Thursday, August 30, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Dispute By Authorities Whether Infractions Are a Civil or Criminal Proceeding



Dispute By Authorities Whether Infractions Are  a Civil or Criminal Proceeding

(They honestly just do not know)
Their arguments run the gamete from left to right,
some splitting the difference, taking the middle road.
DMV throws up their hands in frustration.

Best read in reverse order from the bottom up.

I, Ron Branson, personally know Ed Brotherton as a Christian Brother. Thanks, Ed. - Ron

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: Phone call earlier today
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:57:50 +0000
From: Ed Brotherton <edbrotherton@hotmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;


Hahahahaha I guess he no longer wants to talk to me.  Follow this email chain .........The number he gave below is the number I've been using to call Steve.  I did what he said and asked to speak to the Attorney of the day and was told they don't take outside calls from public.  I explained that Steve Machias told me to call and speak to the attorney of the day.  She put me on hold and when she came back on the line , she said "I stand corrected" and put me through to his line and of course a voice mail message came on and I left a message.  Lets see what happens now.  To be continued.

Ed
818-376-9500

Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:54:49 -0700
From: Steve.Macias@dmv.ca.gov
To: edbrotherton@hotmail.com

Dear Mr. Brotherton,

This email is to inform you that I am not the proper person to contact with any of your questions or concerns.  Please refrain from contacting me by email or telephone calls in the future.

You may contact the department’s Legal office at 916-657-6469, and ask to speak with the attorney of the day and discuss any questions, concerns or comments with that attorney.

Steve Macias

Management Services Tech

Legal Affairs Division

916-657-6469

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

From: Ed Brotherton [mailto:edbrotherton@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Macias, Steve@DMV
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today

Hi Steve,

Following up with you. I sent the below email on Friday and still need a response.  Do you know what the status is regarding this matter?  More and more people are starting to get wind of this problem and people are contacting me.  I'm going to need to get some answers on this pretty quick.  Please contact me by end of day today and let me know what's going on.  I greatly appreciate it.

Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500
edbrotherton@hotmail.com

From: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
To: steve.macias@dmv.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:56:40 +0000

Hi Steve,

Just wanted to touch base with you and find out if you know when I'm supposed to be contacted by the communications department you mentioned?  It appears that the issue raised needs to be cleared up more now than ever.  A friend of mine was in traffic court today for an arraignment and there are now even more inconsistencies with the nature of court proceedings for infractions.  This time the Judge said "it's civil". 

When trying to understand the nature of court actions for traffic infractions here is what we have;

Legislative Committee on the Revision on the Penal code (the committee that made the argument to the legislature on creating the infraction classification)
- Not criminal

California Judicial Council
- Not criminal

California Supreme Court
People v. Battle
People v Oppenhiemer
- Not criminal

California Appellate Court
People v Sava
- Not criminal

Los Angele Superior Court Van Nuys (all these are the same case)
Commissioner Omens
- Criminal

Judge Jesic (same case)
- He said, "I don't know"  When asked whether the action was criminal or civil.

City Attorney (same case)
- Quasi criminal

Another City Attorny (same case)
- Quasi Administrative

Los Angele Superior Court Burbank
Judge Applegate
- Criminal

Judge Oldendorff
- Criminal

And today in downtown Los Angeles Superior Court, a Judge gave us another classification of Civil.

The lack of consistency and understanding of the nature of an infraction by the judges and lawyers in the state poses a very serious due process problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

People have a right to know the "nature" and cause of an action and when the powers that be can't get it straight then how does that instill confidence in the judiciary and the proper enforcement of our vehicle laws?  I hope this provides a better understanding of why I'm asking the DMV to clarify this issue.

I look forward to your timely response. 

