« Gov. Sundquist (TN), Sen. Songstad (SD) involved in extortion, conspiracy to murder (involving 5-10 billion dollars) in reference to Leo Wanta the 27.5 trillion dollar man (audio recording w/ Sundquist now in possession of Wanta & Federal authorities) | Main | Greg Szymanski's 2006 Interviews with Lee Wanta the 27.5 Trillion Dollar Man (Full transcript) »

Democracy or Republic?

Henry Morgan relays:

From: joodd1 [mailto:joodd1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:01 AM
To: Lynda Kvasnikoff
Subject: Re: Fw: FW: Fw: Fwd: Democracy or Republic?

He's telling the TRUTH!

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Porter <johnporter1939@cox.net>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 12:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Democracy or Republic?

From:
John Porter;
September 6, 2014

To: Americans everywhere;

Thank you for your time and attention.

First, please let me be very clear, what I have written here for your consideration is not about the Republican Party, Democrat Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party or any other Party. It is about an idea conceived over two centuries ago, a country, a people, a document, our current president and his intentions for America.

Two hundred and twenty seven years ago (1787) a group of men whom we now refer to as the "founding fathers," following a long and bloody battle for their independence from a dictatorial Monarchy, assembled themselves together in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and did their best to establish a country governed in a God-fearing way by representatives who were selected by the people who were to be governed.

Nowhere in the history of all mankind were there any examples or even political theory in existence that offered them any hope that a republican form of government, based on the new concept of consent of the governed, could succeed on a wilderness continent which was much larger than any European state.

These men met there on the world stage to carry out the first of three acts in this epic political drama, the drafting of the United States Constitution. The final document was the culmination of a fierce political struggle that had been waged for four sweltering summer months in secret behind guarded closed doors. The document sought to reconcile individual personal liberty with the perceived need for a central government with powers to forge a political and economic common market among thirteen separate and sovereign states.

The next two acts to be performed on this world stage were the ratification of the document and the translation from words on parchment paper to institutional form and structure. In 1789 the first congress approved and sent to the states for ratification, a bill of rights of individual liberty, and additional rights reserved to the states. Those ten amendments, ratified on December 15, 1791, became an extremely vital part of the Constitution and crucial to greatly limiting the power of the Federal Government over both that of the people and separate states. The Republic of the United States of America, an experiment in people governing themselves was now a reality for the first time in the history of man. Newcomers from other countries, willing to be governed by it's Constitution and Bill of Rights and themselves, came in droves to this new land of government by the governed.

I here bring to your attention that the United States of America was formed as a Republic and not a Democracy. All our lives you and I have been conditioned to believe we are a Democracy in America. How long has it been since you have heard of America referred to as a Republic? You see, there was purpose behind the words in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag referring to our country as, "the Republic for which it stands." Ladies and gentlemen rest assured there is a very good reason the term "democracy" does not exist either in our Constitution or the Declaration of our Independence from the Monarchial King of England. A true Democracy is mob rule. Any government set up as a Democracy is the same government we would have if we were set up as a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist government. In these forms the government is a mob ruling over the people with absolutely no rights for individuals or minorities.

It has been written, "The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life." Democracy and/or Socialism is mob rule by government. The founders of America were all too familiar with democracies/socialism, and deliberately did everything in their power to prevent a Democracy. It has been written, "In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem." The people have no obligation to the government; the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to them, for they are its owner. Not only have many politicians, Republican and Democrat, lost sight of this fact, but a great many of the American people.

A Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The goal of our founding fathers in forming a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the disastrous extremes of either tyranny (absolute ruler) or "mobocracy." (government mob).

I submit for your consideration, we are witnessing today president Barack Obama, who by way of his own actions and words, is demonstrating his aspirations of becoming an absolute ruler. When he makes public statements of, "Fundamentally changing America," he is promising us to change the workings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for they ARE the fundamentals of America. His promising to "redistribute the wealth because of income inequality" is purposely designed to divide the American people. When he publicly promises, and I quote, "If congress doesn't do the things I think necessary, I will not wait on them." "I will do it myself." And again only last week, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone--and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and adminstrative actions that move the ball forward." This kind of talk is deliberately crafted to condition our minds and dumb us down to his way of Socialistic and absolute ruler thinking. It very well may be that he will never willingly relinquish the office of president.

Barack Obama is not an incompetent fool, ladies and gentlemen. He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. For five years he has been conditioning the minds of all who will listen and very carefully and cunningly crafting the country for his possible absolute rulership through ignoring the Constitution and the people's congress. Please familiarize yourself with this man's past. He is the most dangerous man in American history, to the Constitutional Republic and individual freedoms, which our founding fathers established and left for us. It will be up to us to defend and preserve it. Make no mistake, his view of America is very different than that of our founding fathers, and most Americans today.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government"...If we the American people don't stop this and start a reversal of the present trend, the free Republic of America will be lost for generations to come to a Socialist, tyrannical government mob. It begs the question, "Do we really care enough?" There needs to be a great awakening of all freedom loving Americans to the fact, that a people can become slaves to an absolute ruler, and the government, as well as a plantation owner. Do you really care enough? The voting booths will open again this November 4th for 37 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. America's destiny in in our hands!!

You have my permission to leave my information below intact as you please forward to all you can in any method you wish.

May God bless America at this critical time in our history.

Until next time:
Your friend in freedom;

John Porter
118 Approach Drive
Harrison, Arkansas 72601
870-741-4119
johnporter1939@cox.net


================================================================

POWER OF THE PURSE

There was once a time when Americans could control their government simply by shutting off the money.

Citizens could get Unkle Sam's hand out of their pocket by refusing to buy imported goods, thereby avoiding Federal Excise Taxes and reducing Federal Revenue.

States could bring great pressure on Federal Senators to curb Federal spending because Senators were elected from within the State Legislatures...by the State Legislatures....to represent the States in the US Congress.....and States had to cough up the money if the Federal Government spent more than it took in....in any given year. (The People were to be represented directly by Congressmen in the US House of Representatives, the States were to be represented directly by Senators in the US Senate. )

But with the advent of the 17th Amendment (1913) which effectively removed control of Senators from States,the advent of the Federal Reserve Act (1913) which effectively allowed a private bank to create unlimited amounts of fiat money, "lend" it to the US government and charge interest on it, and with the advent of the 16th Amendment (1913) which effectively (if not legally) allowed the Federal Government to bypass the States, and go directly into the pockets of individual Americans.....to collect the interest to be paid on the "money" it "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve.....

Americans lost their ability to control the Federal Government with the "Power of the Purse".

Not only can the Federal Government now (since 1913) spend without limit, not only can the citizen not refuse to pay without enduring dire consequences, but the insult of the Income Tax is compounded by the fact that the dollars remaining in the Citizen's pocket after taxes constantly lose purchasing power due to the continuous expansion of the money supply (called inflation) through the creation of more and more government debt (money) owed to the Federal Reserve. (The Federal Reserve creates the "money" it "loans" to the government out of thin air with the flick of a computer key.)

And so Americans are no longer in control of the Federal Government.....they are effectively slaves to it....milk cows on the Federal Plantation.

Americans will never again be in control of their government....or their own financial destinies....... until they take back the power of the purse,  by repealing the 16th, 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.

~~~ Henry "Jake" Morgan


"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth.
Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the
flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it
away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to
disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you
wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let
them continue to create deposits."
~~~ Sir Josiah Stamp,
President of the Bank of England
in the 1920s, the second richest
man in Britain.

I bet you didn't know that.... the so-called "Federal Income Tax" was not needed to, and didn't, fund the Federal Government during the first 155 years of our history ...from 1787 until 1942.

