NOTES: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of thisemail.
You are encouraged to share and post it to social media aswidely as
possible in your own interest and that of the rest of We thePeople; e.g., click
“Reply All” andsend.
To subscribe to articlessimilar to the one hereunder go to
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ;<left panel ↓Register or + New
or Users >Add New.
The article below had a consistent format when sent. If it
showsirregularities when received, they crept in during transit and are beyond
mycontrol. Kindly overlook them. Students, lawyers, pro ses, inmates,
victims of unlawful foreclosures, evictions, guardianships,bankruptcies, and
similar classes of people,
realizing that they cannot force unaccountable judges to follow the law,
can think strategically to expose their disregard for the law in court
by becoming teachers of story writing and leaders promoting out of court
unprecedentedcitizens hearings
held by journalists, media outlets, students, and professors
where all can tell their stories of judges’ riskless abuse of power,
thus informing the national public and outraging it into forcing politicians to
investigate judges and their judiciaries, compensate abusees, and
reform the system of justice
to make judges as accountable as any other person and public servant.To that
end, see below how to
READ, WRITE, and
SHAREhttp://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_becoming_teacher&leader.pdf
By Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
JudicialDiscipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx , DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx A. Nobody can force judges to apply the law:
unaccountable,they risklessly disregard it 1. You may appearin court pro se,
that is, unaccompanied by a lawyer, or you may be representedby one. Either you
or your lawyer may write the best brief,motion, and application ever.
Nonetheless, it will simply be added to theoverwhelming majority of such
writings that judges, including justices, do noteven read, as shown by the
mathof pleadings/judges, and the official statistics(OL2:457§D) ofthe Federal
Judiciary.
a. The official statistics are found in the Annual Report of the Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts [federal, as opposed to state,
courts]. The Report is filed with Congress as a publicdocument(Title 28 of the
U.S. Code of federal laws, sections 603-604(28usc§§603-604). The Director is
appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. SupremeCourt(§601).
2. Moreover, an attempt to match your legal knowledge and argumentativeskills
with those of judges and their cronies(cf. jur:32§§2-3) is hopeless because
judges have something that you cannot possiblyhave: the power to say 'This is
the decision of the court...and that's it!'
3. That puts an end to most cases since most parties lack the means toappeal;
and those who appeal have the decisions appealed from rubberstamped‘affirmed’
without discussion of the facts or the law.
a. Actually, the officialpolicy of the federal courts is to weigh pro se cases
as a third of a case. Hence,judges are not only authorized, but also expected
not to waste any more than athird of their effort and time on pro se
cases(OL2:455§§B-C).
b. Appeals by lawyers do not fare better: 93% of all appeals to the 13
federalcourts of appeals are disposed of in decisions “[on] procedural
[grounds,mostly the catchall pretext of “lack of jurisdiction”],
unsigned,unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation” Only7% are
disposed of in decisions explained in opinions(OL2:457§D).
1. Probable cause to investigate judges for running their judiciary as a
racketeering enterprise
4. In court, judges can disregard the rule of law and make new rules asthey
go. The courts are their turf. An attempt to match your legal knowledgeand
argumentative skills with judges’ is unrealistic. It betrays ignorance ofthe
relative positions of power.
a. Cf. 131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by HearingCases Where They Had a
Financial Interest; James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones, Joe Palazzolo; Wall
Street Journal; October 28, 2021;
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421?fbclid=IwAR17veisSou0tQJdrn4VM9Ssvk_JYFqCY-Foselbnkb1SsNx2ia1Fji1GAQ;
1) James.Grimaldi@xxxxxxx; https://www.wsj.com/news/author/james-v-grimaldi
2) Coulter.Jones@xxxxxxx; https://www.wsj.com/news/author/coulter-jones; reach ;
Mr. Jones at 212-416-3778
3) Joe.Palazzolo@xxxxxxx; https://www.wsj.com/news/author/joe-palazzolo ;
b. In this context, credit should be given to Senator Elizabeth Warren. In her
“I have a plan for
the Judiciary too”, she dare denounce, among other things, the systematic
failure of federal judges
to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold a financial interest in the
company of one of the parties before them. They resolve the ensuing conflict of
interests by favoring that party so as to maintain or increase the value of
their interest. Sen. Warren has identified the circumstance enabling federal
judges to commit such abusive self-enrichment to be their unaccountability.
c How many judges have been exposed in the Pandora Papers, published by the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), in Washington,
D.C., on October 3, 2021? ICIJ describes it thus:
1) “The largestinvestigation in journalism history exposes a shadow financial
system thatbenefits the world’s most rich and powerful. Offshore havens and
hiddenriches of world leaders and billionaires exposed in unprecedented leak.
