FRAUDULENT COURT HISTORIES: THE TORTURE OF VETERANS: [Victims of Court Corruption] Request to post or in the alternative for the email below to be distributed

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Request to post or in the alternative for the email below to be distributed
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:39:38 -0400
From:	Richard Cordero <dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com>
To:	jail4judges-owner@yahoogroups.com

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 People

1. 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 me¹⁰²^a,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 Court¹⁰⁴^b,¹⁰⁹^c as well as in each representative administrative body of the Federal Judiciary¹¹⁹.

B. Proposal for an investigation of wrongdoing by J. Sotomayor & P. Obama

1. 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 hers¹⁰²^a. 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 judges¹⁹^a 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 system¹⁹^e 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 complaints²⁰^a,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 2^nd Circuit’s council did, of which Then-Judge Sotomayor was a member²⁰^d. 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 evasion¹⁰²^c

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; ¹³⁹^d) 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.