liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(infra, excerpt).
16. In the process, you can find guidance on what to look for in the evidence already gathered in my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(jur:21§A). That evidence finds concrete expression in two unique national stories that can attract national attention: the President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor story and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(ol:191§§A,B).

B. Retaliation will target mostly journalists and presidential candidates, rather than those organizing the presentation to them

17. There is justified concern about retaliation from judges and the politicians who put them on the bench. However, you can operate in the background, concentrating on networking to chiefs of staff of presidential candidates. I can make the presentation to them on how they can promote their own candidacy by exposing judicial wrongdoing and calling for official investigations of it.
18. Judicial wrongdoing can be exposed to the public by the candidates and their chiefs of staff together with their researchers of incriminating information on their opponents, and the journalists and pundits covering Election 2016. Since they will be the ones who will ‘let the cat of judicial wrongdoing out of the bag’ to run to the national public, they will become the target of retaliators.
19. In any event, by then it could be too late and risky for judges to retaliate. While judges, in general, and federal judges, in particular, are the most powerful officers in our country(ol:267§4), they are the most vulnerable to public criticism because their own Code of Conduct requires that they not only avoid impropriety, but also “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).
20. Judges’ abuse of judicial power to retaliate against exposers of judges’ wrongdoing is without doubt an impropriety. A much lesser impropriety forced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
21. You will hardly be of any interest to judges and politicians as the target of their retaliation. What is more, neither you nor your name need come to light as a result of your networking to a presidential candidate. But your contribution can be decisive in advancing our common cause.
22. It follows that the concern about retaliators breaking up the group by weighing down on individual members is not quite justified. The retaliators will accomplish absolutely nothing by going after any of us when they have to concentrate on their defense from the expository attacks by those with far more offensive power than us, that is, presidential candidates, journalists, and if they are successful, the authorities investigating them.
23. Nevertheless, here applies the axiom: There is no glory without sacrifice. If it were easy and riskless to expose wrongdoing judges, anybody would have already done it(jur:21§a). All the great socio-political achievements of mankind go to the credit of people willing to make sacrifices to expose abusers in power in order to bring about a more just society. Thanks to them, millennial impossibles(jur:xlv§§G,H) have become part the everyday reality that we take for granted…and enjoy every second of our lives.

D. New business can be the reward for the organizers of the presentation and supporters of the test case

24. In brief, you can take the concrete, realistic, and feasible actions of networking to the presidential candidates and the journalists covering them; and helping parties to audit their judges in search of pattern evidence of their wrongdoing.
25. By so doing, you can contribution to the ultimate objective of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform as well as to the intermediate objective of preparing the test case to the New York State Court of Appeals or the highest court of your state.
26. If you do so, there is something of significant material and moral value for you(ol:3§F): You may pioneer the news and publishing business field of judicial unaccountability reporting; and establish yourself in your state or in the nation as a consultant to, and representative of, victims of judicial wrongdoing seeking to have their cases revisited or be compensated for the harm that wrongdoing judges and their judiciaries caused them(below and at ol:271).
27. I hope that you will determine to become an advocate of honest judiciaries who is focused on being a positive, constructive force that courageously, imaginatively, and resourcefully drives forward our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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

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/

 

1. The idea of suing a bar association may very well betray lack of strategic thinking and of knowledge of relevant facts.(* >Lsch:14§3;    ol:52§C;    ol:8§E;   jur:xliv¶C). This is particularly the case when the bar association is charged with exerting a corruptive influence over the courts that leads judges to engage in wrongdoing detrimental to parties before them so that such parties, especially the pro ses among them, become victims of wrongdoing judges.

 

2. A similar analysis was made in a previous article(ol:284) that dealt with the idea that wrongdoing judges can be exposed by filing a suit in the International Criminal Court, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO), through a class action, by creating an organization or marching before a courthouse to denounce those judges, or by pursuing a personal local case where the trial judge is charged with wrongdoing.