Consider....no truly free person would ever give up the details of his personal economic life to the government....any government .... voluntarily .... even once.....never mind on an annual basis.

To do so would be to give up one's 4th amendment privacy rights to be secure in one's person, property, papers and effects. (personal finances are none of the federal government's damned business)

The recent debacle in which the IRS was used as a political weapon highlights the folly of putting up with this bizarre, ridiculous, tyrannical, anti-constitutional, fraudulent, oppressive criminal custom.

If you would like to know the proper, liberty sustaining, prosperity generating, budget balancing system for funding the Federal Government, designed early on by Tom Jefferson and Alex Hamilton, you need a copy of the little book:
"Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan" by Edward A. Ellison, Jr., J.D. and John William Kurowski and its essential little companion on money "The Miracle on Main Street" by F. Tupper Saussy.

Together they lay out the simple economic system that made America more prosperous in 100 years than all other civilizations in all of history combined. It is the core of what really made America exceptional and a piece of American history that not one American in 10,000 today...much to their financial detriment...knows anything about.

You can learn more about them here: WWW.CurrencyAlert.US

You can usually find both books available here: https://www.bookfinder.com/

GET YOURS TODAY!!!!

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

Hilarious!

___

RD
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

What is Hilarious about it?

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

Thank you for asking why I think that this is hilarious. It's because it's comical disinformation. It floats around regularly because the masses are so clueless that they don't know the source of the word "republic" which is from the Roman Republic which had annual elections for all public offices.

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

___

Henry Morgan via meetup.com
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

Picking nits ain'tcha Mark. The fact that our American Republic wasn't the first republic is irrelevant to the point of the piece......distinguishing between Republics and Democracies

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

Not really. The meaning or words either matters or it doesn't.

The Roman Republic was a democracy. It had annual elections for both the legislature and the counsels, a.k.a. presidents. Power was distributed between 3 branches, and it had a basic set of rules, a.k.a. a constitution, which the people in power were supposed to follow. That is what a Republic is and what the Framers intended to establish in the U.S.

Plus, as Jefferson and Madison discussed, there are in essence only two forms of government, aristocracy or democracy. Either you have to beg the ruling elite for justice or you ask citizens to do justice.

By the way, the King's attempt to undermine the means to secure justice through citizens via the grand juries and trial juries are what the Founders' generation complained about the most in that quaint old Declaration of Independence.

The "we are a Republic not a Democracy" disinformation is nothing more than an effort to belittle rule by the people and distract the clueless masses from the roots of our problems which is that we now live under an aristocracy as all of the rights which were supposed to allow us to ask other citizens to help us secure justice have been stolen. Plus, the votes are unconstitutionally "counted" in secret, but who cares about that because democracy is bad, right?

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

___

Henry Morgan via meetup.com
Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

In a pure democracy, a 51% majority can dispose, at its whim, of the life, liberty and/or property of the other 49%.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --- James Madison Federalist #10

In contrast, in the Constitutionally Limited Republic crafted by the Framers in 1787, the democratic "majority" rule was restricted to 17 specific, and enumerated areas of a public nature.

I believe that it was this distinction that Franklin had in mind when, as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention a when a lady asked him.....

"What sort of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin" and he replied "A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

so I entirely understand and agree with the desire of Mr. Porter to discourage making reference to the Constitutionally Limited Republic crafted by the Framers as a "Democracy".

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com
8:05 PM (1 hour ago)

to ronpaul-48

You are talking about Madison's comments about the problems with pure democracies both making and enforcing the law by majority vote while Porter doesn't understand that a socialist or communist government is rule by an aristocracy, not a democracy or a democratic republic.

In the Federalist Number 10, Madison was referring to the problem with allowing the majority to decide whether life, liberty or property could be taken by a simple majority vote as it was in ancient Athenian democracy; however, Madison was obviously aware that the British jury system prevented that problem and sought to make sure that the protections of the jury system were supposed to be guaranteed to us.

However, those rights which the Founders generation complained about being taken in the Declaration of Independence and went to war over have been stolen once again, and instead of focusing on restoring the rights which once upon a time kept the people in power from unjustly taking life, liberty and property at their whim, far too many simply regurgitate comical nonsense. Of course, those who want to rule like the kings of old understand that by keeping the masses in the dark and feeding them BS, they can get away with nearly anything. See a short film by Orson Welles explaining what Plato said about this:

https://tiny.cc/13gnkx

By the way, in the Federalist Number 10, Madison is comparing and contrasting a pure democracy with a republic. He said, "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended." He also said, "“If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.” So, clearly as I pointed out in my email below, the Framers were basing their use of the term Republic on the Roman Republic which had annual elections for the legislative and executive branches.

Madison goes on to say, "“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” Once again, Madison understood that the jury system injects democracy into the law enforcement function of government and that unanimous agreement of the jurors is necessary to take life, liberty or property based upon any criminal charge and a super-majority vote of the jury to take property in a civil action.

Anyway, read The Federalist Number 10 at https://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Then, note that the fascist scumbags who took over our country 70 years ago have stolen the right to a jury trial in all civil actions and in criminal actions unless you are charged with a felony. If you don't believe me, see for yourself:

You Don't Have Any Right to a Jury Trial!!!

by Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

We no longer have any right to a jury trial. Those rights have been stolen by power mad, greedy, fascist scum.

Most of you are saying, "No way! My teachers told me that we did, and I read the Constitution once, and it said that we had a right to a jury trial, too! Plus, I didn't see anyone on TV, any expert or any reform organization say anything about not having a right to a jury trial anymore. You must be wrong!"

Others are saying, "Big deal. Judges are wise honest old people who almost always do the right thing like in all of those court shows on TV! I wouldn't want to have to waste my time on jury duty. Judges should make all of the decisions. It is so much more efficient."

Although most are clueless, those in power are well aware that Thomas Jefferson said, "If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free., it expects what never was and never will be.... If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

So naturally, the rulers want to make sure that the public remains ignorant of the fundamental rights to control the government which were supposed to be secured by the Constitution. Their efforts to maintain widespread ignorance of these rights has been very effective. As a result, ironically, many people complain about government abuses, but then call for the passage of laws which clearly violate the Constitution, undermine our fundamental rights, and ignore the need to seek an amendment if anyone wants to change the Constitution while remaining a government based on the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the rulers are so afraid that the people might figure out that they have stolen the fundamental rights which we were supposed to have to control them that they have an army of enforcers and propagandists ready to attack people who undertake any meaningful action to defend those rights or raise awareness about them. Has anyone else noticed that? If not, do you really enjoy having all that sand in your eyes?

The Rights to Trial by Juries Have Been Stolen to Enslave and Impoverish You!

Now, court decisions are determined by a judge based upon who has the most influence over him. Naturally, in proceedings in which the state is not a party, this is the better connected attorney who "loses" more money to the judge on the golf course, and when the state is a party, it is the state unless you have a well connected attorney who "loses" a lot of money to the judge or has a picture of the judge with a _______ in his _______ (Fill in the blanks yourself). I'm sure that some people, such as fools and shills, will think that my claim that judges are for sale is unbelievable. However, I've been involved in many cases in which the judge ignored the law and the facts to rule in favor of a party in spite of the fact that the decision was against both the law and the facts. In fact, I was involved in one case in which the opposing party repeatedly boasted that his attorneys were connected, had the judge in their pocket and would bury my client, and they did in spite of the law and the facts and the efforts to get the authorities who are supposed to make sure that judges don't break the law to take action.

Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, a Founder, Framer and attorney, said that trial by jury is the best way to protect our rights and secure justice because there is much more time and opportunity to improperly influence judges than there is to improperly influence a jury summoned to hear a case.

Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and a lot of the other attorneys who were involved in founding our country thought that they had ended the tyranny of the judiciary by requiring jury trials in all proceedings; however, in 1840, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that those Framers didn't know what they were talking about and decided that no jury trials were necessary in "equitable" proceedings, like probate, family law and mortgage foreclosure. We all know that the judges never ignore the law in those proceedings, right?

Our right to jury trials has also been eliminated in all other civil proceedings by the grant of the power of summary judgment to the judiciary without anyone bothering to amend the Constitution. The Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land, but the judges say that their rules rule, summary judgment granted or denied depending on who has the judge's favor.

The fascist scum even had the audacity to claim that you do not have a right to a jury trial when charged with a crime unless it is a felony even though both Article III, § 2 and the Sixth Amendment clearly provide that the trial of all crimes shall be by jury. See Lewis v U.S. 518 U.S. 322(1996). By the way, this decision is supported by the so-called conservative or strict constructionist judges who found the word "serious" written in invisible ink in both clauses in the Constitution.

Please note that I'm not saying that trampling the Constitution is right. I'm saying that the powers that be are doing it, and if more people don't get a clue and demand that our rights to control the government are restored, then things will continue to go downhill. If you want to know what those rights are, read Why does the government ignore our wishes? and don't miss my speech.

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

Ref: https://americanjurypower.org/home/no_right.php

P.S. I talked about this problem just a couple of months ago:

https://youtu.be/6B4sGscxVtA

09/12/14

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com
3:45 PM (5 hours ago)

to ronpaul-48
What? No one wants to try to explain that a republic is magically special and democracy is especially bad except for all of the other forms of government which are actually aristocracies?

That's right. Once again, there are only two forms of government, rule by the rulers or rule by the people. Ours was designed to be the latter, but was converted to the former although almost no one can believe it. After all, they still have jury trials on TV shows, don't they?

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

P.S. Note that I have copied the person who wrote the Republic not a Democracy email that set me off, and I have yet to hear back from him.

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com> Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Reply-To: ronpaul-48@meetup.com
To: ronpaul-48@meetup.com
I thought that some of you might enjoy seeing me school a shill who thinks that democracy is bad.

Mark

 

From: markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com
To: shannanpat@gmail.com
CC: toddkrautheim@comcast.netbydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.combstone12@hotmail.comkenditkowsky@yahoo.comemembee@charter.netdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmccray.michael@gmail.comtatiana.neroni@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comcleanupthecourts@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.nettoastedpecan523@gmail.comdiane1120@comcast.netjon.roland@constitution.orgjuanboricua@yahoo.comhonorablejudgebullock@gmail.comjaibelle_58@yahoo.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comtruth@masteragency.comrolandhinkson@inbox.commastertaxman6@aol.comezzrath138@hotmail.comrichslick@gmail.comaztec2@peoplepc.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comriccordero@verizon.netbillscheidler@outlook.com
Subject: RE: LOL!!! a comment on the UCC
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:19:30 -0500

Whoo hoo!!! Just when someone points out the root of the problem, a man from the Ministry pops in with some comical propaganda to try to distract people from getting a clue, not that they need much help being totally confused.  Note that Ken missed the point completely in one of his far too frequent emails, and instead, he seems to believe that begging members of the ruling elite to hold other members of the aristocracy accountable might eventually work.

Unfortunately for Pat Shannon, if that is his real name, he has found himself featured as a contestant in one of my favorite games: shill, not a shill.  Note that when someone acts like a shill, talks like a shill, and ignores facts like a shill, he is almost certainly a shill working for the Ministry and not just a simple fool regurgitating propaganda.  Naturally, he could accept the facts and prove that he is not a fool or a foolish shill, but I bet that he won’t.  

After all, Pat, the propaganda man, rolled out four tricks to distract from the root of the problem.  First, Pat completely ignores the theft of the rights to trials by juries and says that I’m spouting propaganda.  Then, he attacks democracy, and finally, he refers to Article IV, Section 4 which empowers the Federal government to guarantee that the states adopt a Republican form of government.  

Curiously, Pat does not mention the word “republic” in his attack on democracy.  Could it be that he knows that I’ve shot down that comical propaganda many times or is there some other reason why Pat didn’t cough up the tired old, but effective on the clueless, “we are a republic, not a democracy” line?

The "we are a republic not a democracy" disinformation is nothing more than an effort to belittle rule by the people and distract the clueless masses from the roots of our problems which is that we now live under an aristocracy as all of the rights which were supposed to allow us to ask other citizens to help us secure justice have been stolen.  Plus, the votes are unconstitutionally "counted" in secret, but who cares about that because democracy is bad, right?

Humorously, in his attack on democracy, Pat claims that the Framers said that democracy was bad, but that’s only a half-truth, a classic propaganda trick.  Moreover, it relies on ignorance of the root of the word “republic” which is the Roman Republic.  

Does Pat not know that or does he just hope that no one else knows that the Roman Republic was a democracy which had annual elections for both the legislature and the counsels, a.k.a. presidents?  Plus, power was distributed between the three branches of government, and it had a basic set of rules, a.k.a. a constitution, which the people in power were supposed to follow.  That is what a Republic is and what the Framers intended to establish in the U.S.  

However, Pat, like the folks from the Ministry, pretends that democracy is bad and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, says that we are supposed to be a republic without using the word, and implies that a republic magically provides liberty and justice without bothering to say that since that thought is programmed into the American mind.  After all, since the Ministry makes every little child say that every school day from kindergarten through 12th grade, lots of people believe that our government is good until they have a few experiences with it, and unfortunately, even then, most simply believe the abuses that they have experienced are aberrations which some other member of the ruling elite will correct if they beg for justice enough.  Moreover, due to the effectiveness of the Ministry’s “educational” system and “news” system, comically thought of as a free press, they cannot imagine that our government has reverted back from that of a democratic republic to an aristocracy.  

Yes, the fools at the Ministry expect that everyone is an ignorant fool and hasn’t bothered to actually read any of the writings of the Framers.  After all, the Ministry doesn’t require anyone to read the Federalist or the Anti-federalist papers, but instead, requires the little children to say every day that our government is a Godly republic which gives liberty and justice to all.

If Pat actually had read the Federalist papers, he should have noticed that in the Federalist Number 10, Madison notes the problems with pure democracies both making and enforcing the law by majority vote as it was in ancient Athenian democracy.  However, Madison was obviously aware that the British jury system prevented that problem, and he sought to make sure that the protections of the jury system were supposed to be guaranteed to us.  In fact, Madison drafted all three Constitutional provisions which once were supposed to guarantee that normal citizens controlled enforcement of the law and decided when life, liberty or property could be taken from anyone.  

Also, in the Federalist Number 10, Madison is comparing and contrasting a pure democracy with a republic.  He said, “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”  He also said, “If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.”  So, it should be obvious to all but shills from the Ministry that the Framers were basing their use of the term Republic on the Roman Republic which had annual elections for the legislative and executive branches.

Moreover, Madison goes on to say, “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”  Once again, Madison understood that the jury system injects democracy into the law enforcement function of government and that unanimous agreement of the jurors is necessary to take life, liberty or property based upon any criminal charge and a super-majority vote of the jury is supposed to be required to take property in a civil action which is why the rights to trials by juries were included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Anyway, read The Federalist Number 10 at https://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Plus, as Jefferson and Madison discussed, there are in essence only two forms of government, aristocracy or democracy.  Either you have to beg the ruling elite for justice or you ask normal citizens to do justice. 

Unfortunately, those rights which the Founders generation complained about being taken in the Declaration of Independence and went to war over were stolen while the so-called “Greatest Generation” of fools were distracted by manufactured poverty and war.  

