BLACK ROBED PREDATORS A Proposal for a documentary on two unique cases of wrongdoing at the top of government that expose how federal judges have become unaccountable in connivance with the other two branches and consequently, engage risklessly in coordinated wrongdoing by disregarding their duty, due process, and the rule of law to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty

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@cantab.net

RicCordero@verizon.net

CorderoRic@yahoo.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

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

  1. Federal judges’ wrongdoing has been shown through the analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements[*>ii] in the study of the Federal Judiciary –whose procedural and evidentiary rules are followed by its state counterparts, for which it is the model– titled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(*>jur:1) The analysis highlights their means, motive, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3) for judges’ wrongdoing.

*NOTE: See my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, titled:

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

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8E3D78595FC3EBB8!156&authkey=!AMV7fOyVzLPJU6g&ithint=file%2cpdf

or

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

or

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx26luEuzfjgc1hiZXctZjdLQlE/edit?usp=sharing

or

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

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:

Google Chrome:

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

or

Mozilla-Firefox:

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

.

In the downloaded file, the blue text represents active cross-referential links that facilitate jumping to the corresponding references to check them..

If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let Dr. Cordero know by emailing him at Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net.

.

  1. This article proposes its presentation in a documentary. It will emphasize its most outrageous and corruptive enabling circumstance: coordination(88§§a-c) among judges and between them and other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems[169], politicians(77§§5-6), and government entities(ol:19§D).

.

  1. It will show that wrongdoing(jur:133§4) is not the deviant conduct of individual rogue judges, but rather collective conduct that is coordinated to ensure that doing wrong is safer, easier, and more beneficial. That encourages further wrongdoing.

.

  1. So does a judge who keeps quiet about his peer’s wrongdoing, becoming accessory after the fact concerning it and before the fact concerning all future wrongdoing encouraged by the expectation of his silence. Such implicit coordination corrupts the judge and his peers, putting them ‘in the same boat’ of mutually dependent survival due to complicity: The judge is their accomplice before and after the fact and the peers are wrongdoing principals.

.

  1. Coordination has allowed judges to develop the most harmful form of wrongdoing, i.e., schemes, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[107ac, 213], and a docket clearing scheme(43§1). Coordination has made wrongdoing so widespread and routine that it is the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190).

.

.

  1. The documentary’ financial viability: its market is huge

.

  1. Every year 50 million new cases are filed in the state and federal courts[4,5]. To them must be added scores of millions of pending cases. Given that every case involves at least two opposing parties, at least 100 million persons and entities go and are brought to court annually.

.

  1. In fact, many more do so because a party can be composed of more than one person or entity; it can even be composed of a class of hundreds of thousands of persons similarly situated.

.

  1. To the parties must be added all those persons and entities that are more or less directly affected by their litigation. These include friends, relatives, employees, buyers, suppliers, investors, creditors, debtors, shareholders, landlords, tenants, even the store on the corner, who may see its business diminished because a party and others affected by it can no longer afford to patronize its store, etc.

.

.

  1. Two unique national stories to expose judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and provoke action-stirring outrage in the public during the long electoral season

.

  1. All those persons and entities actually form the national public. The documentary can make that public aware of how it is affected by judges who abuse their power to make self-beneficial decisions that with disregard for due process of law dispose of litigants’ and non-litigants’ rights, property, liberty, and lives. Thus, it can provoke in the public action-stirring outrage(83§§2-3).

.

  1. That is what two unique national stories(ol:55) can provoke. They can also expose top Democrat and Republican politicians[17a; jur:22¶31) who in their own interest and to the people’s detriment have allowed judges’ wrongdoing(5§3) to fester. These are the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story –she was his first nominee to the Supreme Court– and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story.

.

  1. A realistic plan of investigation(ol:66) based on numerous leads and reliable evidence[107a-c; jur:65§B) is available to pursue these stories through a Follow the money! investigation(ol:1) and a Follow it wirelessly! investigation(ol:19§D), respectively.

.

  1. Such focused objective and advanced starting station facilitate the documentary’s production and reduce its cost and production lag.

.

.

  1. A documentary that provides the dominant issue of the electoral season

.

