Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting
Section A(* >jur:21) discusses the means, motive, and opportunity enabling federal judges to do wrong. They wield their decision-making power with no constraints by abusing their self-disciplining authority to systematically dismiss 99.82% of the complaints filed against them. This allows them to pursue the corruptive motive of money: In CY10 they ruled on $373 billion at stake in personal bankruptcies alone.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
While all bankruptcy cases constitute 80% of the cases filed every year, only .23% are reviewed by district courts and fewer than .08% by circuit courts. Such de facto unreviewability affords judges the opportunity to engage in wrongdoing, for it is riskless and all the more beneficial in professional, social, and financial terms. Yet Congress and journalists abstain from investigating their wrongdoing for fear of making enemies of life-tenured judges.
Hence, federal judges enjoy unaccountability. It has rendered their wrongdoing irresistible. They engage in it so routinely and in such coordinated fashion among themselves and with others as to have turned it into the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi.
Section B(jur:65) describes DeLano, a case that can expose one of the gravest and most pervasive forms of wrongdoing: a judge-run bankruptcy fraud scheme. The DeLano bankruptcy judge was appointed and removable by his circuit judges. The appeal was presided over by Then-Circuit Judge Sotomayor. She and her peers protected their appointee by approving his unlawful denial of, and denying in turn, every single document requested by the creditor from the debtor, a 39-year veteran bankruptcy officer, an insider who knew too much not to be allowed to avoid accounting for over $⅔ of a million.
The case is so egregious that she withheld it from the Senate Committee reviewing her justiceship nomination. Now a justice, she must keep covering up the scheme and all her and her peers’ wrongdoing, just as she must cover for the other justices and they for her.
Section C(jur:81) explains how judges cover up their wrongdoing through knowing indifference and willful ignorance and blindness; and how their standard “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” can support a strategy: DeLano exposed, an outraged public will cause a justice to resign, as it did J. Fortas, and the authorities to investigate judges and undertake judicial reform.
Section D(jur:97) deals with exposing judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing through the use of DeLano at a multimedia presentation targeted on opinion multipliers, broadcast to the public, and intended to launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of wrongdoing in the Judiciary guided by the query:
What did the President and judges know about Then-Judge Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and other judges’ wrongdoing, and when did they know it?
The investigators will demand that the President release the FBI vetting report on Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor.
The presentation will be an Emile Zola I accuse!-like denunciation to pioneer judicial unaccountability reporting.
Section D4(jur:102) proposes a Follow the money and the wire! investigation of the DeLano-J. Sotomayor story. It implements the strategy of judicial unaccountability and wrongdoing exposure, not in court before reciprocally protecting judges, but journalistically. It can be cost-effective thanks to the leads extracted from over 5,000 pages of the record of DeLano, which went from bankruptcy court to the Supreme Court. It can be confined to, or expanded beyond, the Internet, D.C., NY City, Rochester, and Albany; and search for Deep Throats in the Judiciary.
Section E(jur:119) Proposes a multidisciplinary academic and business venture to promote judicial unaccountability reporting and reform. From informing the public and assisting victims of judicial abuse tell their stories, it should lead to the creation of an institute to conduct IT research; train reformers; advocate a legislative agenda; call for citizen boards of judicial accountability and an IG for the Judiciary; and become a champion of Equal Justice Under Law.
Section F(jur:171) Offers to present at law, journalism, business, and IT schools, media outlets, and civil rights entities the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing; call for the formation of a multidisciplinary team of professionals to conduct further investigation and develop the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.
Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it!
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com