More unfortunately, instead of focusing on restoring the rights which once upon a time kept the people in power from unjustly taking life, liberty and property at their whim, far too many simply regurgitate comical nonsense.  Of course, those who want to rule like the kings of old understand that by keeping the masses in the dark and feeding them BS, they can get away with nearly anything.  See a short film by Orson Welles explaining what Plato said about this at https://youtu.be/UQfRdl3GTw4

Once again, note that the fascist scumbags who took over our country 70 years ago have stolen the right to a jury trial in all civil actions and in criminal actions unless you are charged with a felony.  If you don't believe me, see for yourself at https://tiny.cc/3uvn3w

Now, if you really want to restore liberty, justice, democracy, or our Constitutional republic, then you need to understand how we were supposed to be able to secure liberty and justice and demand the restoration of those rights.

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

P.S. I talked about this problem just a couple of months ago.  See https://youtu.be/6B4sGscxVtA
 
___
 
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:23:35 -0500
Subject: Re: LOL!!! a comment on the UCC
From: shannanpat@gmail.com
To: markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com
CC: toddkrautheim@comcast.netbydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.combstone12@hotmail.comkenditkowsky@yahoo.comemembee@charter.netdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmccray.michael@gmail.comtatiana.neroni@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comcleanupthecourts@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.nettoastedpecan523@gmail.comdiane1120@comcast.netjon.roland@constitution.orgjuanboricua@yahoo.comhonorablejudgebullock@gmail.comjaibelle_58@yahoo.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comtruth@masteragency.comrolandhinkson@inbox.commastertaxman6@aol.comezzrath138@hotmail.comrichslick@gmail.comaztec2@peoplepc.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comriccordero@verizon.netbillscheidler@outlook.com

Hey, lawyer man, you have just struck a nerve. Plz see Art. 4, Sec. 4, of the Constitution and tell how you come up with this absurd statement.  I would say that you are regurgitating some propaganda of your own.  Only a brief glance at the Federalist Papers will explain to you how much the founding fathers abhorred democracy -- something that I am sure was never taught in your law school.
I look forward to your reply. 
 Pat Shannan
 
We now live in an aristocracy because the rights which once made our government a democracy have been subverted!  For example, now you don't have a right to a trial by a jury unless you have been charged with a felony!!! 

P.P.S. If you don't regurgitate propaganda, I won't make fun of you or block your email address.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
ROFLMAO!!!  The effing courts do not operate under the UCC nor is that in any way related to why judges ignore the facts and the law!!!  

Judicial immunity from civil liability is part of the problem, and the willingness of prosecutors to refuse to pursue the indictment and prosecution of judges who violate the law is another big part of the problem.  However, the biggest part of the problem is that judges are not supposed to decide cases!!!!!!!  

Didn't you read the Declaration of Independence???  In it, the Founders complained about the theft of the right to trials by juries more than they did about taxation.  Read it at https://www.scribd.com/doc/17099415/The-Declaration-of-Independence

Also, you might try reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.  For example, if you do, you will find that the Framers wanted to preserve the right to trials by juries because as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist No. 83, "The strongest argument in its (trial by jury) favor is, that it is a security against corruption. As there is always more time and better opportunity to tamper with a standing body of magistrates than with a jury summoned for the occasion...."  Read it at https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm

Whether you live in an aristocracy or a democracy is determined not only by elections, but also, by whether or not an aristocratic judge can take your life, liberty or property or a jury of normal citizens need to be convinced that you should lose your life, liberty or property!!!!!

We now live in an aristocracy because the rights which once made our government a democracy have been subverted!  For example, now you don't have a right to a trial by a jury unless you have been charged with a felony!!!  If you just cannot believe it, see the U.S. Supreme Court's most comical decision usuring this fundamental right in the article at https://tiny.cc/3uvn3w

Of course, even then, if the aristocrats want to throw the case, they will illegally suppress evidence and threaten to pull your attorney's license without a jury trial.  This is and was the purpose for attorney licensing schemes.  In fact, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Douglas and Black predicted that mandatory Bar associations would be used to control lawyers, prohibit challenges to the establishment, and cover up misconduct by powerful interests.  See their dissents in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961) at https://supreme.justia.com/us/367/820/case.html beginning at 866.  

Until you get a clue about how liberty and justice are best secured, you aren't going to achieve anything, much less restore justice!!!

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

P.S. Since some of you may not know of my work, there’s a 3 minute video about some of it at 
https://youtu.be/JAni0WoI7LI

P.P.S. If you don't regurgitate propaganda, I won't make fun of you or block your email address.


CC: bstone12@hotmail.comkenditkowsky@yahoo.comemembee@charter.netdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comtatiana.neroni@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comcleanupthecourts@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.nettoastedpecan523@gmail.comdiane1120@comcast.netjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.comhonorablejudgebullock@gmail.comjaibelle_58@yahoo.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comtruth@masteragency.comrolandhinkson@inbox.commastertaxman6@aol.comezzrath138@hotmail.comrichslick@gmail.comaztec2@peoplepc.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comriccordero@verizon.netbillscheidler@outlook.com
From: toddkrautheim@comcast.net
Subject: Re: a comment on the uniform commercial code
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:39:42 -0500
To: bydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.com

Maybe all of you answers are in the pro. Rules of conduct ?
 
Could it be .....The american bar association over thrown our government ? 
  
Answer ...... Yes 
ABA rule 1.6 in pa on 10/16/87 
 
Best , 
Todd 


Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Michael Glavic <bydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
If I might interject, on this interesting development, of an observation, of whatever, fact, it never ceases to amaze me how the, adversary/opponent to as much... hides and cheats, (of the lying and censoring kind?) but thinks they're being open and honest (cunning, as true and honest to the game if not the competitive, and by extension, beyond the law in such respect?) of a/the Uniform Commercial Code as the basis for politics if not our abuse, and need for lawyers and a judiciary, of as much? Sheeesh.. . Just more of the,  corruption (That which is not so true to justice, if not such justice) of an instutition and language of as much, surely
 
Do stick around and keep me posted in such respect (I truly dislike, and do as much, about the  "cheating" kind.. . I encompass the lie and liar in such respect and deal with them, accordingly, be So sure, Thereof? .. .
 
I figure nothing is more disorderly and disordering (confusing) than the criminal and abuser, (On what needs  doing?) of that which isn't So  true and accommodating, Etc.. . Have me in such respect, or see what happens otherwise, that we don't? .. .
 
Best wishes, So true,
 
Michael Glavic


On Sunday, November 23, 2014 12:08 PM, Barbara Stone <bstone12@hotmail.com> wrote:


Dear Ms.  Barnewell
 
Please excuse my writing this note as you have been asked to be removed from this list however I wanted to make an observation on your very important research about the courts operating under the Uniform Commercial Code.
 
As I dig further and further into this abyss and quagmire of corrupt courts (that I steadfastly believe are criminal RICO enterprises), 
I hear from many others who also suggest as you do  - that the Courts operate under the debtor and creditor laws of the UCC and that our filings should comport to these instruments.
 
I am a non-practicing attorney by choice.  Many years ago, I practiced real estate law (with at one time Mudge Rose - the home of Richard Nixon before the firm closed their doors)  I  never set foot in the courtroom and  my travels in court as a consequence of my mother being brutalized by predators in a guardianship would be unimaginable were they not true. 
 
Interestingly, as an experiment, I did, in my last filing in criminal court (where I am being tried for saving my mother's life and hope someday to make a blockbuster movie), file an instrument in the nature of a UCC filing.  The judge took great offense, advising me that it did not comply with pleading requirement and she tossed my filing away from her "podium" without a glance.  It was a well reasoned, respectful filing that warranted review.
 
