[Victims of Court Corruption] Dr. Richard's Cordeo's Plan of Action
Dr. Richard Cordero
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Re: Request to post or in the alternative for the email below to be di stributed |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:42:52 -0400 |
| From: | Richard Cordero <dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com> |
| To: | Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>, "koolbiker@netzero.net" <koolbiker@netzero.net>, johnwolfgram@hotmail.com, JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com |
Dear Mr. Frank Cottone, Mr. Branson, and JAIL Members,
Indeed, Mr. Cottone, you reached out to me on Saturday, March 14, 2009, and I replied that day by sending you two links to my articles describing a plan of action.
I trust that by now the lawyers that you have been working with have realized that trying to reform the system of justice from within, that is, by suing in court, is an exercise in futility grounded in what I now, after the enormous amount of research and litigation that I have engaged in, have realized to be ignorance. The official statistics of the U.S. courts prove it:
In the more than 223 years since the Federal Judiciary was created in 1789 under Article III of the Constitution –2,131 justices, judges, and magistrates were in office on 30sep1114– the number of those removed is only 8!15 A person confirmed to the federal bench becomes an effectively unimpeachable Judge Above the Law. See also Section B.1, of the article below.
The blue superscripts are references to my main research document containing the proposal for action; it is at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf.
The strategy and its supporting research and litigation experience are described in the article below. It will allow you and the other JAIL members to understand why a grand jury, which necessarily must be followed by a suit in court, is also a futile exercise since judges are not going to incriminate another judge, much less a former judge who now is a justice of the Supreme Court, that is, Then-2nd Circuit Judge and Now-Justice Sotomayor.
I am interested in meeting with the lawyers that you know. I am in New York City. I respectfully request that you share with them my research and propositive document, id., so that they may find out about the multidisciplinary team that I am forming together with journalists, statisticians, accountants, software programmers, IT experts, donors, and others; see id. >jur:137§h.
By proceeding on the basis of a plan that is fact-supported, reasonable, consisting of feasible concrete steps, and exclusive of any wishful thinking, we have a realistic opportunity of making the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing a campaign issue, as described in the article below.
For those who give precedence to ousting President Obama from office, this plan can contribute to doing so by discrediting him, who nominated J. Sotomayor and covered her wrongdoing and curbing his fundraising from disappointed supporters, as described in the article below.
After reading that article and the main document, the lawyers and JAIL members will understand the meaning of the headings of the plan for concrete action:
A. Contacting the presidential candidates (see below)
B. Searching for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets
1. NY, Florida, and D.C. property registries
2. as former member of the board of directors of the State of New York Mortgage Agency
3. loans, security, and interest rate related to her real estate and other investments
4. proceeds of cashing in her partnership interest upon leaving Pavia & Harcourt, the boutique law firm where she was corporate litigator for high-end clients, such as Ferrari, Fendi, and Bulgari
C. J. Sotomayor’s cover-up of a bankruptcy fraud scheme
1. her withholding from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the DeLano case, which she presided over but could have incriminated her in the scheme
2. search for the listed documents and properties of DeLano, the 39-year veteran bankruptcy officer that went “bankrupt”
D. What the President knew and when he knew it
1. Contacting the fired and suspended secret service agents (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
E. Search of judges’ wrongdoing as their modus operandi
1. accounting and statistical study of federal judges’ publicly filed mandatory annual financial disclosure reports in search of patterns of concealment of their own assets
2. search for “cronyism”, unjust enrichment, and debtor-creditor asset concealment and preferential payments as part of the bankruptcy fraud scheme run by judges in the personal bankruptcy cases where bankruptcy judges ruled on $373 billion n CY10 alone, which cases are in practice are unreviewable and brought overwhelmingly by easy prey, non-appellant pro ses
F. Court opinion auditing
……..1. for patterns of bias, perfunctoriness, and other forms of wrongdoing
2. as basis of an incriminating sociogram of wrongdoing among judges and between them and insiders and of profiling their vicitms
To expose the wrongdoing of federal judges, let alone to take on a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by a sitting President, we need a team of the best and the brightest with specific professional skills. However, everybody can contribute to this effort by distributing as widely as possible the article below and the main document, id.; and by donating to support the plan implementation. Everyone has a role to play so long as they want to take action.