 

3. The analysis of those ideas and of that of suing a bar association applies the same key analytical tool, namely, dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2;    ol:52§C;   dcc:8¶11;   dcc:17¶1). This analysis looks for those who share an interest with others in doing the act in question, and those who have an interest in preventing others from doing it; and whether the former, with harmonious interests, or the latter, with conflicting interests, are likely to be stronger and prevail.

 

All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., titled:

 

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)

 

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

or http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8

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 search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 750 pages and is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:

.

Google Chrome:

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

or

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

 

1. Judges and their relation to bar associations

 

4. Judges were regular attorneys before becoming judges. They are likely to have been and still be members of bar associations. They may even have been officers of such associations.

 

5. Aside from other judges, most of their friends and colleagues are lawyers, who are members of bar associations.

 

6. Lawyers represent by far the largest number of contributors to the campaigns, and voters in the elections, of lawyers who run in state judicial elections and judges who run for reelection.

 

7. Lawyers and their bar associations are the principal evaluators of the competency of judges. Their evaluations are a key factor considered by politicians in nominating a judge for, or appointing him or her to, another term or a higher court.

 

8. In fact, the endorsement of a bar association is an important source of support for a lawyer who wants to run in a judicial race and for a judge who is pulling strings to be elevated to a higher court.

 

9. If after the expiration of his term or the loss of a judicial race a state judge wants to be hired by a law firm, the bigger and more prestigious the better, the judge needs to be in good stead with the legal community.

 

10. It follows from these circumstances that a state judge, who unlike his federal counterparts does not have life-tenure, has an interest in having lawyers on his side rather than holding a grudge against him and aiming at his back.

 

1. 1. Pressure on the judge presiding over a suit against a bar association

 

11. After a suit is filed against a bar association, the presiding judge is likely to be presented with his IOUs held by the defendant association and lawyers with a close relation to it as well as all other bar associations. None of the latter will want to sit back and see an unfavorable precedent be established that can open the door to subsequent suits against any and all of them.

 

12. The judge will preside over the suit in such a way as to preserve his access to big and prestigious law firms after his judgeship is over, and to collect some IOUs from them that he may cash in when looking for a job again.

 

13. Why would a rational judge, thinking like a homo economicus rather than a man of integrity, risk his relation with the bar and his future prospect of landing a posh job for the sake of a one-off case among the thousands that he will deal with during his judgeship?

 

14. The above considerations are not enough to support a motion to recuse the presiding judge. They are equally applicable to all the other judges of his court, so they cannot be used to disqualify the court as a whole.

 

15. How much integrity must a prospective plaintiff ascertain in each of the judges of the competent court to be confident that whomever of them happens to be assigned to the suit against a bar association will preside over the trial fairly and impartially?

 

16. A suit against a bar association raises the suspicion that the judge will have a bias in favor of the defendant. Moreover, the association comes into court with its own specter: Bringing a suit against a bar association is a daunting undertaking because the association will have access to staff its defense team with the best and the brightest lawyers in town

 

17. Under those circumstances, who wants to spend the enormous amount of effort, money, and time required to sue a bar association? Hardly a prudent and successful lawyer will want to take on such a formidable defendant, let alone do so on a contingency basis.

 

18. Bringing a suit against a state bar association in a federal district court, where judges have a life-appointment, lessens the problem of judicial bias toward the defendant. However, it presents other substantial problems:

 

19. On what grounds will plaintiff argue that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit?

 

20. Trying to sue a national bar association only aggravates such problems: On what grounds will plaintiff assert personal jurisdiction over it to force it to come to the state court to defend itself or be subject to a default judgement enforceable across state lines under the full faith and credit clause?

 

2. Pro ses suing a bar association complete the trifecta of an exercise in futility

 

19. If the idea of suing a bar association popped up in the mind of a pro se and pro ses are the ones who will prosecute the case, then it figures: It is not that they are not thinking strategically; it is that they are either not thinking through their idea or not thinking at all. They simply had a knee jerk idea.