Thereafter, I returned to her court and filed a revised pleading that was purposely done as a cross breeding with the basics of a standard pleading and the elements of a UCC filing.  She was perplexed and stated she would leave it up to the state attorney (who filed the false arrest against me and failed to protect my mother from crimes) and then commented that she thought it was not a valid pleading thereby insuring that she also showed her prejudice against me in open court (in violation of every possible judicial canon which is routinely ignored).
 
 I would greatly appreciate a copy of your article and suggest it may be helpful to stay onboard with us to see if the courts who refuse to recognize law, equity or the Constitution will recognize the Uniform Commercial Code for those of us who attempt this as a means to seek "justice".    As a point of note, I was sent a "uniform bonding code" that was written by an individual (not a codification by the "powers that be") but is well reasoned and logical and may be of interest - if so, I will be happy to forward it to you and to anyone else in the group upon request.
 
I look forward to any comments.
 
Barbara
 
 
 

 

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:36:59 +0000
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
To: emembee@charter.netdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.combstone12@hotmail.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comtatiana.neroni@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comcleanupthecourts@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.nettoastedpecan523@gmail.comdiane1120@comcast.netjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.comhonorablejudgebullock@gmail.comjaibelle_58@yahoo.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comtruth@masteragency.comrolandhinkson@inbox.commastertaxman6@aol.comezzrath138@hotmail.comtoddkrautheim@comcast.netrichslick@gmail.combydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.comaztec2@peoplepc.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comriccordero@verizon.netbillscheidler@outlook.com
Subject: Re: PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME

I understand that Justice Stevens has a new book out that addresses your subject.   My wife is taking one of those elder learning classes that is going to discuss it.   If you are interested I will try to find out more information on the book.   
 
On C Span each weekend there are some very interesting discussions of books on various topics.   As a dinosaur my viewing is on a "catch as catch can" basis, but the array of subjects is so great that I observed a number of discussions of books that relate to the workings of the judicial system.  Doing research by watching the book channel is almost painless.   There is however no guide available that provides an easy way to separate the wheat from the shaft! 
 
 


From: "emembee@charter.net" <emembee@charter.net>
To: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>; barbara stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>; kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Jeffrey Norkin <jeff@norkinlaw.com>; Andy Ostrowski <ajo@bsolaw.com>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>; Attorney Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michael mccray <mccray.michael@gmail.com>; tatiana.neroni@gmail.com; Yania Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; Charles R Livecchi <crl14606@yahoo.com>; Glenda Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Richard Hettler <ceo@eciglobalcorp.com>; zcrenshaw@comcast.net; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Chris Forsyth <cleanupthecourts@hotmail.com>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <corderoric@yahoo.com>; "Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net" <dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net>; Talkshow Host Ethel Lopez <toastedpecan523@gmail.com>; Diane Gochin <diane1120@comcast.net>; jon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.com; Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@yahoo.com>; honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com; Jane Bansal <jaibelle_58@yahoo.com>; hoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comtruth@masteragency.comrolandhinkson@inbox.com; Edwin Nassar <mastertaxman6@aol.com>; Ezzrath Shem <ezzrath138@hotmail.com>; Todd Krautheim <toddkrautheim@comcast.net>; Rich Martin <richslick@gmail.com>; Michael Glavic <bydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.com>; Jack Graham <aztec2@peoplepc.com>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; "RicCordero@verizon.net" <riccordero@verizon.net>; Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@outlook.com
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:55 PM
Subject: PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME

Though I am working on judicial accountability, my primary focus addresses this problem (and numerous others) from a different perspective.  In that regard, I am currently researching and writing an article about the structure of the court system which, when understood, makes clear why our courts function under the auspices of the Uniform Commercial Code rather than the Rule of Law which flows from the Constitution.  If you would like to have a copy of the article when it is published (hopefully next week), drop me a note and let me know.  I don’t keep publishing lists for my articles, but will make every effort to get a copy to you.  I would appreciate it if you would remove my name from this mailing list.  Thanks... Marilyn Barnewall 
 
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 7:52 PM
To: barbara stone ; Sharon Rondeau ; kenneth ditkowsky ; Jeffrey Norkin ; Andy Ostrowski ; Attorney Dr Richard Fine ; Attorney Mark Adams ; michael mccray ; tatiana.neroni@gmail.com ; Yania Gonzalez ; Charles R Livecchi ; Glenda Martinez ; Richard Hettler ; zcrenshaw@comcast.net ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks ; Chris Forsyth ; Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. ; Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net ; Talkshow Host Ethel Lopez ; Diane Gochin ; lon@gibbymedia.com ; jon.roland@constitution.org ; hilljs@washpost.com ; Juan Carrasco ; honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com ; Jane Bansal ; hoytlaw@hotmail.com ; shannanpat@gmail.com ; truth@masteragency.com ; rolandhinkson@inbox.com ; emembee@charter.net ; Edwin Nassar ; Ezzrath Shem ; Todd Krautheim ; Rich Martin ; Michael Glavic ; Jack Graham ; Janet Phelan ; Journalist Janet Phelan ; RicCordero@verizon.net ; Bill Scheidler
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
 

Dear Ms. Stone and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

 

I sent you a reply email on October 14, and again on November 14. I have not received any response from you in any of the accounts from which I sent it to you.

 

These emails have information relevant to the other Advocates of Honest Judiciaries.

 

Hence, I would like to know whether you, Ms. Stone, and any of the other advocates received it. It is reproduced below.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City






****************************************
 
Dear Ms. Stone, Ms. Martinez, Mr. Ditkowsky, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

 

I am glad to hear from you again, Ms. Stone.

 

I sent you an email on October 14, which is reproduced below.

 

If you sent any reply to my email address at Google, i.e., Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq at gmail.com, I did not receive it because Google disabled my account, as shown at * >ggl:1 et seq.

 


or


or


or


or


or


 

A. Plan of concrete, realistic, and feasible action

 

That email as well as the copies of previous emails contained in it just the email that I sent you last Friday, November 7, on suing judges, sets forth concrete, realistic, and feasible proposals for action, namely:

 

1. to contact talkshow hosts to make presentations of judges’ wrongdoing and the need for judicial reform(* >ol:146);

 

2. to contact graduate schools of journalism, law, business, and Information Technology, to make presentations(* >Lsch:1,2) there and ‘recruit’ students for the investigation(ol:115) of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:100); and

 

3. to contact journalists and media outlets, in general(ol:150), and the Newsday journalists, in particular, to present to them the two unique national stories and what they have to gain personally and professionally by investigating them;

 

† Sandra Peddie and Will Van Santsandra.peddie@newsday.com, will.vansant@newsday.com

The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; Saturday, 4oct14; https://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/

 

4. to contact politicians(see below).

 

 

B. The irrationality of doing the same thing while expecting a different result

 

If everybody waits for the others to take action, nothing will be done at all. This group will continue to be a debating society of victims of wrongdoing judges where the only action that some of them take, to sue judges, is the same that people have taken by rote for the last 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, in which period only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed(* >jur:21§a).

 

Otherwise, the other action taken is to have faith that the AG will take action against wrongdoing judges. Faith is not a basis for legal action. Faith that is counterfactual is certainly not a basis on which to take any action.

 

If the AG referred to is the U.S. Attorney General, President Obama’s nominee, U.S. Attorney in NY Loretta Lynch, if confirmed, will certainly take no action whatsoever against federal judges, for in doing so she would upset the whole class of federal judges, who would close ranks in defense of any one of them under attack.

 

What is more, Nominee Lynch would not dare provoke federal judges into retaliation precisely when the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another challenge to Obamacare. Last time, its constitutionality was saved by the single and very much unexpected vote of Chief Justice Roberts, who was nominated and confirmed by Republicans.

