Your "In Bashing Trump" article, Lev, is most absorbing. There was actually
no need for Trump to take Chief Justice Roberts' platitudes seriously. He
didn't.
Instead he merely proved his point by packing the US Supreme Court and some 197
other court positions with "Trump judges and justices," leaving Roberts with
nothing further to say.
One thing bothers me about these purloined documents. Trump likes to say that
the government has inserted their own materials into this collection with the
intent of framing him. Why hadn't he developed his own detailed record of what
these documents consisted of during the many months preceding the FBI's raid on
Mar-a-Lago? And why hasn't this point been raised by journalists?
Julianne
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 06:35:50 PM EDT, Lev
<levt2002@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll second Dr. Cordero's appeal to shed journalistic light on the arbitrary
nature of judicial decision-making -- which is obvious even in the recent
decision by Judge Cannon regarding the Mar-a-Lago search, per 2-min piece
titled "In bashing Trump, New York Times sides with him against Chief Justice
Roberts": In bashing Trump, New York Times sides with him against Chief Justice
RobertsBest,Lev
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
In bashing Trump, New York Times sides with him against Chief Justice Ro...
by Lev Tsitrin Something stirred the righteous indignation of the New York
Times to its deepest of depths. "A ju...
|
|
|
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 02:36:31 PM EDT,
dr.richard.cordero_esq@xxxxxxxxxxx <dr.richard.cordero_esq@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NOTES: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
You are encouraged to share and post it to social media as widely
as possible in your own interest and that of the rest of We the People; e.g.,
click “Reply All” and “Send”. To subscribe to emails similar to
the one hereunder go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel
↓Register or + New or Users >Add New; or fill out the New User form at
https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.
The email below had a consistent format when sent. If it shows
irregularities when received, e.g., joinedwords or different font sizes, they
crept in during transit and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf
version of this email -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is found
here and downloadable through the next link. Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx,
DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx
Dear Ms. Mo and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,‡
Thank you, Ms. Mo, for your email.
Kindly have your lawyer review Strickland v. U.S., where the plaintiff, Ms.
Strickland, had all the judges, that is, "the bench", of the Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit recuse themselves.
Moreover, plaintiff Strickland sued the United States and the Judicial
Conference of the U.S, the highest policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary,
which holds its twice a year meetings behind closed doors and never holds a
press conference. It is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and includes all the chief judges of the 13 circuits and the two national
courts as well as representative federal district and bankruptcy judges.
In addition, plaintiff Strickland sued the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts (AO), which provides administrative services to all the federal courts
through its 20 committees, all composed of judges appointed by the Chief
Justice, as are the AO director and deputy director.
Plaintiff Strickland also sued judges, AO, and judicial circuit officers in
their official and individual capacities.
A PA state courtordered judges who sent juveniles to government paid/privately
run detentionfacilities in exchange for kickbacks to pay victims $206 million
in compensatory and punitive damages.
A question that your lawyer should consider is whether without going through
all the appellate stages to the state supreme court, as is normally required,
the Florida judges and their judiciary can be sued in federal court:
a. on the basis of "probable bias" of Florida judges in favor of their state
colleagues and their own judiciary, which denies the fundamental element of due
process, that is, a fair and impartial tribunal;
1) The Supreme Court has indicated that recusaldoes not require proof of actual
bias, but rather a showing of circumstances“in which experience teaches that
the probability of actual bias on thepart of the judge or decision-maker is too
high to be constitutionallytolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35,
47(1975). (emphasis added)
2) In Caperton v. Massey, slip opinion, 556 U. S. __(2009),the Supreme Court
“stressed that it was not required to decide whether in fact[the judge] was
influenced [by one of the litigants]. The proper constitutionalinquiry is
whether sitting on the case then before [him] would offer a possibletemptation
to the average judge to lead him not to hold the balance nice, clearand true.
[Where] the probability of actual bias rises to anunconstitutional level
[recusal is required].” (internal quotations omitted; Caperton,pages 8-9, 16)
“Circumstances and relationships must be considered.” (id., 10);(emphasis
added).
b. on an application by analogy of the principles underlying diversity of
citizenship, which allows a suit to be filed in, or removed to, federal court
where an out-of-state party sues, or is sued by, a state party and it is
necessary to avoid the possibility of bias by a state court in favor of the
state party.