  1. The documentary can be produced in time to , and even provide the dominant issue of, the electoral season comprising the mid-term, primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns. It can do so to a greater extent than Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which earned over $200 million.

.

  1. A documentary with apolitical, general public appeal

.

  1. A documentary on judges’ wrongdoing will appeal to the national public regardless of any political affiliation or lack thereof, and independently of any or no intention to vote in any election.

.

  1. Insatiable public demand for information about judges’ wrongdoing

.

  1. Rather than exhaust its subject, the documentary will open the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. It will cause the public to demand to be informed about:

.

  1. judges’ motive, means, and opportunity to do wrong(21§§1-3);

.

  1. explicit and implicit coordinated wrongdoing among judges and with others(88§§a-c); and

.

  1. the extent, nature, and gravity of judges’ past and ongoing unaccountability and wrongdoing, e.g., “demeanor, abuse of power, bias, conflict of interest, bribery, incompetence”(10,11).

.

  1. Meeting a low standard can cause high-level resignations & impeachments

.

  1. To be effective, the documentary only has to show that judges have violated the injunction in their own Code of Conduct “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[123a]. Their “appearance” of lack of respect for legal and ethical provisions in their own conduct will detract from the required trust in their having respected them enough to apply them fairly and impartially to other people’s conduct.

.

  1. This is reasonable and precedented: Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties, though they did not even amount to misdemeanors(92§d).

.

  1. Thus, the documentary can cause a flood of motions to vacate judgments and hold new trials of cases argued to, or tried before, judges who appear to have committed improprieties. This flood and the chaos into which it will throw the Federal Judiciary –eventually having the same effect on the state judiciaries– will work as free advertisement for the documentary.

.

  1. Launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges

.

  1. The above developments will prompt ever more journalists and media outlets to jump on the investigative bandwagon of judges’ wrongdoing in coordination with other parties, lest their audience go elsewhere to satisfy their demand for news thereon.

.

  1. Thereby the documentary will launch the first-ever, Watergate-like(4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary. Such ever-expanding investigation will provide a constant reminder of the documentary as its starting point and continuing point of reference.

.

  1. The journalists’ investigation can be guided by a query that already(id.) proved to be devastating and that can be adapted as follows; and by a related query that finds its foundation in current events:

.

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

What did the President know

about his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, being involved in both concealing assets –which The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) suspected her of doing, and which is done to commit the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– and abusing the Federal Judiciary’s and/or the NSA’s computer network –see story ii. infra–; but did the President cover it up and lie to the American public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and if so,

when did he know it?

.

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

To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(`)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crime(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(ol:1), and to cover up the judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crime(ol:5a.fn13)– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them; and if so, since when?(ol:69§C)

(See the statistical analysis supporting probable cause to believe that there has been communications interference(ol:19§Dfn2.))

.

  1. The investigation guided by this query can generate distrust of top public officers and make improprieties –even criminal conduct[ol:7, 10]– appear that lead to their resignation or impeachment.

.

  1. Public demand for official investigations by the authorities

.

  1. The intensifying outrage will stir up the public to demand official investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and an independent prosecutor. Their more intrusive powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and contempt orders, indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea bargain, hold public hearings, etc., will allow them to make findings that will further outrage the public.

.

  1. From an outraged public that demands reform to a civic movement

.

  1. The stream of outrageous findings during the electoral season will stir up the public to demand that both incumbents commence and candidates pledge to undertake fundamental judicial reform(158§§6-7). This can turn judges’ wrongdoing into an issue that shapes or even dominates the campaigns because it concerns the practical meaning and safeguard of a tenet of our republic:

.

  1. We the People, the only source of political power in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[172], are the masters who have hired public officers as servants, including judicial servants, to perform services in the People’s behalf.

.

  1. We are entitled to subject them to ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:29) to obtain the information needed to dispel the secrecy(27§e) of their performance in order to hold them accountable and liable to the victims of their wrongdoing(160§8).

.

  1. A documentary intent on causing the People to assert in practice this tenet can prompt the emergence of a civic movement(164§9) that demands a new We the People-government paradigm: the People’s Sunrise.

.

