[Victims of Court Corruption] Re: Working together
Dr. Richard Cordero, I should like to respond to your last question first. Therein you state;
"Now I would like to ask a question: In your email of Thursday, August 30, bearing the subject line “Dr. Richard Cordero Asking to Work with JAIL4Judges”, you reproduced a letter that I sent to Governor Romney, dated June 15."
You follow up your question with the statement;
"I never made that letter public. This begs the question: How did you get a hold of it?"
Dr. Cordero, I got that letter which supposedly was sent to Governor Romney, which you included in your letter asking me if I would work with you. I had no idea that that letter was not sent, nor that I was reveling a letter you never made public. I assure you that there was no involvement of the staff of Gov. Romney, nor communication either way between him or his staff and myself.
That is precisely why I stated, "I have scanned through your 151 paged proposed agenda, which appears to me to be to send, if you have not already done so, it to Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney for inclusion in his acceptance speech." I had no desire to reveal undisclosed material, nor knowledge that such was undisclosed material.
As for the title, you asked me to share it with those involved with JAIL4Judges. I did as you requested in the email entitled, “Dr. Richard Cordero Asking to Work with JAIL4Judges” There is nothing clandestine going on that needs to be figured out here.
As for your time frame, I now understand that you seek to gain media attention as to "P. Obama and Then-Judge Sotomayor deceived the public about her concealment of assets, which can cause the media and the authorities to investigate them" between now and before the November 6 election.
I take it that the value of JAIL4Judges working together with you is based upon the success of the above venture that JAIL4Judges is not now taking advantage of.
Under II, Creators of the Institute, you state, "The reasons why its creation would not reasonably be entrusted to, or made dependent on, politicians are discussed in everything that precedes this proposal:" The reason your Institute is not subject to politicians is,
“The business and academic venture will be open to the media, public interest entities, teaching institutionscf.251e, investors, and philanthropic sponsors.
So your proposal that JAIL4Judges work together with you is in this mutual endeavor. Am I understanding you proposal correctly? If such is your plan, then JAIL4Judges would not be interested in joining together with you.
We are of the persuasion that People will serve their own self-interests. If such profit venture was seen to be made within JAIL4Judges by these corporate interests, then it would have happened a long time ago. Businesses, schools and public interest entities would be jumping on board JAIL4Judges, and we would be listed on the New York Stock Exchange as the stock you just got to purchase, as no one would want to be left out on the feeding frenzy. We would have the media on our side and the politicians would be seeking to hide in holes in the ground, and the judges surrendering to the will of the People. This you propose as an alternative to the creation of a People's Independent Special Grand Jury over all judges on the issue of Judicial Immunity.
Let me cite to Scripture relative to your proposal, and it is from Isaiah Chapter 59.
1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.
4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
5 They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.
12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;
13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
This is a description of where we are currently in this world. You are proposing JAIL4Judges make a business profit through this environment. But Christ said, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." The Gospel of John, Chapter 3, verses 19 and 20.
Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Richard Cordero wrote:
Dear Mr. Branson,
Kindly find below my reply to your three questions.
I. Timeframe for action
The reason why the term “acceptance speech” does not appear anywhere in my proposal is that the proposed initial presentation of the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing is conceived to be made by any person who satisfies the key requirements:
to be a personality that can attract the attention of the national media, which should react to the presentation by launching a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the evidence presented.
This is consistent with the title of the article to which I drew your attention in my earlier email, found at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf >xxv:
Proposal To a Prominent Politician or Organization to Make the Initial Presentation to the media and the public of evidence revealing how P. Obama and Then-Judge Sotomayor deceived the public about her concealment of assets, which can cause the media and the authorities to investigate them, and supporters to abstain from giving him donations, work, and votes, and to ask her to resign
As you noted, the presentation is supposed to take place “during the presidential campaign”, of which some 67 days remain. Because time is running out, I stated in my earlier email to you that “time is of the essence”.
II. Creators of the institute
As to the creation of an institute, it should promote judicial unaccountability reporting and advocate judicial accountability and discipline reform, as discussed at id. >137§h.
The reasons why its creation would not reasonably be entrusted to, or made dependent on, politicians are discussed in everything that precedes this proposal:
Politicians have no interest in taking on judges by exposing their wrongdoing. On the contrary, their interest lies in applying a policy of live and let live whereby the politicians and the judges allow each other to pursue their respective interests even through wrongdoing. See id. >22¶21, 25¶27 and footnote 23, and 81§1.