ThePandora Papers reveal the inner workings of a shadow economy that benefits
thewealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else”;
https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/.
d. How many judges can be exposed by ICIJ and the Wall Street Journal joining
forces to investigate the federal judges -and subsequently their state
counterparts too- to determine whether the money that they grab by failing to
recuse themselves from cases in which they have a financial interest and their
participation in a bankruptcy fraud scheme is concealed in offshore accounts to
evade taxes and be invested on their behalf through money laundering, all of
which constitutes criminal activity?
1) Federal judges are life-tenured and in practice unimpeachable and
irremovable: In the last 232 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary
in 1789 the number of them impeached and removed is 8!, according to their own
Federal Judicial Center for research and education of judges. For comparison,
the numberof federal officers on the bench on September 30, 2020, was
2,341(Appendix6§C Table 2).
2) Federal judges are not deterredfrom committing financial crimes by the fear
of losing their jobs...or committing any othercrime, for that matter: They
dismiss 100% of complaints against them, which must be filed withthem, and deny
100% of petitions to review those dismissals.
3) Federal judges are the most powerful people in the land: A single one of
them, namely, federal District Judge James Robart of Seattle, WashingtonState,
suspended nationwide President Trump’s ban on Muslim travel and apanel of three
circuit judges unanimously –although two of them would havesufficed– sustained
the ban nationwide. Yet, candidate Trump hadcampaigned in 2016 on issuing that
ban and received the votes of more than 62.5million voters.
4) The above supports the reasonable expectation of making the 'largest scoop
in the history of journalism' by exposing the scheme whereby federal judges
have turned their Judiciary through their coordination, not only as rogue
individuals, into a racketeering enterprise. It would certainly give rise to
the 'largest institutional crisis in American history': Which of the other two
branches, never mind either of the two major political parties, would dare take
on the judges who have embezzled the public powerentrusted to them by We the
People, the sovereign source of all public power, to build for themselves a
State above the state?
5) Judges will alwaysprotect each other and thereby themselves. As then-Judge,
now-Justice NeilGorsuch put it during a courtesy visit to the Senate with a
view to his confirmation hearing: "An attack on one of our brothers and sisters
of the robeis an attack on all of us"()OL2:546. What an unambiguous rejection
of any notionsof right and wrong applicable to evaluating the conduct of 'a
robed brother or sister' in favor of an unabashed expression of judges'
gangmentality!: 'We protect a member of our gang always no matter what.'
6) That is how organizations with a 'we against the world' attitude survive and
protect their grabs of gains and convenience. It follows that judges' loyalty
is, not to the law that they took an oath to uphold, but rather to each other.
They are bound by an implicit or explicit agreement to protect their
interdependent interest in mutually assured survival(OL2:997§2): 'I know enough
of your own criminal and unethical activity so that if you help or let any
outsider take me down, I'll bring you with me!'
7) An outsider whom judges need not fear is the current U.S. attorney general
(AG). He would have to authorize the official investigation of federal judges
by the Department of Justice U.S. attorneys or the FBI. But the AG is none
other than former Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. As such, he protected them while he was their
chief, peer, or colleague, participating in their criminal activity either as a
principal or an accessory. It follows that 'their' AG Garland has to continue
to do so now...or else.
8) Judges’ do whatever they want becausethey are recommended, endorsed,
nominated, confirmed or appointed bypoliticians, who thereafter protect them as
‘our men and women on the bench”.Judges connivance with politicians assures
them that their abuse of power isriskless since they will be held
unaccountable.
5. In the face of those bullies, the People's only cry is this one of
soul-shattered impotence: "They have all the power...and we are
nothing!"...unless we join forces to expose them, with ICIJ and The Wall Street
Journal leading the unofficial investigation(cf. OL:194§E) into unaccountable
judges' institutionalized criminality. In this investigation they can be joined
by powerful media outlets:
a. Thomson Reuters, a worldwide news organization with morethan 2,500 reporters
and over 600 photojournalists, investigated judges of thestate judiciaries. In
its three-part report “The Teflon Robe”, the first of which appeared on June
30,2020, it described its finding of “hardwired judicial corruption”, that
is,corruption that is so intertwined among judges and between them and
thecommissions that are supposed to oversee their performance as to
constitutepart of their institutionalized modus operandi. This is the most
opportune timefor Reuters to extend its investigation to unaccountable federal
judges andtheir consequent riskless abuse of power.
b. Boston Globe, the main newspaper in Massachusetts and areputable one,
published on September 30, 2018, its report “Inside our secret courts”, in
whose “ private criminal hearings[conducted even by clerks with no law degree]
, who you are –and who you know– maybe just as important as right and wrong”.