See also:
c. Brooklyn Beats Crime By Cleaning Record Tied ToDirtyCops: All of this could
have been prevented if they just made thecops pinky swear not to plant
evidence; Chris Williams; Above the Law;September 9, 2022;
cwilliams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; d. Brooklyn district attorney[EricGonzalez] moves to
dismiss nearly 400 convictions tied to dirty NYPDcops; John Annese; New York
Daily News; September 7, 2022.
Please, share this email and the article below with your lawyer and have
him/her share with me the motion filed in your case.
Share with your lawyer and all other Advocates my offer of a presentation at
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_presentation_to_professors&students.pdf.
I look forward to hearing from you, your lawyers, and Advocates.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx, DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx
******************************
NOTES: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
Youare encouraged to share and post it to social media as widely
as possible inyour own interest and that of the rest of We the People; e.g.,
click “ReplyAll” and “Send”.
Tosubscribe to emails similar to the one hereunder go to
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org<left panel ↓Register or + New or
Users >Add New;or fill out the New User form at
https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php.
Theemail below had a consistent format when sent. If it shows
irregularities whenreceived, e.g., joinedwords or different font sizes, they
crept in duringtransit and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf
version of this email-as such likely to be free of irregularities- is found
here and downloadablethrough the next link. Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx,
DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx
| Professor Susan Rose-Ackerman Yale Law School susan.rose-ackerman@xxxxxxxx
tel. (203)432-6769 | Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen
Harvard Law School
jsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel. (617)496-5487 |
Dear Professor Rose-Ackerman, Prof. Rose-Ackerman, peers, and students,‡ 1.
I read with interest, Prof.Rose-Ackerman, your paper “Judicial Independence and
Corruption”. 2.Thanks to your arguing, Prof. Gersen, of Strickland v. U.S.,
the Courtof Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held last April 26that the Federal
Judiciary itself and its officers, including judges, can onconstitutional and
statutory grounds be sued and held liable in their official and
individualcapacities. 3. This is a proposal to follow aseries of five
strategic steps to expose judicial independence as unaccountability thatallows
judges’ riskless corruption and abuseof power for their gain and convenience.
Those steps should lead to a classaction to compensate their victims. Yale and
Harvard law students can take thelead in that exposure as they did in the
opposition to the nomination of Then-Judge BrettKavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
The action can be a teaching event, as showninfra. 4. The first step is for
you and yourstudents to invite me to present the proposal by video conference
or in personto you, them, and your peers. You can preview it my article at♦ and
onmy website Judicial Discipline Reform at
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. That site has attracted ;
countlesswebvisitors and turned into subscribers 44,763 of them as of September
9, 2022. 5. They have been induced to subscribeby my professional law research
and writing, and strategic thinking. You allcan assess the validity of that
statement by reviewing the foundation of myarticles posted there, namely, my
three-volume study of judges and theirjudiciaries♣: Exposing Judges'
Unaccountabilityand
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting* † ♣ 6. That study collects and
discussesabundant evidence(OL:194§E)showing that judges individually and as a
class through coordination engage incorruption and abuse of power. The most
recent and indisputable evidencethereof is found in the series of articles that
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) began topublish on September 28, 2021, under the
initial title “131 Federal JudgesBroke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had
a Financial Interest”. 7. At last count, 58 of those judges had instructed
their clerks ofcourt to notify the parties to those cases that those judges
should haverecused themselves then, have done so now, and new judges will be
assigned totheir cases. 8. The Federal Judiciary has not takenany
disciplinary action against any of those judges. Judges protect each other
throughtheir explicit or implicit reciprocal cover-up agreement:‘Today you
protect me andtomorrow I’ll protect you, for if you let them take me down, I’ll
bring youwith me!’ 9.This explains why no action is goingto be taken by
Attorney General Merrick Garland given that he was a member, andfor 7 years the
chief judge, of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any
investigation of judges authorizedby him even if he subsequently recused
himself would soon incriminate him astheir accessory: He kept quite after
learning of their act of corruption andabuse, whereby his expected silence
enabled them before their next act; not tomention if he were exposed as a
principal. 10. So, it falls on law professors, students,and lawyers to muster
the courage and take the initiative to expose judges' misconduct and the
cover-up agreement that perpetuates it. 11. Thesecond step envisages your and
your students’ sharing this proposal with theofficers of the student class and
associations that will vie for new membersduring the fair of associations to be
held at the beginning of next academicyear. Thus, time is of the essence. 12.