  1. By empowering the People to reestablish themselves as the masters of government, the documentary will be endowed with unequaled moral force and inspire a sense of mission: To implement the principle that ‘in government, not of men, but by the rule of law’[ol:6], Nobody is Above the Law, and ensure that judges and politicians are committed to delivering Equal Justice Under Law.

.

.

  1. An outraged public can force politicians to amend the Constitution

.

  1. The documentary can show how the three branches of government have connived to participate in, or tolerate, judges’ trampling underfoot the rule of law to squeeze out for expediency and their benefit the strictures of due process and dish out its residue: the lees of justice.

.

  1. Nothing can outrage the national public as a showing thereof. No force can more strongly push for such convention than an outraged national public. Hence, provoking such outrage can constitute the necessary means to convince the public of the need for a constitutional convention and the content of the amendments.

.

  1. The national public has the unique power to punish politicians who are insensitive to its mood and demands by withholding donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, and issuing the threat of defeat at the polls. The precedent for such popular conduct is the Tea Party, a civic movement that forces politicians to support it or risk having their careers terminated.

.

  1. However, before a constitutional convention is convened on the strength of the 34 states that have called for it[270>Ln:309], there must be exposed how those who claim the preeminent right to interpret the Constitution, federal judges, have become unaccountable in connivance with politicians and consequently, engage risklessly in self-beneficial coordinated wrongdoing by disregarding their duty, due process, and the rule of law to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty.

.

  1. Such exposure will make it possible to determine the full extent of the constitutional amendments needed to ensure that judges perform(Lsch:10¶6) transparently and are held accountable, disciplinable, and liable to compensate their victims by We the People.(jur:158§§6-8)

.

.

  1. Joining forces to produce the documentary and become Champions of Justice

.

  1. Thus, I encourage you, the Reader, and all other advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces to produce this documentary. By exposing judges’ wrongdoing in coordination with politicians and others, it can play a key role in the coming electoral season, lead to government reform, and earn us any of many material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), such as becoming recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.

.

You may share and post this article widely. Meantime, 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 >ol: 244; 240.

.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net

RicCordero@verizon.net

Corderoric@yahoo.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com

.

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

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

.

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.

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

Making a documentary on the proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc

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

  1. Exposing abuses in the judicial system, not only in family court

    1. I applaud your decision to widen the scope of your advocacy of honest judiciaries from family court to the judicial system as a whole. By so doing, you have widened the potential audience of your documentaries from a relative small one –parents with children in custody litigation- to everybody that has or has had anything to do directly and indirectly with the courts:a. The dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems are among the 100 million parties to the 50 million cases(jur:8fn4(jur:8fn,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. To them must be added their relatives, employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, etc., all of whom suffer indirectly the abuse that litigants suffer directly in court.
  2. The twofold aim of your production company is justified by the facts. However, when you title your feature documentary The Monstrous Maze — Inside Family Court, you are drastically reducing your audience in practice.

 

  1. Money! the most insidious corruptor and where it is found in the judiciary

 

  1. The parties to close to one million new cases filed in the federal bankruptcy courts every year will not be attracted by your documentary. The amount in controversy only in the personal, as opposed to the commercial, bankruptcies is mind-boggling: hundreds of billions of dollars -$373 billion in 2010(jur:27§2)-.
  2. The immense majority of bankrupts appear pro se precisely because they do not have money and cannot afford a lawyer. Consequently, they are easy prey of judges, bankruptcy trustees, auctioneers, accountants, warehousers, evaluators, etc., all of whom work as members of a wrongdoing, exploitative system(jur:xxxv).
  3. The same holds true for surrogate/probate courts and their settlement of estates and appointment of guardians of incompetent adults. Wards of the court that are old and have accumulated money throughout their lives are the target of unscrupulous judges, clerks, guardians, accountants, etc.
  4. Cases involving mergers and acquisitions, the launch of an initial public offer of shares, product liability suits, contract disputes between big companies, especially those involving the financing of large projects, inheritance among heirs to rich people, etc., call into play the most insidious corruptor of public officers: Money!