6. To conduct this investigation, media outlets need not only go out to find
the evidence. They can appeal to the People to bring it in: They can hold the
proposed unprecedented citizens hearings. The latter are to be held by the
outlets and journalists, students, and professors at their media stations,
university auditoriums, and everywhere else via video conference, for people to
tell the national public their stories of how they have been abused or have
witnessed -such as court clerks and even judges acting as informants- judges’
riskless abuse of power, including their criminal activity.
B. Applying strategic thinking to outsmart judges’ abuse of power
7. It follows that you can never argue your case so convincingly asto leave
judges no choice but to incriminate themselves and their peers,colleagues, and
cronies. 8. Recognizing this, strategic thinkingaims to outmaneuver judges by
taking action out of court. It seeks to deprivejudges of politicians’
protection by creating circumstances out of court wherepoliticians have to
switch their priority to protecting their own political careers,lest they be
voted out of, or not into, office by a national public, in general, and voters,
in particular, that have been informed about, and have become outraged at,
judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse of power. Creating those
circumstances is thefunction of the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy.
9. A national public soinformed and outraged can be stirred up tocompel
politicians to investigate judges and their judiciaries, compensate abusees,and
reform the system of justice through transformative change, i.e., the system
that goes intochange comes out as a qualitatively and quantitatively different
entity. Reformativemeasures that today seem inconceivable, after the outrageous
findings willbecome unavoidable. 10. Wethe People, the Masters of all public
servants,including judicial public servants, will be enabled to exercise our
right to holdjudges accountable for their wielding of the public power
entrusted to them and liable tocompensate the victims of their abuse.
C. Your and many readers’ stories of abuse will revealpatterns of abuse
11. This is your opportunity to turn your enormouseffort in filing pro se or
becoming a lawyer into the foundation on which youbuild yourself as a teacher
and a leader. 12. The first step is for you to write yourown story of abuse by
judges. Since there are millions of abusees who want totell their stories too,
you must limit your story to 500 words. 13. Even if you have never done
so,relax, you are not being asked to write a masterpiece. Rather, you are
beinggive atwo-phase method for writing a story consisting of
accurate,significant, and verifiable facts. 14. Your story should contribute
toinforming and outraging the national public. But more importantly, it and
thestories of many other abusees should allow journalists and media outlets,
and students and professors to detect what is most persuasive than any
singlestory: patterns of judges’ abuse of power. 15. Only those patterns can
demonstratethat the abuse that was inflicted on any one abusee was not an
isolatedinstance of an otherwise fair and competent judge or even a single
rogue judge. 16. Instead, patterns of abuse show thatthe judiciary itself is a
rogue institution: It has turned abuse into itsjudges’ means of doing business
through the coordination of judges’ amongthemselves and between them and their
cronies. The judiciary has become a racketeering enterprise. Informing the
national public ofthose patterns can cause it to be outraged!and force
politicians to take investigative, compensatory, and transformative reform.
1. Writing a fact-providing story, not alaw-arguing brief 17. Abstain from
making legal argumentsin your story. Any claim that the judge(s) in your case
actedunconstitutionally and violated due process is meaningless, for that is
merelya conclusion. It can easily be dismissed as ‘the whining of a disgruntled
loser’. 18. To arrive at a conclusion in alawyerly fashion you would have to
present its legal basis with citations tocases: a. establishing the applicable
constitutional and due processrequirements; b. holding conduct similar to that
of your judges to be aviolation of those requirements; c. showing that there
is a causal link between such violation andthe injury in fact that you
suffered, which injury must be unlawful –the adverseconsequences that you
suffer for not paying your bills are not in themselvesunlawful simply because
they injure you–; and d. stating that such unlawful injury entitles you to
reliefthat the court can grant and that you requested. 19. Such legal argument
and supporting citations takefar more than 500 words to set forth. 20. A
conclusion, e.g., ‘Thiss wrong! cause itstotally unconstitutional and a
violation of due process thats completely rico’,without a legal basis, even if
voiced by a lawyer, never mind a pro se, isnothing more than a personal
opinion, a ‘cry of the heart’. It is entitled tono credibility. It
ispretentious to demand that it be accepted because ‘I say so’ and relied upon
for granting one party relief and imposing a burden on the other. It betrays
ignorance of how to ‘craft a legal argument’. 21. In addition, a legal
argument can always bechallenged by a counter argument. A judge and opposing
counsel, by training andexperience, can provide more numerous and pertinent
citations to cases as ‘authority forthe proposition that X is Y’. The judge’s
power will turn such proposition intothe law of the case: ‘That’s the end of
it...and if you don’t like it, appeal!’ 22. The alternative is shown in the
two-phasemethod for writing your story of judges' abuse. It teaches you how to
concentrate your up to 500 words on providing facts.The latter must consist of
accurate names of people, entities, places, events, dates and times, other
amounts and metrics, the titlesand/or docket numbers of relevant documents,
etc. That is the kind of information that is significantin that it can
establish that your story occurred as you say it did and what its nature is. It
isverifiable information. It can be searched in many other stories. When