After the lawyers that you, Mr. Cottone, and others that JAIL members know have reviewed the proposal, they can comment on it and we can take it from there. Time is of the essence to make this issue a key one before the nominating conventions in August:
‘What did the President(jur:68§5) and the justices know about J. Sotomayor’s tax evasion102c and other judges’106 wrongdoing and when did they know it?’
Together we can trigger history!
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
A Novel Strategy For Taking Action Against Wrongdoing Judges
by removing the fight from the judges’ turf, the courts, out to the public,
and taking into account the interests of journalists and politicians during a presidential campaign, when they are most receptive, so that they may help in exposing wrongdoing by judges so outrageous as to stir up the public to demand that the media and the authorities investigate the judges and their enabling judiciary and undertake
effective legislated judicial accountability and discipline reform
A. Failed strategy: fighting in court judges’ wrongdoing
1. Numberless people in hundreds of Yahoo- and Googlegroups and legal matter websites complain that judges disregard due process and even violate the law. They tried to reform the judicial system through lawsuits only to realize that the effort to hold judges accountable by taking action against them in their own turf, the courts, was futile. The reason for this is that judges will not expose the wrongdoing of their peers and risk exposing their own as well. That is why I began to research the conditions that allow, and just as important, the motive that drives, them to do wrong.
1. Study of judges resulting from original research and litigation experience
2. My study(jur:1; iii/endnote.ii) concentrates on the model for many judiciaries, the Federal one. It found that judges’ unaccountability(jur:21§0) is their wrongdoing’s enabling condition, which as a result, is riskless, all the more self-beneficial, and thus irresistible. Unaccountable judges indi-vidually interpret and apply the law and the rules arbitrarily. They also take action collectively: They coordinate(jur:88§§a-d) their wrongdoing to increase their benefit from it and ensure their interdependent survival. Each one knows enough about the wrongdoing of the others to bring them down as she or he falls. That is why judges will not expose the wrongdoing of their peers, for they fear retaliation, including being treated as treacherous pariahs, and self-incrimination.
B. New strategy: out-of-court, investigators’ self-interest, and public outrage
3. The strategy’s novel approach is to expose judges’ wrongdoing, not in court based on cases or anecdotes of individual litigants, but rather in public on the strength of the official statistics of all cases; and to rely for the exposure not just on litigants victimized by judges, but rather mainly on the self-interest of those who have the skill or the authority to investigate wrongdoing judges and whose findings can so outrage the public as to stir it to demand corrective action from politicians.
edia in 1. The media in search of a Pulitzer Prize-worthy scoop
4. During a presidential campaign, journalists’ interest in a politics-related scoop is heightened. Such is one that takes root in media as reputable as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico102a and their suspicion that President Obama’s first justiceship nominee, Then-Judge Sotomayor, concealed assets of her own(jur:61§1). This points to breaking the law requiring dis-closure102d, tax evasion, and laundering assets obtained from an unlawful source(jur:64§3). Since both the President(jur:68§5) and the Senate102b(jur:69§6) vetted her, it must be established whether they learned about it but covered it up by lying to the public when they vouched for her honesty so as to advance their interest in catering to the constituencies petitioning for another woman and the first Latina on the Supreme Court in exchange for their support for the passage of the President’s signature piece of legislature: affordable health care reform, now Obamacare. Journalists’ competitive effort to score a scoop can set off a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(jur:121§1) of ‘Sotomayor’s assets’, ‘what the President and the Senate knew and when they knew it’, and similar wrongdoing by other judges176;139d.