The politicians that nominate and confirm federal judges cannot be expected to turn around and investigate them for wrongdoing, thus indicting their good judge or competence in recommending or vetting them; id. >77§§5-6.
Consistent with that exclusion in principle of politicians, those who are supposed to create the institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and judicial reform advocacy are listed at id. >125¶230 and seq.:
“The business and academic venture will be open to the media, public interest entities, teaching institutionscf.251e, investors, and philanthropic sponsors. All of them are likely to recognize the public service and business potential of methodically investigating the Third Branch at the federal and state levels for coordinated judicial wrongdoing, as opposed to journalistically covering courts to report on cases pending before them.…”
See also id. >146§i.
III. Unreasonableness of expecting politicians to endorse J.A.I.L. bills
The above explains why it is contrary to a reasonable assessment of the interests at play and thus unrealistic to expect that politicians will endorse, let alone pass, the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill. As I mentioned in my earlier email, persisting in efforts to get that Bill and its state counterparts adopted will only warrant the application of Einstein’s aphorism:
“The hallmark of irrationality is doing the same thing while expecting a different result.”
IV. General observation
In your email, you stated, “I have scanned through your 151 paged proposed agenda”. The above shows that my proposal has been professionally written to be consistent throughout in its statements and reasonable in the course of action that it advocates. This warrants that it be read carefully. This is particularly so of the articles pointed to in my earlier email, namely, id. >i, xxv, xxvii, and xxxiii.
V. Search for the source of my letter to Gov. Romney
You asked me three questions and I took them seriously and addressed them in a professional, thoughtful way.
Now I would like to ask a question: In your email of Thursday, August 30, bearing the subject line “Dr. Richard Cordero Asking to Work with JAIL4Judges”, you reproduced a letter that I sent to Governor Romney, dated June 15.
I printed and mailed that letter to his headquarters together with its supporting document, which is the file at id. -http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf- but for the sections that I have added to it since. Hence, that letter is consistent with what I sent you and I stand by it.
However, I never made that letter public. This begs the question: How did you get a hold of it?
Answering this question accurately can determine whether a staff at Gov. Romney’s headquarters made it public in an effort to make the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing known to outsiders and interest them, especially the media, in the proposed investigation of the evidence of P. Obama-J. Sotomayor wrongdoing.
If after careful examination it turned out that you got that letter because a Gov. Romney staff published it, then identifying him or her is very important:
Either that staff proceeded on his or her own, which raises the possibility that he or she might become a Deep Throat, id. >103§3; or
the staff proceeded pursuant to a decision made at headquarters to set in motion the implementation of the proposal without officially endorsing it, for example, to avoid the risk of alienating Hispanic voters who supported the nomination and confirmation of Then-Judge Sotomayor.
I look forward to learning about your findings concerning my question.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
*******************************************
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> wrote:
Richard Cordero:
I have scanned through your 151 paged proposed agenda, which appears to me to be to send, if you have not already done so, it to Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney for inclusion in his acceptance speech. Therein, you include the creation of a for-profit judicial unaccountability reporting advocacy, to wit;
h. Creation of an institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy 205. The business and academic venture 213 includes the creation of a for-profit institute of judicial
unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy 212.
You point out, "Kindly note that since my proposal would be most effectively implemented during the current presidential campaign, time is of the essence."
I respond that this very night, Thursday, August 30th, Romney makes his acceptance speech, so there is little hope that anything you propose is going to be included within his acceptance speech.
As to the substance of your proposal in the creation of a judicial unaccountability reporting advocacy, it presumes that the very elected politicians who are rejecting the Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation, might be interested in creating a judicial unaccountability reporting advocacy forum. I see no basis for such speculation or hope. Is this theory based upon a name change, but in substance, is the same?
Tell me what you find wrong with the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill that has been proposed to all these bureaucrats for years, and how your proposal cures its shortcomings?
Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Richard Cordero wrote:
Dear Mr. Branson,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
You asked a question and as its foundation stated your related experience. It is indeed your own experience that provides the basis for my answer:
“When you speak of working together, do you have a [sic] idea how we can together better advance getting this on the ballot or getting Congress to take action? I have been pushing this agenda since 1995. To date I have not found a single Congressman, U.S. Senator, or state legislator who will touch this legislation with a ten-foot pole, including the most conservative.”