 

  1. Money is not at stake in child custody battles in family court

 

  1. Nowhere near that amount of money is at stake in family court, even taking into account the divorce of rich people where money can play a corruptive role in the partition of assets.
  2. Adults with children are likely to be young people who are starting out in life and have little money to be stolen. Parents enmeshed in custody battles have kids and debts. The fixing of child support amounts is unlikely to be the source of corruption of judges and of all the people who are necessary, and who take a cut, for a parent to reach a judge.
  3. How do parents and spouses corrupt public officers other than with the venom of their anger at each other, their mutual bitter recriminations, and the horrifying spectacle of love turned to corrosive hatred, the devastating impact on their children notwithstanding? What they corrupt is their moral standards.
  4. If there is corruption in family court, it is not of the worst kind, namely, that motivated by money that can be used to bribe judges and other people and thus, to spread corruption. Consequently, a documentary on family courts is left begging for a motive for judges to do wrong.

 

  1. Without the motive of money, what is left is the means without malice of abuse of power

 

  1. Without being able to show the corruptive workings of money, a documentarist is unable to prove one of the three fundamental elements of a criminal charge: motive. The opportunity is obvious: the cases. Only the means is left to explore. The means for judges’ wrongdoing is judicial power of decision-making. Power is a potent corruptor too. In family court, the problem may spring from abuse of power. Judges would have to be shown to abuse their power because they go on an ego trip driven by the potent self-worth enhancer of all they can do and get away with.
  2. But if that is what a documentarist will try to show, a key element necessary to elicit a condemnatory reaction in his audience toward judges will be missing: malice in the form of abuse of power to grab an unlawful benefit, such as money.

 

  1. Abuse of discretionary power is very difficult to prove and very different from corruption

 

  1. Worse yet, in a great number of cases, the alleged abuse of power falls within the discretionary bounds of judges’ adjudicatory function: What is in the best interest of the child may be assessed differently by the parents, who are too emotionally involved in the case, and by the judge and Children Protective Services officers, who are not so involved. The latter two have a wide margin for decision-making necessary to protect children in cases that are likely to be sui generis because each case has particular elements that distinguish it from all others.
  2. Hence, it is very difficult to show in a documentary that there has been abuse of discretionary power. For instance, impugning a judge’s discretionary decision not to hold a plenary hearing in a case is extremely difficult. The effort will probably be unconvincing, especially if the complaint comes from a pro se who has little knowledge of the law, never mind of the standards for its application set by precedent, and the functioning of the courts.
  3. And where is a documentarist going to find successful family court lawyers willing to stand in front of his camera to accuse of abuse of power family court judges before whom they have appeared and will continue to appear? Their doing so could amount to their signing their professional death warrant.

 

  1. Logistics or budgetary cuts as the cause of alleged abuse of power

 

  1. The state of New York has reduced so drastically the budget and the personnel of courts that it is very likely that there are not enough resources to do what should be done in its courts, such as holding plenary hearings in a timely fashion.
  2. I know from experience that decisions concerning my practice had been taken by the judge but there was nobody to take them to the county clerk’s office in the same building to enter them there officially. When I complained to the director of the court’s records office, he asked me to come to the office and look for those decisions myself. I went there…and there were hundreds and hundreds of decisions waiting to be entered!…and so many empty desks in his office because many of the officers had been let go.
  3. A serious documentarist aims to portray the situation in the courts in a fair and impartial manner so that his work is not dismissed as the emotional cry of protest of a biased party to litigation with a grudge against a judge. To that end, he must disclose the deleterious impact of budgetary cuts on judicial performance. That can reduce the situation complained about to a mere consequence of an underfunded court system in a state running short of money. That is not corruption at all.