5. The media’s steady stream of incriminating findings of coordinated judicial wrongdoing can pro-voke public outrage(jur:83§2). It can stir up the public to demand that the authorities, e.g., Con-gress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts, also investigate, in particular, the evidence of Justice Sotomayor-President Obama’s wrongdoing and, in general, the conditions and motive that have enabled judges to do wrong in such coordination among themselves and so routinely as to have turned wrongdoing into the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:46§5).
6. The authorities, wielding their subpoena, contempt, and penal powers, can investigate so incisively as to make findings that are even more outrageous. As a result, the public can demand that the Judiciary be reformed through legislation(jur:131§§d,e,g) enforced and monitored(jur:133§§f,h) from the outside, as opposed to a predetermined exculpatory internal review by the Judiciary100b.
7. Public pressure can operate on the politicians’ interest in being voted in and not out of office. It can force challenging candidates to call for, and incumbents to undertake, such reform. They will not do it without such pressure, for it is contrary to their interest in not antagonizing life-tenured judges that can declare their signature legislation unconstitutional18 or otherwise retaliate against them if those politicians appear before those judges on charges of their own wrongdoing16.
8. One of those candidates is Gov. Romney. Right now he faces an 18% disadvantage in women’s vote. Almost every analyst agrees that he cannot win the general election with such percentage of disaffection on the part of half of 52% of the electorate. Hence, he has a survival interest in so embarrassing President Obama and causing such disappointment among his supporters as to dissuade them from making donations and volunteering work to his campaign, and to dispose them to express to pollster after pollster that they do not intend to vote for the President.
9. Such voters’ reaction can diminish the President’s intake of resources enough to make him a com-paratively ineffective campaigner and mar the perception of his electability. Worse yet, it can absorb him with the dilemma whether to defend his former justiceship nominee, thus tying his name and fate to hers, or call for her resignation or even impeachment, thus acknowledging her wrongdoing and risking involvement in its cover-up. Either scenario will strengthen the media’s interest in meeting the demand of a profitable newsmarket riveted by its investigation(jur:101§D).
C. Prioritizing judicial reform over politics
10. From the point of view of judicial reform advocates, the issue is one of clear priorities: whether advancing the objective of judicial reform by taking advantage of a window of opportunity is more important for them and a nation governed by the rule of law than having one or the other party stay or come to power only to maintain the same conditions enabling coordinated judicial wrongdoing. The applicable principle here is: The enemy of my judicial enemy is my friend.
11. Gov. Romney need not expose the wrongdoing of J. Sotomayor and P. Obama because of any deep commitment that he may or may not have to an honest judiciary that impartially applies the law to itself and others. He only needs to do it. He certainly can do an effective “job” of it, just as he did a devastating “job” in the Florida primary on Speaker Gingrich right after the Speaker’s decisive victory in South Carolina, and did the same “job” on Sen. Santorum thereafter.
12. By the same token, Speaker Gingrich, Sen. Santorum, and Rep. Paul as well as other prominent national figures have an interest in making the proposed initial presentation(jur:xxv) of the available evidence of judicial wrongdoing(jur:§§A,B) in order to come back or into to the national spotlight, draw attention as the People’s Champion of Justice, and earn the currency of public approval with which to play a meaningful game at their party convention.
D. Embracing the new strategy to pursue the same commitment to justice
13. Many judicial victims and court journalists have shown an enormous commitment to the pursuit of justice in their own cases and to courageously and truthfully reporting about judges and their oral or written opinions. They now have the opportunity to show the same commitment to pursuing an honest judiciary where judges are treated as what they are: public servants hired to administer justice impartially and fairly according to law and accountable to We the People.
14. They can contribute to it by implementing this novel strategy that is founded on a deeper and broader base of knowledge and that is realistic and feasible: To expose outside the courts judges’ unaccountability and consequent wrongdoing and cause an outraged public to demand of the media and the authorities that they investigate wrongdoing judges and their enabling judiciary and undertake effective legislated judicial accountability and discipline reform.