No member of the House or the Senate has dare call to account the Federal Judiciary for having abrogated in effect an act of their own, namely, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 that entrusts judges with an exclusive self-policing procedure. Congress has been informed for over the last 32 years in the annual report that it required the Judiciary to file with it that federal judges systematically dismiss complaints against their peers. Thereby judges have self-exempted from any accountability and in practice assured each other that their wrongdoing is riskless and all the more profitable since it does not require costly measures to avoid and defend after detection.
What Congress has not done in reaction to the Judiciary’s disregard of its Act, it is not going to do to respond to our plea to take on the most powerful public officials in the country: unelected, life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable federal judges.
The official statistics contained in that annual report and supporting the above statements are referenced at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf >jur:21§1. See also my previous email on this issue.
Therefore, I agree with what follows from your experience: Pursuing an agenda geared toward getting Congress to hold federal judges accountable or getting on a state ballot a popular initiative to that end is doomed to failure. To pursue that agenda any further can only warrant the application of Einstein’s aphorism:
“The hallmark of irrationality is doing the same thing while expecting a different result.”
Consequently, my answer to your question takes due account of our common experience with Congress as well as my experience with the courts themselves, from bankruptcy, district, and circuit courts to the Supreme Court104b, 109c .
That answer is based on a different strategy set forth in the short article at id., xxvii, whose summarizing title is this:
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
The concrete way in which I propose that we work together to expose judges’ wrongdoing and consequent riskless wrongdoing takes advantage of the presidential campaign and was pointed to in my previous email references to id. >i, xxv, and xxxiii.
So I respectfully invite you and all the reasonable and realistic members of your organization to read them. Then we can discuss your views of it.
Kindly note that since my proposal would be most effectively implemented during the current presidential campaign, time is of the essence.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
*********************************************************
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> wrote:
Dear Richard Cardero:
You have written to me suggesting that we work together to expose judicial unaccountability. Judicial accountability is a noble cause of which simply must come about. JAIL4Judges is a one issue organization, and that issue is getting an initiative on the ballot in one of the states for the People to vote upon, or getting a state legislature to place judicial accountability on the ballot for the People to vote upon. In the case of Federal Judicial Accountability, we seek to get a Congressman or U.S. Senator to propose such via a Bill.
When you speak of working together, do you have a idea how we can together better advance getting this on the ballot or getting Congress to take action? I have been pushing this agenda since 1995. To date I have not found a single Congressman, U.S. Senator, or state legislator who will touch this legislation with a ten-foot pole, including the most conservative. They have all been running from judicial accountability and pretending that I have nothing to say. I believe this fear is because they know that once the People obtained judicial accountability, it would destroy their ability to push through unconstitutional pet projects they so thrive upon.
2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.
3 That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.
4 The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: Micah 7:2-4.
It would be nice to see every candidate for president openly state their position on the Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation Bill. But not a one will touch it, including Paul of whom I have personally handed this propose Bill for submission to Congress.
Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Richard Cordero wrote:
Dear Mr. Branson and Mr. Lynn,
If you found the statistics on California judges that appeared in the California Lawyer article “Judging Judges”, by Linda Schlesinger, July 2012, http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=923320, to reveal the unequal protection from the law reserved for them, you will find the statistics on federal judges to be outrageous.
For instance:
On 30sep11, there were 2,131 judges –including justices and magistrates– in office13; however, in the 223 years since the Judiciary’s creation in 1789 the number of federal judges impeached and removed is eight14.
The Judiciary has allowed its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically and without investigation 99.82% of the complaints filed against their peers in the 1oct96-30sep08 12-year period.19
In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits’23a all-judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals, as did the 2nd Circuit’s council, of which Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor was a member20. She too unequally protected her peers from the law regardless of the nature and gravity of the complaints against them, exempting them from any discipline without even investigating the complaints.
See the above blue-text references to the official statistics of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf.
What these statistics reveal is that federal judges’ wrongdoing has become the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary. A case in point is described at id. >xxxiii.
My proposal to expose their wrongdoing by taking advantage of the presidential campaing is set forth at id. >i and xxv.
As brought to your attention on many previous occasions, I would like us to work together. If we continue working separately, we are going to achieve what we have up to now and will continue to in future: nothing.
Hence, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
posted by fritz at 5:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home