itappears in several stories written independently by separate writers, it
allowsfor the detection of patterns of abuse. 23. By working hard to apply
thetwo-phase method to write your own story you will gain valuableknowledge and
experience regarding its handling in practice. They will prepare you to teach
the method to othersso that they too write accurate, significant, and
verifiable stories. 24. Each of you should send your respective story,not to
any judge or court, but rather to people in a position to let you tellit to the
national public. This will create the circumstances where the public, informed
about, and outraged at, judges' abuse of power, will pressure politicians into
protecting themselves by appearing to care about the abused, the public, by
investigating its abusers, the judges. People eminently in that position are
the following: a. the members of the Biden Commission forreforming the Supreme
Court; and b. journalists and media outlets, and journalism, law,business, and
Information Technology students and professors, who can join forces to hold the
proposed unprecedented citizens hearings. 25. Send them your story by placing
thefollowing blocs of email addresses in the To: and the cc:
boxes,respectively, of your email containing your story and this article: To:
[commissioners]
cristina.rodriguez@xxxxxxxx, robert.bauer@xxxxxxx,
kandrias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,jack.balkin@xxxxxxxx,RBauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,baude@xxxxxxxxxxxx,madams@xxxxxx,charles@xxxxxxxxxxxx,acrespo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,wdellinger@xxxxxxx,ecb95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,justin.driver@xxxxxxxx,rfallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,heather.k.gerken@xxxxxxxx,ngertner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,jgoldsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,tgriffith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,tgrove@xxxxxxxxxx,bhuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,mkang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,ojohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,lacroix@xxxxxxxxxxxx,lemos@xxxxxxxxxxxx,levi@xxxxxxxxxxxx,trevor.morrison@xxxxxxx,cnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,rick.pildes@xxxxxxx,mramsey@xxxxxxxxxxxx,krooseve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,bross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,d-strauss@xxxxxxxxxxxx,tribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,awhite36@xxxxxxx,kewhitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,michael.waldman@xxxxxxx,caroline.fredrickson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,development@xxxxxxxxxxxx,staff@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx , Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx,
cc: [journalists andacademics]
john.shiffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,michael.berens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
blake.morrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, marketresearch.thomsonreuters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, “Todd
Wallack” <twallack@xxxxxxxxx>, “BrianMcGrory Editor” <brian.mcgrory@xxxxxxxxx>,
patricia.wen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, newstip@xxxxxxxxx,
charles.ornstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tracy.weber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
spotlight@xxxxxxxxx, “Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff”
<gpduf@xxxxxxx>, “VeteransToday Managing Editor Jim W Dean” <jimwdean@xxxxxxx>,
ajaffe@xxxxxxxxxxx, Thehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,ijerr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
newsletters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mderienzo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, emily.holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, NTotenberg@xxxxxxx,
ryan.grim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Laura.Crimaldi@xxxxxxxxx, inytletters@xxxxxxxxxxx, info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Evan.Allen@xxxxxxxxx,info@xxxxxx, Elizabeth_Warren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
ginger.thompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mcnulaj@xxxxxxxxxxx, MCoyle@xxxxxxx,
communication@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, aglantz@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
joepatrice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
tips@xxxxxxxxxxx, aturturro@xxxxxxx, Opencourt@xxxxxxx, letters@xxxxxxxxxxx,
contact_us@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Matt.Rocheleau@xxxxxxxxx,oped@xxxxxxxxxxx,
jmaxeiner@xxxxxxxxx, Jackie.Botts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Jaimi.Dowdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Vernal.Coleman@xxxxxxxxx,Brendan.McCarthy@xxxxxxxxx,Andrew.Chung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Lawrence.Hurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Andrea.Januta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
D. My one-hour presentation via video conference onthe two-phase method for
writing your story
26. I realize that many people cannotafford to pay attorney’s fees. But you
can certainly appreciate that by earningthose fees is how attorneys earn the
money that they need to pay their studentloans, office and residential rent or
mortgage, law research materials,Internet and phone connections, food,
transportation, energy, water, etc. 27. In my case, paying those bills is only
rendered moredifficult by the enormous amount of effort, time, and money that I
invest in the professional law research and writing, andstrategic thinking
necessary to produce my three-volume study of judges and theirjudiciaries. It
is titled and downloadable for free thus: Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:Pioneering thenews and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability and abuse reporting* † ♣ ♣ Volume 3:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf ;
from OL3:1144-1360+ i. To openand navigate through those volumes, downloadAdobe Acrobat Reader for free. 28. In addition, I have posted manyof my