1. Feasible steps for implementing knowledgeable and realistic strategy
15. Implementing that strategy calls for the study* of judges’ wrongdoing to be widely distributed and posted as a means of appealing to the interest of journalists’ in a Pulitzer Prize-worthy scoop and that of presidential and other candidates in having a say at their party convention and in being elected. To draw attention to the study and its evidence, these targeted summaries can be addressed to:
a. judicial victims and reform advocates(jur:xxii); handout to distribute at meetings(jur:xxiv);
b. talkshow hosts, journalists, and news anchors(jur:xvii); investigative query for them(jur:xvi);
c. investigative journalist interested in investigating this story with a professional team(jur:xxx);
d. presidential and other political candidates and their staffers(jur:i) as well as other national figures and organizations capable of making the proposed broadly publicized initial presentation(jur:xv) of the available evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent wrongdoing(jur:21§A) and the concrete case of concealment of assets by Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, and its cover-up by President Obama and the Senate(jur:61§B).
2. Reasonably expected rewards
16. If you take knowledgeable, realistic, and committed action now for the sake of your case, your work, and of “Equal Justice Under Law”, you can set in motion events and assist in the emergence of an academic and business venture(jur:137§h) that can lead to legislated judicial ac-countability and discipline reform. Your rewards can be not only material, but also self-realizing, noble, and enduring commensurate with your effort(jur:2§7). Indeed, you can trigger history!
*************************************************************
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request to post or in the alternative for the email below to be di stributed Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:28:28 GMT From: koolbiker@netzero.net <koolbiker@netzero.net> To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org CC: johnwolfgram@hotmail.com, JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com
Isn't Cordero here in NJ? I remember his name and reached out to him several times.
I am involved in the cases with Obama's birth certificate and have seen some federal abuse. What exactly are we to do, launch an investigation on Sotomayer? What about a federal grand jury investigation? I can arrange for a meeting with several folks I work with along with Dr. Cordero if he is interested.
Frank
Dear Mr. Branson and Jail4Judges Members,
I would like to introduce myself and then set forth the investigation proposed in the text below, whose summarizing title is:
Proposal To Judicial Reform Advocates and Journalists For An Investigation,
Based On Articles in TheNew York Times, The Washington Post,and Politico, Legal Research on Official Federal Judiciary Sources, and a Cost-effective Strategy,
of Federal Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing so Routine and Widespread as to Have Become Their Institutionalized Modus Operandi and Turned Their Enabling Federal Judiciary Into a Safe Haven for Wrongdoing That Escapes the Control of, and Harms, We the People1. This investigation can proceed from the advanced point where journalists will find the many leads to the actors, victims, and enabling conditions of judicial wrongdoingiii already collected by the three above-mentioned reputable news organizations and by me102a,c. It aims to be cost-effective by narrowly focusing on a case that can reach a level of public attention high enough to impact the presidential election campaign and attain its ultimate objective: to force Congress and state legislatures to legislate, enforce, and monitor judicial accountability and discipline reform based on constitutional ‘checks and balances’ and controls operated from outside of, and on, the judiciaries by We the People and its elected representatives.2. The immediate objective is to set off through an initial presentation(jur:xxv) of the available leads a Watergate-like generalized and first-ever media investigation of federal judges and their Judiciary, an objective firmly supported by precedent known to professional journalists, the Watergate scandal(jur:2¶¶4-8).Note: Blue text references are keyed to:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
A. My legal research and litigation experience
3. I am a doctor of law, a lawyer in New York City, and a legal researcher-writer on federal judges’ unaccountability and consequent wrongdoing. My current study is below(jur:1). I have conducted my research, not where most people do, to wit, in the courtrooms where trials or oral argument take place or in the published opinions of the courts and writings by law professors, students, and lawyers; but rather where most people do not, that is, I focus on the official statistics, reports, and news and newsletters of the federal courts published by the federal courts, in general, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts11, in particularii.