 

Moreover, if, for the sake of the argument though patently unreasonable, AG Nominee Lynch limited herself to investigating judges and justices appointed and confirmed by Democrats, she would have to include among them Justice Sotomayor, the first SCt. nominee of her boss, President Obama, and the very one that The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and Politico(* >65fn107a) suspected of concealing assets(* >65fn107c). No reasonable person can believe that she would consider for a nanosecond doing that. This applies mutatis mutandis to state attorneys general, district attorneys, and their assistants.

 

It shows lack of strategic thinking to expect judges or prosecutors, whether federal or state ones, and for the same reason grand juries, whose indictments must be pursued by prosecutors, to investigate, never mind indict and prosecute, judges(* >Lsch:13).

 

C. The out-of-court strategy centered on journalists and an outraged public

 

That is why I have presented in detail an out-of-court strategy centered on:

 

1. the investigation of the two unique national stories(ol:100) by principled and ambitious journalists(ol:3§F) and other professionals(jur:128§4);

 

2. the outraging of the national public during the primary and presidential election campaigns;

 

3. the stirring up of an outraged public into forcing politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to investigate judges officially and at public hearings.

 

One of the pillars of strategic thinking is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It is obvious that Republican candidates for office would be more likely than Democrats to investigate Justice Sotomayor, not because they are more interested in an honest judiciary than Democrats, but simply to embarrass the President, deal a devastating blow to Obamacare(ol:79¶B; Lsch:20¶31; ol:67¶6; ); and tarnish the Democratic brand in the midst of election campaigns.

 

Hence the effort to contact Republican candidates to offer to make a presentation to them about why and how to conduct such investigation(ol:100; 115).

 

D. Time is of the essence for implementing the strategy

 

Time is of the essence because we should take advantage of the impending start of the campaign for the primaries and the approaching swearing in of the new Congress: The two unique national stories can provoke a scandal that shapes the campaign theme and Congress’s agenda and eventually dominates them, as balancing the budget, the sequestration of funds, and the shutdown of government did in the recent past.

 

The above shows strategic thinking that has produced a feasible, concrete, and realistic strategy reasonably calculated to advance our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(jur:158§§6-8).

 

There is neither time nor need to wait for other people to state their qualifications or what they intend to do. They have done that sufficiently.

 

Consequently, what can you do to implement the plan of action summarized above and described in detail below?

 

How can you encourage the other members of this group and others to take action to implement the out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform?

 

As a first step, I encourage you also to share, distribute, and post this email as well as any and all the articles below as widely as possible

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City






 

Watch the interview with me by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, thereon, which can be used as a promotional tool, at:


and


 

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

 

 


Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:07:41 +0000
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
To: hoytlaw@hotmail.comwritejanet@live.combstone12@hotmail.combillscheidler@outlook.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comemembee@charter.netrolandhinkson@inbox.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comtruth@masteragency.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause

It has been said that every criminal makes a mistake that brings him down.   Judicial criminals are no exception.   Every battle starts with a first step and this battle is no exception.   I nominate Mr. Jerome Larkin as target number one.   He has a history and he is arrogant beyond words.   What makes him especially attractive is the fact that he thinks he is that namesless faceless bureaucrat who irritates every one of us when we have to deal with DMV, etc.    The first rifle bullet was fired:
 
 
JoAnne,
It was a foregone conclusion that Jerome Larkin was not going to honor the Federal and State Statutes that protect all citizens from governmental abuse and corruption.    Domestic terrorism is not limited to the ‘nut’ who shoots up a library, but the over-paid political operative who lacks respect for the Rule of Law, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Illinois.    A public official such as Jerome Larkin is a prime example of a domestic terrorist.
Every grammar school student is aware of the First Amendment and its broad protections; however, it is apparent that the Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion Commission f/k/a the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission either has not heard or worse yet has decided to take the John Gruber approach –the stupid electorate*****.      Most Americans are now aware to their horror that Gruber is not a lone voice in the wilderness!     The elder cleansing cottage industry that is currently conducting a war on the elderly and the disabled relying on the hope that the responsible members of the American political cline will either attorn to the assault on our core values or be as John Grubber candidly describes us!
At this point in most of my writings I cite statute and case law pointing out the protections that the legislatures and government in general have on the books that abhor the action of criminals such as Larkin and those he acts in concert, however, most people who know me have heard the citations so often that they can recite them in their sleep.    Thus, I will delete the citations and point out that it is most disconcerting to watch the abdication of law enforcement to the criminal elements just as so many of their number did during the Prohibition years with disastrous consequences.    Larkin’s open a notorious retaliation 42 USCA 12203 is an affront to law enforcement in general and the core values of America.    It must be redressed firmly and promptly.   
On your behalf as your friend I am on your behalf forwarding your note to me to the Justice Department and in particular the Americans with Disabilities section and respectfully requesting that an immediate investigation commence as to Larkin’s obvious obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting the felonies of elder cleansing, and his acting in concert with criminals preying on the elderly and the disabled. (18 USCA 371).     Larkin’s most recent action in attempting to suspend you for three years is an open challenge to legitimate law enforcement.       He loudly proclaims:  “An honest public official who when bribed stays bribed!”     Larkin has unequivocally announced by your suspension that he fully intends to protect the elder abusers, the elder exploiters, and the rank thieves so that they can continue to unabatedly redistribute to themselves the wealth of the infirm, the disabled and the elderly to his constituency and he has once again made his announcement loud and clear.
 
Does Law enforcement and the Government of the United States of America attorn or do they enforce the law!    That is the question.    The members who the electorate who Professor Gruber pointed out were stupid have awoken and want an answer right now!
 
 
 

From: Hoyt Law Office <hoytlaw@hotmail.com>
To: Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Barbara Stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@outlook.com>; kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>; Pat shannan <shannanpat@gmail.com>; Marilyn Barnewall <emembee@charter.net>; "Roland Hinkson @ Inbox" <rolandhinkson@inbox.com>; Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; FYI <truth@masteragency.com>; Jeffrey Norkin <jeff@norkinlaw.com>; Andy Ostrowski <ajo@bsolaw.com>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>; "Mark Adams, Esq." <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michael mccray <mccray.michael@gmail.com>; Yania Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; Charles R Livecchi <crl14606@yahoo.com>; Glenda Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Richard Hettler <ceo@eciglobalcorp.com>; "zcrenshaw@comcast.net" <zcrenshaw@comcast.net>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; "Cordero.Ric@hotmail.com" <cordero.ric@hotmail.com>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <corderoric@yahoo.com>; "Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net" <dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net>; "jon.roland@constitution.org" <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
 
This is email is specifically directed at Ken Ditkowsky.
 
We know that the DOJ is filled with criminals who daily are seeking to destroy the lives of those who believe in liberty. (While they are criminals they are given a "pass" by their fellows in the Gov't because of selective enforcement.)
 
Barbara suggest below that we should have a "well defined battle plan." Well, she's right, but how can we even discuss ideas for such a plan if one of our group is 'telegraphing our punches' to the enemy. It is true that the time for debate is past.  The rights and freedoms of 'We the People' are being eviscerated incrementally every day and we need to do something. The question is, what shall we do?  As many of us go through this process, we have shared our thoughts and ideas with those whom we believe can be trusted to carefully consider and respond to and offer improvements for the plans suggested, so that we can be effective. Frankly, we live in perilous times.  I have been attacked by the DOJ who falsely and with impunity accused me of plotting to murder 22 federal and other individuals as a predicate to a criminal prosecution. We made those false allegations go away, but there was considerable anxiety and gnashing of teeth.
 