Thank you

Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500

From: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
To: steve.macias@dmv.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:38:45 +0000

Hi Steve,

It's been a little while and I went ahead and read those code sections you referred to.  Unfortunately it didn't really address the questions raised.  Nowhere between section 4000.1 and 40903 does it state what the nature of a court action is for infractions.  There doesn't appear to be any consistency in understanding by the courts or the city attorney's or the public as to the nature of a court proceeding for an infraction.  In one case alone two judges claimed that 4000(a)(1) is a criminal action.  In the same case the prosecution said it's a quasi-criminal action while at trial another judge said he didn't know what kind of action it was and turned to the prosecution who said "it's quasi administrative".   In another case in Burbank the Judge siad it's a criminal action while the trial court judge said it's an infraction and when asked "so it's not criminal" she reiterated that it's an infraction.  The california supreme court says infractions aren't crimes, People v Battle.  The California Appellate court says infractions aren't crimes, People v Sava.  The Judicial council in their own annual reports say that infractions aren't crimes.  The Legislative committee on the revision of the penal code say that infractions aren't crimes.  From what I can tell.  If you take for example section 4000(a)(1).  This is the law that requires registration. it appears to have all the qualities of a civil action.  

Code of Civil Procedure §24 
               “Action are of two kind:
1.                   Civil; and,
2.                   Criminal
 
Code of Civil Procedure §25
               “A civil action arises out of:
1.                   An obligation; 
2.                   An injury
 
Code of Civil Procedure §26
               “An obligation is a legal duty, by which one person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing, and arises from:
   One--Contract; or,
   Two--Operation of law”.    In this particular it would appear that the requirement to register a vehicle is an obligation to not drive a motor vehicle unless the the vehicle has been registered and appropriate fees have been paid and this obligation come  from an operation of law called california vehicle code section 4000(a)(1).  This would certainly make this a civil action.  Does the DMV have the same understanding and can you tell me if my analysis is correct?  This issue   really needs to get cleared up as many more people are running into similar problems with this uncertainty of the law.    Thanks    Ed Brotherton  818-376-9500

 

Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:06:25 -0700
From: Steve.Macias@dmv.ca.gov
To: edbrotherton@hotmail.com

Hello, I talked to an attorney here and he said for me to tell you to look in vehicle code book and sections 4000.1 thru 40903 should help you.

Steve Macias

Management Services Tech

Legal Affairs Division

916-657-6469

**************************************************************************************************************************

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

From: Ed Brotherton [mailto:edbrotherton@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Macias, Steve@DMV
Subject: Phone call earlier today

Hi Steve,

Thanks for letting me email you with some questions regarding the nature of an infraction as it relates to prosecutions.

The reason this has become an issue is because there is a huge misunderstanding as to what kind of action a traffic infraction is.   California Code of Civil Procedure Section 24 require actions to be of two kind Criminal and Civil.

I had a case where I had a commissioner saying the infraction I was being charged with was a criminal action.  The judicial councils owns literature such as the Judicial Councils Annual Report, The Legislative Council on the Revision of the Penal Code and case law such as People v. Sava have all concluded that infractions are not crimes, which is what justifies the denial of a trial by jury and court appointed Counsel. 

In that very same case a City Attorney informed me that it was Quasi-criminal but there is no law to support that, that I know of.  An actual judge in the exact same case admitted to not knowing at all what kind of action it was.  When he turned to the City Attorney's they said it was Quasi-administrative.  Then when I brought up the fact that according to Los Angeles own city charter the city attorney is only authorized to prosecute for misdemeanors.  The Judge at this point said and I quote "Well, they're not really prosecuting this case.  The court will sometimes call upon the city attorney's office to assist in certain cases".  How can the same case be three different kinds of actions?

The other problem myself and many others are running into is that when one gets a notice to appear there is nothing indicating who to serve any motions on.  No indication who the plaintiff is and no indication who's prosecuting the case etc.  So if someone wants to file a Demur or other type of motion, notice is required but how can one give notice when you you don't know who to give notice to.  Can you please provide some information that can help me understand this better because it really is making no sense.