4. As its name indicates, this Office assists in the administration of the federal courts with matters such as collecting the statistics on caseload, judges, complaints about judges’ misconduct, etc.11. While it has no adjudicatory or appellate functions whatsoever, its director and deputy director are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who removes them after consulting with the Judicial Conference of the U.S., composed of the chief justice and 26 other top and representative federal judges(28 U.S.C.§60186). Hence, the Office is the spokesman for the Judiciary. Its publications can be used to impeach with their own words the honesty of judges as a class and the Federal Judiciary as an institution. That is why research on it is so valuable and promising.
5. In addition to my original research, my study is based on my experience in litigating cases from federal bankruptcy, district, and circuit courts to the Supreme Court104b,109c as well as in each representative administrative body of the Federal Judiciary119.
B. Proposal for an investigation of wrongdoing by J. Sotomayor & P. Obama1. Federal judges protect themselves: 99.82% of complaints are dismissed
6. At the time Then-Judge Sotomayor was being considered by President Obama for nomination to the Supreme Court, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico vetted her and found grounds to suspect her of concealing assets of hers102a. The evidence obtained through my research and litigation shows that concealment of assets is a routine practice in the Federal Judiciary. This statement is all the more plausible upon learning that the Federal Judiciary has a self-policing buddy system of life-tenured judges judging judges19a with no input of non-judges.
7. Any federal judge ever so slightly disciplined is a potential enemy for the rest of his or her professional life. What is more, the Supreme Court justices are exempt from even this system19e just as they are not subject to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges!97 When the top officers of an institution can do whatever they want, those below, who were their former complicit peers, do as they like. They know so much about each other’s wrongdoing that if one is allowed to fall, he or she can bring down all the others through domino effect.
8. That is what happens in fact. All misconduct complaints against federal judges and magistrates are filed with the respective chief circuit judge. In the 1oct96-30sep08 12-year period these chiefs dismissed systematically 99.82% of those complaints20a,b. Any petitions for review of dismissals are filed with the respective circuit’s judicial council, which is composed of only life-tenured district and circuit judges. In that same period, the councils denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals(jur:23§b).
9. That is what the 2nd Circuit’s council did, of which Then-Judge Sotomayor was a member20d. She protected her peers with the same absolute partiality regardless of the nature and gravity of their complained-about misconduct –e.g., bribery, corruption, conflict of interests, bias, prejudice, abuse of power, etc.122– with which she can now demand that they protect her(jur:23¶23).
10. All this results in judges being held unaccountable. The statistics prove it: In the more than 223 years since the Federal Judiciary was created in 1789 under Article III of the Constitution –2,131 justices, judges, and magistrates were in office on 30sep1114– the number of those removed is only 8!15 A person confirmed to the federal bench becomes an unimpeachable Judge Above the Law.
2. Money & politics: J. Sotomayor’s asset concealment & P. Obama’s cover-up
11. Judges’ unaccountability makes their wrongdoing riskless. The most insidious motive for doing wrong makes theirs irresistible: money!(jur:26§2) Bankruptcy judges handle 80% of all new filings in the Federal Judiciary32 and ruled on $373 billion in only the personal bankruptcies filed in CY1031. Their decisions are in practice unreviewable(jur:27§3). Their rulings, wrong or wrongful, stand. This gives them the opportunity to abuse their means: unaccountable decision-making power.
12. Then-Judge Sotomayor concealed assets not only of her own, as suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:61§1). She help conceal assets also involved in a bankruptcy fraud scheme trafficking in large sums of money(jur:62§2) and run by a bankruptcy judge, who was the appointee of hers and her circuit judge peers(jur:64§3): All federal bankruptcy judges are appointed to a 14-year renewable term by their circuit judges59 and can be removed by their council. This creates the opportunity for pay-to-stay collusion(jur:49§c). To avoid incrimination, any money changing dirty hands must be concealed and any investigation obstructed.