This is the kind of false accusation that befell Edgar Steele (falsely accused, wrongfully prosecuted and viciously convicted of a crime he did not commit, but, he is now dead, killed by the BOP with a drug overdose while in the Auschwitz of America, Victorville Prison; David R. Hinkson, Matt Hale and Schaeffer Cox, to name only a few).  If you don't understand, then you need to come up on the learning curve very quickly, these individuals exercised the franchise of freedom of speech and spoke out for Liberty in America only to be silenced by fraudulent prosecutions by the DOJ. (Ken, the DOJ takes a little statement and they expand it so far out of proportion that it is unrecognizable, but then they run with it and "make it stick."  I've seen them get away with these fraudulent prosecutions time and time again...so where have you been the last 20 years? They would do it to you, but you are providing inside information.)
 
All of us should agree that the time for analysis is past, and all of us should realize what is the nature and source of the problem. We know that at the top of the enemy's list is putting in prison the innocent who are outspoken about liberty. The list of liberty violations that they continue to commit with impunity is astounding, but, it is because they have governmental immunity, which Bill Scheidler and I have communicated about briefly and they control the media; what is left to us is the Internet and the trust of others who are likeminded. But, now Ken, you have compromised that feeling of trust.
 
Here is my concern, if Ken is truly a "brave warrior in this war," why, without the permission of the author (me) would he indiscriminately send a copy of my last email to the DOJ?  Does that mean that Ken is a "spy in the enemy camp"?
 
How can any of us be expected to speak openly when one of those on the list of "trusted" individuals is sending our emails to the enemy?  These comments were meant only for discussion wherein we are seeking advice and consent from others who are like minded.  If an insider is exposing those thoughts to the sworn enemies of freedom, then that means we cannot have open, frank and freewheeling communications.  Certainly, if we believe that our most precious thoughts are being immediately conveyed to those who take great pleasure in prosecuting the outspoken, would any of us dare to defy this system of corruption (from which they profit- Ask Pat Shannan and look at the special awards sections found in 5 USC 4302 & 4303, by which FBI agents, prosecutors and judges are all paid bribes to bring down those who actively engage in the cause of preserving the US Constitution; which they degrade so openly using the right to freedom of speech- that they used the freedom of speech to destroy our freedom of speech, just as the Moslems use our freedom of religion to destroy our exercise of freedom of religion-is this an irony or what?).
 
Therefore, Ken this is a direct challenge to you.  First, you need to apologize to me for sending any of my writings to the DOJ without my express permission; and second, you need to promise those who have trusted you to be a "brave warrior in this war" that you will never again send the writings of anyone to the government without first obtaining permission. If you do not, it will be a sign that you cannot be trusted with the precious, innermost thoughts and ideas of those who are seeking to build a network of true believers in liberty--what you have done is to undermine the efforts of those who are in the midst reaching out to those who are trustworthy to make connections to pull together believers so we can gain traction in the fight for freedom. 
 
Given human nature I fully expect those who know Ken to come to his aid and write about what a wonderful guy he is and how unfair my criticism is ...etc.  However, I trusted Dr. Cordero to be communicating in confidence with those who love freedom and who desire to protect it (we do not have time to vet everyone on the list, either you are trustworthy or you should be excluded).  I felt violated when Ken reported my writing immediately to the DOJ. That is like in the 1930s &40s turning over your neighbor to the Nazis for being a Jew...Dah, this not rocket science, these creeps in the gov't want a list of people they can go after and point to a domestic terrorists, the modern day equivalent of being a Jews in Nazi Germany. 
 
Ken, were you just seeking to glorify yourself with those you think are your buddies in the DOJ, or did you have another agenda? Ratting me and the rest of those on the list out to the 'epicenter of evil' is a crime against humanity. (Ken, you maintain that there are many in the Gov't who are honest, however, even the honest ones stand by in silence and do nothing watching their fellows who are Nazis, destroy the lives of the innocent because they have all taken an oath to support one another and it truly is a conspiracy of silence-if you do not understand that by this point in your career, then you cannot be trusted to have any valuable information because of your pollyanna notions that promise to bring the rest of us down).
 
Best regards,
 
Wes Hoyt





From: writejanet@live.com
To: bstone12@hotmail.combillscheidler@outlook.comkenditkowsky@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comemembee@charter.netrolandhinkson@inbox.comart2pat35@hotmail.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comtruth@masteragency.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.comwritejanet@live.com
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:39:41 -0600

It is my understanding that Barbara Stone is an attorney.
 
What I have generally found is that if one cannot get others to do what you believe needs to be done, it is best to tackle this yourself.
 
I see Pat Shannan's name on this list. Pat, I believe we met at the Freedom Festival in Sturgis over the fourth of July weekend in 08. As I recall, you did a mean Elvis imitation and gave me an autographed copy of one of your books.  Greetings!
 
Janet Phelan


From: bstone12@hotmail.com
To: billscheidler@outlook.comkenditkowsky@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comemembee@charter.netrolandhinkson@inbox.comart2pat35@hotmail.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comtruth@masteragency.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:03:10 -0500

Ken has been a brave warrior in this war.  The exchange of emails needs to convert into a well defined battleplan.
 
Mr. Scheidler - you described the activities you are taking with law enforcement in Washington State.   That is a start but this war needs to be fought at the federal level and on a national level.   
 
it all ends and begins with Law enforcement.  When I call the FBI, they hang up on me as the guardianship issues involves a court order and that means they have to tackle  a corrupt judge.     When I send a letter to the USDistrict Attorney it goes unanswered.
 
It is very simple.    We - those of us who are trying to tackle the issue - need to file a lawsuit against the FBI and the DOJ to either get a declaratory statement of their duties or to obtain a declaratory statement giving the citizens the right to "Stand our ground" in all instances where our lives and freedom is in peril.  
 
Since there are many disbarred lawyers on this list who have been retaliated for speaking up against corruption, surely there is one who can draft a declaratory complaint and file it in Washington DC?
 
Barbara

 

From: billscheidler@outlook.com
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comemembee@charter.netrolandhinkson@inbox.comart2pat35@hotmail.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comtruth@masteragency.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netbstone12@hotmail.comjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:45:43 -0800

Mr. Ditkowsky,
 
I like you!  Please keep me on your contacts list as we are both on the same page.

Regards,
Bill Scheidler
chief activist at www.CorruptWA.com



Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:17:46 +0000
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
To: dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comemembee@charter.netrolandhinkson@inbox.comart2pat35@hotmail.comwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.comtruth@masteragency.comjeff@norkinlaw.comajo@bsolaw.combillscheidler@outlook.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netbstone12@hotmail.comjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause

As an example of the type of document that I suggest be sent to the AG, I present my essay on the Anatomy of judicial corruption.   
 
Anatomy of Judicial Corruption
 
In order to intelligently address the problem of judicial corruption it must be defined.     Judicial Corruption consists of much more than a judge taking bribe i.e. the acceptance of something of value for a favorable decision.     It is corrupt for a judge to
1.       Be influenced by political considerations including whether or not his political sponsor or party will profit by his decision or   
2.       to administer a statute without reading it and the interpreting case law or
3.       administer or interpret the law without fully understanding it or
4.       commit a crime, aid and abet a crime, or obstruct justice, or
5.       do any act that violates the Constitution of the United States or the State of Illinois
It is not corruption to be wrong, to act according to conscience, or to exercise discretion so as to protect the rule of law or the public.
The essence of judicial corruption is found in the in re: Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.      Therein the Court totally ignored the record before it, allowed the proceeding to proceed without jurisdiction being obtained, the railroading of a senior into a guardianship, the isolation of the ward from her family and former life and allowing her appointees to decimate the estate.
Illinois, like most states, has a well thought out guardianship statute.      The statute provides for the court (judge) to provide the facilities of State government to obviate the deficiencies of the elderly and disabled person by providing such reasonable accommodation as might be necessary so that the disabled person might enjoy the fruits of her life.     The Courts recognize that a guardianship has the potential of separating an individual from his or her life and Constitutional rights and therefore imposed procrustean rules so as to protect the individual.
To prove a disablement the petitioner must provide sufficient proof to not only prove a disability that interferes with the enjoyment of the ward as to the fruits of liberty and freedom, but the extent and nature of the same.      755 ILCS 5/11 a- 3 b states:
·              (b)  Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.
 