 

 

  1. Some ways of showing suspicious conduct that raises “the appearance of impropriety” and forces the resignation from the bench

 

  1. Compare showing the consequences of judicial personnel shortage with suspecting a judge of concealing assets, as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) did Then-Judge Sotomayor, the first justiceship nominee of President Obama, now a justice of the Supreme Court. Imagine the pregnant questions that would be prompted after analyzing the documents about her financial affairs(jur:65fn107b) submitted by herself to the Senate Committee on Judicial Nominations and finding that more than $3.6 million is unaccounted for(jur:65fn107c).
  2. How can it be explained that the annual mandatory financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d) submitted by federal judges to peers(jur:105fn213a) on the Judicial Conference(jur:54fn91a) committee that handles those reports may show not variation year after year(jur:102§2)?
  3. In the case of a judge who must run in judicial elections the focus of the investigation need not be a lifestyle or amount of assets inconsistent with her salary, which is a matter of public record. Rather, the focus may be how she afforded her election. What has the judge made possible her large donors to receive in exchange for their financing her campaign: undue information filed in court under seal; favorable decisions contrary to evidence and legal principles; commercial contracts through which kickbacks are transferred?
  4. See the exposé in the New York newspaper Newsday, The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; by Reporters Sandra Peddie and Will Van Sant, and Editor Deborah Henley, sandra.peddie@newsday.com, will.vansant@newsday.com; editor@newsday.com; Saturday, 4oct14; http://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/. See also my proposals to them(ol:176, 214).
  5. The above are example of how a documentarist and journalists can show that a judge or judges have failed to abide by the injunction in their own Code of Conduct to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). Nothing has to be proved to make that showing; the applicable standard is that of the opinion formed by a reasonable and unbiased person informed of the facts. But the consequences can be grave: even a justice of the Supreme Court can be forced to resign, as was Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine showed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d).

 

 

  1. Using the easier to handle term “wrongdoing” rather than “corruption”

 

  1. Corruption cannot be demonstrated through a court transcript. If one believes that it can, there is a problem with what one understands to be corruption, which involves bribery; using confidential information filed under seal for self-benefit; resolving a conflict of interests in one’s own interest; and similar acts punishable by law. Corruption involves criminal activity.
  2. If a judge engages in a corrupt practice in open court where it can be recorded by the court reporter, he or she would rather be blatantly incompetent. Moreover, a judge can prevail upon a court reporter, lest the latter be fired without recourse(jur:31§a), to have her transcript cleansed of any passage “demonstrating” corruption.
  3. Because corruption is such a technical term and a charge of corruption requires to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a more appropriate term to expose judges and bring about judicial reform is wrongdoing.
  4. Wrongdoing is a negative term wider(jur:86§§a-c) than corruption and much easier to show; yet it can faster attain the main objective of removing wrongdoing judges from the bench. Proving a judge’s corruption by suing her in court(ol:158), where the judge will be judged by her peers, colleagues, and friends; and trying to impeach a judge in Congress(jur:21§a), where she will be judged by those who recommended, endorsed, and confirmed her, are protracted, cumbersome, and seldom effective methods of removing a judge from office.
  5. Abuse of discretionary power, even the disregard of the law and the facts, is not corruption. It falls within the scope of wrongdoing.
  6. A competent documentarist can show judicial wrongdoing. But how is he going to reach the widest audience possible?

 

 

  1. The advertisers with the farthest reach: presidential candidates covered by a host of journalists

 

  1. Making a documentary that is reasonably calculated to appeal to the public at large, never mind the national public, is only the first hurdle. Thereafter the documentarist needs to distribute and advertise it widely.
  2. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on President Bush and his alleged connection to 9/11 and Laura Poitras’ Citizen Four on Edward Snowden and his leak of NSA secret documents dealt with subjects that had captured national attention either as a national tragedy or a scandal. Consequently, their documentaries received free advertisement on the national newscasts for months, which not even money could have bought. If Moore and Poitras had had to pay to advertise their documentaries, it is hardly conceivable that they would have been as successful as they were. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the largest grossing documentary up to its time.

 

  1. Taking advantage of presidential candidates and their coverage by journalists

 