13. The President had reason to know about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets of hers and of the scheme.(jur:68§5) Yet, he covered it up and lied to the public about her integrity. He did so to curry favor with voters that wanted a Latina and another woman on the Supreme Court and whose support he counted on as he prepared for the battle to adopt his signature legislation: Obamacare
3. Life-tenured justice & presidential campaign: stakes higher than in Watergate
14. No doubt federal judges are unaccountable and by means of complaints they are untouchable. Yet, they are the most vulnerable of government officers to the easiest form of incrimination: competent and respected journalists showing that they gave “the appearance of impropriety”. By doing so, they forced Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to resign on May 14, 1969.(jur:82§d)
15. That “appearance of impropriety” is all the proposed investigation needs to show about J. Sotomayor. It can become very effective when coupled with a widely-known incriminating query that already proved its devastating effect: It was asked of every witness during the nationally televised congressional hearings on the Watergate scandal; it brought about the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974(jur:2¶¶4-8). Today that query would be phrased thus:
What did the President(jur:68§5) and the justices and judges know
about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and consequent tax evasion102c
and other judges’ wrongdoing(jur:64§a) and when did they know it?
16. This query lays out the investigation’s enticing potential for journalists in quest for a Pulitzer Prize-worthy scoop. Moreover, the available evidence(jur:21§§A,B) and any additional resulting from the numerous leads167 and the outline of the proposed investigation(jur:101§D) can allow journalists to attain a key intermediate objective: to set off a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(jur:125§a) of ‘Sotomayor’s assets’, ‘what the President knew and when he knew it’, and other judges’ wrongdoing(cf. jur:102¶¶d,e; 139d) under cover of knowing indifference and willful ignorance or blindness(jur:79 §§a-d) agreed upon implicitly by practice or explicitly.
4. Wrongdoing evidence initially presented by VIP at media-permeated event
17. Setting off a Watergate-like investigation can be accomplished by publishing an expository article(jur:127§b) or making the proposed initial presentation of the Sotomayor-Obama-judges’ wrongdoing evidence at a press conference or another event well attended by the media, e.g., editors’ convention, journalism school student job fair, university commencement(jur:121§1).
18. The presentation would be even more impactful if it were made by one of the presidential candidates(jur:xv). All of them –even the President1- have criticized federal judges, albeit for being “activist” or “liberal”, which are subjective notions. Now they can base their criticism on the objective evidence of the judges’ wrongdoing(jur:xxv) and thus become the People’s Champion of Justice.
19. The investigation(jur:101§D) can develop its own unstoppable momentum to the point of having a significant impact on the party conventions and presidential campaign. That is part of a realistic and feasible strategy(jur:xxvii): to expose a case of judicial wrongdoing that reveals it as the Federal Judiciary’s modus operandi and so outrages the public as to stir it up to demand during a presidential campaign, when politicians are most receptive, what is this process’s ultimate objective: legislated judicial accountability reform enforced and monitored from outside the Judiciary.
5. Collaborating by combining skills and knowledge, whether for professional recognition or judicial integrity
20. Thus, I respectfully suggest that we collaborate on this investigation. You can contribute your journalistic investigative skills, contacts, and access to the public(jur:xx), and I can provide my research, leads, and strategy for exposing wrongdoing that runs throughout the Judiciary all the way to the Supreme Court under protection of the President and other politicians(jur:69§6).
21. Successful collaboration can open the way for a multidisciplinary academic and business venture (jur:125§3) to advocate(jur:127§§b-d) and monitor(jur:131§§e-h) judicial accountability and discipline reform.
22. So I look forward to hearing from you. Together we can trigger history!
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
Judicial Discipline Reform
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
59 Crescent Street
Brooklyn, NY 11208
tel. (718)827-9521
posted by fritz at 6:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home