 

20. Just because pro ses can file a case in court does not mean that their naiveté, resentment and foolhardiness turn them into the equivalent of a knowledgeable, dispassionate, and prudent team of plaintiff lawyers. Much less do they become automatically the match for the team of top lawyers defending the bar association.

 

21. And then the pro ses must face the judge. The attitude of federal judges toward pro ses may very well represent that of state judges: In the Federal Judiciary, a case filed by a pro se is expressly(jur:43¶81) weighed for statistical purposes as a third of a case, whereas a capital punishment case is weighed like ten cases, that is, a 30 times weightier case. That means that a pro se case, regardless of its nature, is considered to deserve only one third of the attention and resources accorded to a run of the mill case represented by a lawyer, which is weighed as one case regardless of the merits of the represented case or the experience and competency of the lawyer.

 

22. As a result, when a federal judge sees a brief or a motion written by a pro se, she gives it the perfunctory attention that the official weighing of the case makes her feel justified in give it. The weighing works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because as the case came in for filing it was considered worth not even half of a case, the judge will do, not justice to it, but rather a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.

 

23. A pro se may decide not to file a suit against a bar association in a state court to avoid a judge biased by her interest in protecting the defendant and thereby herself. So the pro se files the suit in federal court where he finds a judge biased against him because the judge has no interest in dealing with the substandard briefs and motions that her Judiciary expects a pro se to write and argue. The pro se can pick state cyanide or federal arsenic.

 

24. A pro se plaintiff, as a self-improvised attorney that remains ignorant of the law and how to plead it, going against both a formidable foe, such as a bar of attorneys is, and a judge biased toward it and against him, that makes a suit against a bar association the trifecta for an exercise in futility.

 

25. Understanding the difficulties of suing a bar association with a realistic chance of success is like understanding anything else: The devil is in the detail. On the futility of suing judges, see ol:158.

 

 

1. A reasonably calculated alternative: auditing wrongdoing judges and malpracticing attorneys in search of patterns of wrongdoing or malpractice evidence

 

26. The article below( and at * >ol:274) offers a reasonable and more affordable alternative to suing a bar association. It can be applied to audit both judges and lawyers.

 

24. If a lawyer has dealt with a client irresponsibly and/or incompetently, it is possible that she has dealt likewise with other clients. To find those other clients, one can search her name in the databases of Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis as well as of the courts in which she may have practiced, beginning with those near where she lives. This should return all the cases in which she has appeared as the attorney of record.

 

25. Thereafter one can find the contact information of the clients as set forth in the article below. One can ask them whether they are satisfied with her representation of their legal interests. With all those who are not, one can join forces to search for commonalities that reveal patterns of the attorney’s malpractice or even wrongdoing.

 

26. That search will not be conducted with a class action in view because it is unlikely that there will be so many clients, not to mention dissatisfied ones, of the malpracticing attorney as to warrant a class action.

 

27. Rather, it can conceivably lead to a joinder of similarly situated parties who share the cost of suing the malpracticing attorney common to all of them and strengthen their case with strong evidence of patterns of malpractice or wrongdoing.

 

28. Auditing a lawyer is a more promising alternative than either one single client venturing alone into court with only her allegations against her former attorney or several pro ses cobbling together a case against a bar association in an effort to expose how they have allegedly corrupted courts and enabled unaccountable judges to engage in wrongdoing with no risk of liability to their victims.

 

29. On exposing wrongdoing judges through auditing, see below. On thinking strategically to:

 

1. audit judges in support of a test case grounded on due process and equal protection of the law to be appealed to the highest state court to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, see ol:296; and

 

271. turn into a business for lawyers and journalists the exposure of wrongdoing judges, see ol:271.

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 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: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news

or

Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue – 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.

NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.

If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.

NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.

The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.

You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):

To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.

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

If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.

I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.

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