  1. Analyzing the above considerations through strategic thinking results in this:
  2. Presidential candidates covered by journalists offer the most cost-efficient avenue for bringing to the national public a documentary on the issue of judges’ wrongdoing.
  3. What presidential candidates stand to gain from exposing judges’ wrongdoing is this in brief: Proceeding opportunistically in a very crowded field of 22 candidates and counting –V.P. Joe Biden and even Former V.P. Al Gore may enter the race-, they can stand out of the pack, attract journalistic coverage, and draw support from the huge(¶2 above) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems, especially victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries(ol:311).
  4. Moreover, particularly the governor and non-politician candidates can use the exposure to attack the opponents who at any time were members of the Senate, which confirms judges nominated by the president, bears responsibility for their oversight, and has in connivance(jur:23fn17a) with them disregarded the evidence of their wrongdoing(jur:26fn23a).
  5. It follows that the emphasis of the strategy to reach the national public is on federal, not state, judges. Indeed, New Yorkers could not care less what California judges do and vice versa; the same can be said about the people of any one state concerning the judges of any other state.
  6. Federal judges are the only ones who have national jurisdiction. The exposure of their participation in, or condonation of, wrongdoing in connivance with top politicians will provoke national outrage, especially during a presidential campaign. That reaction will translate into a higher demand for related and updating news, and consequently intense competition among media outlets for a greater share of that audience. The prospect of a scoop deserving of a Pulitzer prize will motivate journalists to jump on the investigative bandwagon(ol:250).
  7. That chain of events will embolden journalists to investigate state judges and expose those engaged in wrongdoing. Upon demand and spontaneously, victims of wrongdoing state judges will share their complaints with those journalists and demand that also those judges be exposed.
  8. This is a plan born of strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3;    ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C), which also gives rise to the following strategic considerations.

 

  1. Approaching each presidential candidate with an offer to make a documentary on him or her exposing federal wrongdoing judges through two unique national stories

 

  1. The next Republican presidential debate will be held in only a few weeks’ time. It can sound the death knell for a candidate to be relegated again to the afternoon session or for one who participated in the prime time session of the first debate to be demoted to it.
  2. Therefore, if they are to be enticed by the idea of exposing federal judges as a means of attracting journalistic and national public attention and attacking their opponents, they must be approached as soon as possible.
  3. The proposal for them to expose wrongdoing judges will not be to tell them to go out and investigate federal justices, judges, and magistrates -2,217 were in office on September 30, 2013(jur:22fn13)- to see if they find some committing wrongdoing.
  4. Rather, it is by directing their attention to the information already available on the two pinpointed unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:190§§A,B).
  5. I trust you realize that a documentary on exposing wrongdoing New York lawyers cannot compete in journalistic national newsworthiness or presidential politics importance with those two unique national stories.

 

 

  1. Networking to presidential candidates through The Independent newspaper

 

  1. The way of approaching the presidential candidates, or more realistically, their press department and through it their chief of staff is through The Independent –assuming you meant the New York office of The Independent newspaper of England-.
  2. Journalists and news editors of The Independent are likely to know directly or indirectly people in the candidates’ press department with whom to arrange a presentation by us to the respective candidate, chief of staff, and aides of the proposal for a documentary:
  3. Why and how the candidate undertook investigating those two stories until he or she became convinced that they were legitimate and raised issues of national importance concerning the integrity of judicial process and of connivance between politicians and judges; and the steps that the candidate took that led to his or her breaking the stories at a press conference and subsequently including them as a key feature in his or her stump speech.
  4. Therefore, I propose that at your earliest convenience we meet with your contacts in The Independent to discuss this strategy. You may share with them this email in advance or print it in its article version at ol:313.
  5. In preparation thereof, I respectfully suggest that you read the presentation article at ol:190 and the letter addressed to presidential candidates at ol:311 and as many of its references as possible.

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/

 

How advocates of honest judiciaries can network, particularly with politicians

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol: 231

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

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

 

  1. Networking for reform to meet the need for avowed and unwitting allies
  2. Networking is essential to the work of advocates of honest judiciaries of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform. We need to network in order to win over allies and people that will advance our objectives even if they do so only in the interest of advancing their own. The applicable principle of strategic thinking(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; jur:xliv¶C) is “The friend of my friend is my friend” (see also “The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ol:197¶¶37,38).

 

  1. The networking target may have objectives that are ‘friendly’ to –that is, harmonious with(* >ol:52§C, Lsch:14§2; dcc:8¶11)– our own objectives of exposing judges wrongdoing and advocating reform (see also the analysis of conflicting interests, id.). Hence, we, advocates of honest judiciaries, want to treat them as our friends and give them the information that we have gathered so that they can use it to advance those ‘friendly’ objectives of theirs. That is particularly the case of politicians and journalists.