Itis also so because the public is getting ready to vote in the
midtermelections. It can hold accountable the politicians who nominated and
confirmedjudicial candidates and since then protect them as ‘our men and women
onthe bench’, their harm to others notwithstanding. Hence the importance
ofturning into a key electoral issue judges’ corruption and abuse of power
andpoliticians’ condonation of them. 13. Thethird step aims to do that by
professors and students holding press conferenceswhere they ask the media to
join them in demanding that President Biden release the secret reports that
theFBI has submitted to presidents after vetting judicial candidates
byexercising, when needed, its subpoena power. That demand will be justified
bythe need to answer this question: What did the President and his
predecessorsknow about the candidates' corruption and abuse and when did they
know it? Will they claimthat the reports were ‘accidentally erased during a
system upgrade’, as theSecret Service and Homeland Security have concerning
emails related to theJanuary 6 Capitol assault? 14. The fourth step is the
class action on behalfof judges’ victims. It will be supported by a public
informed and outraged by journalistspursuing a scoop. It finds a strong
precedent in the suit brought by 90gymnasts against the FBI and agents for over
$1 billionlast June 8, for its failure to act on the complaints against sexual
predator Dr. LarryNassar brought to FBI agents and the FBI’s cover-up of their
dereliction ofduty. 15. Inthe same vein of suing even top government
officers, seven Capitol Police officers have sued former President Trump and
the organizers of the rally at the Ellipse where he held the inflaming speech
thatpreceded the January 6 assault on the Capitol. 16. The above are
manifestations of the strongestsupport for the class action, to wit, the
national mood of intolerance of anyform of abuse. Indeed, the public has grown
increasingly determined to holdpublic figures and officers accountable and
liable to compensate their victimssince the eruption of the MeToo! and BLM
movements; the protests againstpolice brutality, socio-economic inequalities,
and the Supreme Court's reversalof Roe v. Wade; the public hearings of the
House January 6 Committee andthe lip service assurance by A.G. Garland that
"nobody is above thelaw" so that the Department of Justice will prosecute all
Capitol assaultorganizers and participants. 17. Theclass action will generate
a flood of motions to vacate, remand, and for newtrials; for the reimbursement
by recused judges of the cost of judicial processthat they rendered useless and
of disentangling contracts based on their nowvoid or voidable decisions; and
for actions against state judges and judiciaries. They will createa much-needed
niche practice for you and your students. 18. Judges' and their judiciaries'
conduct constitutes a pattern ofracketeering that warrants bringing a count
against them under federal and/orstate civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961). Such
statutes provide the injured party "shall recover threefold the damages he
sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee"
(§1964(c)). 19. The fifth step is for professors and students todevelop their
niche practice through public interest clinics centered on consultingand
bringing those motions and actions on behalf of judges’ victims. Those
clinicscan return a profit for law schools at a time of dwindling enrollment
andrevenue, as stated in the ABA Journal. 20. Instead of teaching lofty
principles of law onlyin theory applied by judges, law schools can give
practical effect in theirown and the public interest to their knowledge that
judges have institutionalizedtheir corruption and abuse of power by making them
their modus operandi. Judgesdo so risklessly for their gain and convenience
because they are held bythemselves and politicians unaccountable. “Power
corrupts, and absolute power[whose hallmark is unaccountability] corrupts
absolutely”.
21. You, your peers, and students‡ can take the proposed stepsto lead the
transformative change of law schools into a pole of power that usesits
independence and knowledge of constitutional and statutory grounds to
holdjudges and their judiciaries accountable and liable to compensation. By so
doing, you can let your actions speak with facts a tenet of our system of
justice:“Nobody is Above the Law”. Dare triggerhistory!...and you may enter
it.
Every meaningful cause needs resources forits advancement;
none can be continued,let alone advanced, without money Put yourmoney
where your outrage at abuse and quest for justice are. Supportthe
professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking at
JudicialDiscipline Reform
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. DONATE by making a deposit or an ;
online transfer througheither the Bill Pay feature of your online account or
Zelle from youraccount to TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45,routing # 260 13
673; or Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001,routing # 021 000 089. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
tel. +1(718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx, DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx******************************