Thanks

Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500

posted by fritz at 9:45 PM 0 comments

[Victims of Court Corruption] Re: Working together to expose in the context of the presidential campaign judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing


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

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net 




posted by fritz at 3:57 PM 0 comments

[Victims of Court Corruption] Dr. Richard Cordero Asking to Work with JAIL4Judges


Dr. Richard Cordero
Asking to Work with JAIL4Judges

(See Following)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Working together to expose in the context of the presidential campaign judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:43:26 -0400
From: Richard Cordero <dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com>
To: Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>, jail4judges@yahoogroups.com, Lynn Raynor <luckyscuba@yahoo.com>


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

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net 


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England 59 Crescent St., Brooklyn, NY 11208
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School tel.(718)827-9521; follow @DrCorderoEsq
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com

June 15, 2012

Governor Mitt Romney
Romney for President http://www.mittromney.com/contact-us
P. O. Box 149756
Boston, MA 02114-9756 tel. (857)288-3500

Dear Governor Romney,

This is a proposal for your use in our mutual benefit in your campaign of my professional research on, and litigation experience in, the Federal Judiciary.i It is prompted by the ad that you released on February 24, criticizing President Obama’s justiceship nominee Then-Judge Sotomayor as a ���������������. That is a subjective notion that only resonates with part of the electorate. Hence, Hispanic organizations have criticized you for being insensitive to issues of importance to Hispanic voters.ii No doubt, the President will try to indispose that block of voters against you.

This proposal aims to base your criticism of Now Justice Sotomayor and the President too on their wrongdoingiii, which is a matter of objective evidence of their disregard of their duties (87§§a-d) and infraction of the law64. Even the liberal papers The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico suspected her of concealment of assets(61§1), which points to evasion of taxes. Yet, he nominated her as he had other known tax cheats ¶107.

Her performance in the bankruptcy case DeLano, which she presided over102, shows her cover-up of a judge-run bankruptcy fraud scheme87(62§2). Your presentation(121§1) of the evidence can show that judges engage in wrongdoing, regardless of their ethnicity, because of their unaccountability iv (21§1), which renders it riskless, irresistible and all the more profitable to them (25§2), though detrimental to the public(26§3), so long as they cover for each other¶117(64§3), whether Democrats or Republicans put them in office. The evidence will outrage people (83§2) of all political persuasions¶14. Your courage in exposing wrongdoing judges to defend the public1 can win you voters’ respect, donations, and votes as they hail you as the People’s Champion of Justice134a.

Your presentation need only provide enough evidence to send journalists, in quest of a Pulitzer-deserving scoop, on a Watergate-like ¶¶4-8 generalized media investigation(126§a) that
asks: ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������ ����������� ���� ����� ���� ����� ����� ���� Their revelations, like superPAC negative ads against him at no cost to you, can gain a momentum of their own that can cause one or more justices and judges to resign, as Justice Abe Fortas had to in 1969¶158. Though you �����������������������
��������������� ������� ����� ���� ����������v, you can make one for the President that can lead to your picking your own Supreme Court by filling vacancies. His expected refusal to release the FBI vetting report on J. Sotomayor will only fuel the outrage at his having lied to the public about her integrity just as she did about her ���������� ��� ���� ���� ¶113 and impair his fundraising. This will benefit your war chest, depleted by a nomination contest that may go to the Convention. Highlighting
the economic harm inflicted by judicial wrongdoing on the people will allow you to stay on your economic recovery theme. You can incite the media to investigate your three Washington insider opponents for their hypocrisy in criticizing judges’ for their social issues ����������v in defiance of the Constitution while failing to perform their constitutional checks and balances on
the Judiciary (29§§2,3), allowing it to become a power center outside democratic control ¶181.

Your reform(131§§e-h) of the Judiciary can become your most significant and enduring legacy. I think strategically. I can be an asset to your team. So I respectfully request that you invite me to make a presentation(151§F) to you and your managers of the evidence and my proposal for a business and academic venture vi (125§3).

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero

posted by fritz at 11:28 AM 0 comments