 

* Note: All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of institutionalized wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and its coordination among its judges 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

 

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:

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

or

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

 

  1. The evidence and opportunity that we offer politicians
  2. It is true that politicians are the very ones who recommended, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates and who now protect “their men and women on the bench” by holding them unaccountable(ol:190¶¶1-7). However, now that the presidential election campaign dominates national politics, politicians’ first priority is to obtain donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, and straw poll votes. Worrying about judges can only be a secondary consideration.

 

  1. The untapped voting bloc of victims of wrongdoing judges
  2. We want to make politicians aware that there is a vast untapped bloc of voters out there: victims of wrongdoing judges among the 100 million parties to the 50 million new cases filed in the state and federal courts annually(jur:8fn4,5). Those figures do not begin to count the victims among the parties to pending cases and cases decided wrongfully by judges doing wrong in their own and their peers’ and cronies’ interest. Those victims are waiting for a champion to fight for them.

 

  1. This opens an opportunity for politicians, who during the presidential election campaign need to appear sensitive to the public’s mood and demands. That mood is outrage at judges’ wrongdoing. The demand is for politicians to investigate judges officially and hold nationally televised hearings where they take testimony from the public and question judges under oath.

 

  1. To Republican politicians in their races against Democrats
  2. To Republicans, you offer evidence that they can use to expose how Democratic politicians, in general, and President Obama, in particular, lied to the American people in their own personal and political interest about the honesty of Then-Judge Sotomayor when they recommended, nominated, and confirmed her to become a Supreme Court justice(next; ol:191§§A,E).

 

  1. To Democratic politicians fighting for their Senate leadership
  2. To Democratic politicians, you offer the same evidence but highlight how it can be useful for their fight for their leadership in the Senate now that Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he will not run for reelection and has indicated his desire that Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from NY, be his successor.

 

  1. Sen. Schumer was one of the key recommenders of Then-Judge Sotomayor to become President Obama’s first justiceship nominee as replacement of Retiring J. Souter. Together with his protégée and junior senator from NY, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, he shepherded Nominee Sotomayor through the Senate confirmation process(jur:78§6).

 

  1. All the senators and other people who do not want Senator Schumer as the next Democratic leader in the Senate and those senators who want that job for themselves or for their friends can use the information of how Sen. Schumer knew that The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) had suspected Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets; and how the FBI vetting report on her contained compromising information about her integrity that would have derailed her confirmation if published(jur:65fn107c).

 

  1. Assets are concealed to evade taxes, launder money with dirty origin, and exclude them from marital and inheritance distribution.

 

  1. Yet, he as well as the President and Sen. Gillibrand disregarded that information, vouched for Nominee Sotomayor’s integrity, and worked to confirm her as a justice of the Supreme Court. Thereby they all saddled this country for the next 30 years or so that she may serve on the highest court of the land with a dishonest and hypocritical person who forces the law upon others while she breaks it in her own interest and that of her peers(jur:65§§1-3).

 

  1. How many other justices and judges engage in the same, similar, and other types of wrongdoing under the cover that they provide each other? Thus, the further(ol:194§E) investigation of J. Sotomayor is a Trojan horse into wrongdoing among federal judges that is so routine, widespread, and coordinated as to be the institutionalized modus operandi of them and the Federal Judiciary.

 

  1. Advocates can bring to the attention of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, the P. Obama-J. Sotomayor query(ol:191§A) for further investigation by law enforcement authorities and congressional committees(ol:201§J; cf. the Federal Judiciary-NSA query, ol:192§B).

 

  1. Journalists to pursue a story that can dominate the election campaign

 

  1. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor query(ol:191§A) can also guide journalists in their investigation of a unique national story (as can the Federal Judiciary-NSA query, ol:192§B). Networking with journalists is indispensable for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating reform(ol:199¶43).

 

  1. What advocates can offer journalists is a story with the potential to make them a national name and advance their careers(ol:199§1): They can become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein(jur:4¶¶10-14). Thanks to their highly professional investigation of the Watergate scandal, they contributed significantly to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. Since then they are icons of investigative journalism.

 

  1. Woodward and Bernstein were played in the blockbuster movie All the President’s Men by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. By whom would journalists like to be played today if they were instrumental in exposing judges’ wrongdoing that caused the resignation of Justice Sotomayor and other federal justices and judges? There is precedent for it: the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d).

 

  1. Nothing will energize the further investigation of wrongdoing by both federal and state judges as the resignation of a Supreme Court justice who failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(ol:196§6). That is the fairly low standard that can easily be met for the investigation to have far-reaching consequences. That is why advocates want to set in motion a Watergate-like generalized and first-ever media investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges(ol:200§I).

 

  1. The requirements of networking effectively
  2. Networking takes more than just sending yet another email, which may not even be opened because it is bobbing up and down in the incessant flow of junk emails that inundate our email boxes every day. That is an inefficient, trust-to-luck way of networking (as opposed to implementing the inform and outrage strategy: informing the national public by mass emailing it of judges’ wrongdoing and so outraging it at them as to stir it up to force politicians to investigate them(ol:219§B)).

 

  1. Politicians do not even accept an email that one tries to send them through their website if one cannot state that one resides in their jurisdictional territory.

 

  1. Knowledge is Power: learning the facts is the foundation of networking
  2. Networking begins well before networking advocates contact the networking target. The first step is learning the facts so that advocates can identify the ‘friendly’ or harmonious interests that they and the target have. Knowing those interests is the foundation for thinking strategically (ol:197§1). That is the process through which advocates determine with whom they can network and on what grounds.

 

  1. Once they knows the facts about the target, they need to understand the circumstances surrounding(ol:196§F) him or her so as to detect opportunities and obstacles.

 

  1. With that knowledge, advocates can craft the strategy(ol:193§D) to present to the target on how both can advance their respective interests with mutually beneficial effects(ol:199§2). That includes a plan for taking concrete, realistic, and feasible action on the information presented.

 

  1. Knowledge also allows advocates to handle effectively the target’s counter-arguments. That is another way for them to show the target that they know what they are talking about and should be taken seriously.

 

  1. Thus, before advocates begin networking, it is crucial that they learn how judges’ wrongdoing manifest itself(ol:190¶¶1-7), its deteriorating impact on their moral fiber(jur: 50§b), and the injury in fact that it causes other people(jur:42§6). To that end, advocates can read the article(ol:190) that summarizes this study(jur:1) of judges’ wrongdoing and its(references).

 

  1. For instance, not all wrongdoing judges actively do wrong as principals. They also do wrong as accessories after the fact by even keeping silent about the principals’ wrongdoing, thus failing their duty(ol:160§B) to denounce it to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and judicial process. By condoning their past wrongdoing, they encourage both principals to do more wrong and others to begin doing wrong, whereby they become accessories before the fact(jur:88§§a-c).

 

  1. Those who want to effectively network cannot avoid doing their homework…because Knowledge is Power.

 

  1. Contacting the network target in a professional way

 

  1. If advocates do not know their target, they should first send him or her a professionally crafted letter that offers something of value –the opposite of begging for help-, with facts, sound reasoning, plenty of common sense, superior grammar, no typos, correct punctuation, adequate layout, etc.(e.g., to journalists: ol:176, 185, 186, 215, 223; to politicians: jur:ii; to others: ol:197¶¶39,41)

 

  1. Advocates may print any of the articles herein and attach it to their letter(ol:146, 185, 219, 224).

 

  1. The most effective way for advocates to network with friends or acquaintances is in person. If they cannot meet them, they should phone them to discuss the networking grounds and what each stands to gain from jointly advancing their respective interests(networking topics, ol:198§b).

 

  1. If you successfully practice networking for judicial exposure and reform, then as people make up their minds during the long presidential race who and what will advance their and our country’s interest in honest judiciaries, they may nationally recognize you as one of We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§K; on Dr. Cordero’s offer to make presentations, ol:225§D).

 

I look forward to hearing from you. Meantime, kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

I encourage you to share and post this email widely.

 

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

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

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/

NOTE: When emailing Dr. Cordero, place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses (for evidence of interference with his emails see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ggl:1 et seq.).

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.

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