The statute then goes on to provide that the petition must prove the elements of the claim by clear and convincing evidence.      Thus, the extent of the guardianship is limited to what is necessitated by actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.       Not a scintilla of evidence was ever presented in the Sykes case!    Her original doctor refused to sign the basic form, and the ‘rubber stamp’ doctor recommended by the miscreant guardian ad litem never testified in Court.[1]     Companion with the guardianship was a petition filed by Mary Sykes seeking protection from the individual petitioning to be her guardian.    It appears that this person removed without permission $4000.00 from Mary’s checking account.     Mary observed the theft and sought an order of protection.     Interesting enough the Court personnel were able to understand Mary and in helping her to file the Petition for a Protective order ‘found’ her to be not only competent by credible.   
Not to belabor this point, the record never explains how a person who demonstrates in writing in court proceedings that she knows the object of her bounty, extent and nature of her property, and executes a proper petition for a protective order is incompetent.     The blindness of the Presiding Judge is garden variety corruption.
755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is the legislative protection of due process.    The Legislature recognizes that in addition to notifying an incompetent of proceedings concerning her liberty and property others must be notified so that the ward is not railroaded.     Thus, 11a – 10 requires that
1.       The summons to be used must in bold letters notify the ward of her rights.     This is not an ordinary summons but one specially printed so that the ward will not ignore it.
2.       The closest (nearest) family members be disclosed on the petition and be given 14 days prior notice of the incompetency hearing.
The corrupt judge knew or should have known:
1.       The summons required to be served was not available in the Circuit Court clerk’s office and apparently none were printed.
2.       The summons required was not served on Mary or anyone else.    In fact the Sheriff made no return of service.
3.       The closest relatives were not all disclosed on the petition.   Mary’s two sisters (who were entitled to notice) were not disclosed and not given any notice.    
4.       It appears that even Mary was not provided notice of the hearing.
Corruption was institutionalized when the judge signed the order[2] appointing the person who Mary wanted an order of protection as her guardian and the signed an order that isolated Mary from her two sisters and younger daughter.
Of course what followed is indicative of all the elder cleansing cases.      The pecuniary assets of the estate were ravaged and over a million dollars in assets disappeared.[3]    Subsequently the real estate was sold at prices below bargain basement.      During the course of the elder cleansing every attempt by family, friends, etc. to address the corruption was repulsed.     The judge was liberal in using her power to intimidate and obstruct justice as she aided and abetted tax evasion, theft, kidnapping, theft by a fiduciary, mail fraud, wire fraud ****.    [4]
At one point in time Mary was located in a nursing home.    Family members rushed to visit her, but were repelled by the Naperville Police Department.    Taking photographs resulted in the Police demanding that they be forthwith destroyed.     An independent investigator suggested that one of the two guardian ad litem had an interesting in the nursing home, and I suggested that the guardian ad litem might have been given a referral fee.
Every fact stated herein is backed up by affidavits and the common law record in the Sykes case.  (09 P 4585).      It should be noted that the corrupt judge was elevated to the Appellate Court of Illinois and her replacement recently resigned from the bench under a cloud.
 


[1] According to the Circuit Court record this doctor finds 100% of the people he is asked to examine incompetent and in need of total guardianship.     The more affluent the ward the greater the need for a plenary guardian with total powers.
[2] The guardian ad litem in an e-mail disclosed that the guardianship order was promulgated upon his agreement with the attorney for the petitioner.    Ms Gloria Sykes has a copy of the e-mail.
[3] The guardian accessed a safety deposit box containing about a million dollars in uncirculated gold coins.    These gold coins disappeared and were never inventoried.    The guardian has never denied the taking of these gold coins and other property, and has been observed with new found wealth.    Only Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga has denied the theft of the gold coins.   Ms. Farenga admitted that her denial was made without knowledge as to what was in the safety deposit box when it was drilled and what was taken from it.    She never explained why as a guardian ad litem she felt compelled to deny facts that she claimed to have no personal knowledge concerning.
[4] JoAnne Denison was prevented from addressing this corruption.    She once notarized a document signed by Mary – this was enough to disqualify her.    Other attorneys were threatened with IARDC proceedings for objecting to the pattern of theft, isolation, and other criminal activity.      My efforts were rewarded with a sanction order – reversed because of lack of jurisdiction, and IARDC proceedings.   When I wrote the Attorney General of the United States my license was suspended for four years.
 
 
 

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>; Att. Wes Hoyt <hoytlaw@hotmail.com>; "shannanpat@gmail.com" <shannanpat@gmail.com>; "emembee@charter.net" <emembee@charter.net>; "rolandhinkson@inbox.com" <rolandhinkson@inbox.com>; Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; FYI <truth@masteragency.com>; Jeffrey Norkin <jeff@norkinlaw.com>; Andy Ostrowski <ajo@bsolaw.com>; Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@outlook.com>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>; Attorney Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michael mccray <mccray.michael@gmail.com>; Yania Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; Charles R Livecchi <crl14606@yahoo.com>; Glenda Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Richard Hettler <ceo@eciglobalcorp.com>; "zcrenshaw@comcast.net" <zcrenshaw@comcast.net>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; "Cordero.Ric@hotmail.com" <cordero.ric@hotmail.com>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <corderoric@yahoo.com>; "Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net" <dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net>; barbara stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; "jon.roland@constitution.org" <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
 
Now having expressed in my previous e-mail a credo let me answer each of your points.   I have done so in red.
 
 
 

From: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Att. Wes Hoyt <hoytlaw@hotmail.com>; "shannanpat@gmail.com" <shannanpat@gmail.com>; "emembee@charter.net" <emembee@charter.net>; "rolandhinkson@inbox.com" <rolandhinkson@inbox.com>; Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; FYI <truth@masteragency.com>; Jeffrey Norkin <jeff@norkinlaw.com>; Andy Ostrowski <ajo@bsolaw.com>; Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@outlook.com>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>; Attorney Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michael mccray <mccray.michael@gmail.com>; Yania Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; Charles R Livecchi <crl14606@yahoo.com>; Glenda Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Richard Hettler <ceo@eciglobalcorp.com>; "zcrenshaw@comcast.net" <zcrenshaw@comcast.net>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; "Cordero.Ric@hotmail.com" <cordero.ric@hotmail.com>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <corderoric@yahoo.com>; "Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net" <dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net>; barbara stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; "jon.roland@constitution.org" <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
 

Dear Messrs. Ditkowsky, Hoyt, Hinkson, Shannan, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

 

You appear to believe, Mr. Ditkowsky, that if only you cause everybody in this group to put together a packet of information on judicial corruption and you place it before President Obama’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Att. for N.Y. Loretta Lynch, the latter will “have no excuse” to take action against corrupt judges, whether they are federal or state, because your information can only be interpreted in one single way, namely, that the judges are corrupt, that this is the right time to prosecute them, and that it is so strong that it deprives the AG of her prosecutorial discretion and compels her to follow the law, political considerations notwithstanding.

 

Does this sound like lawyerly reasoning? Is it consonant with the facts?

Since you are a lawyer, you should consider whether the facts reasonably support your belief.

 

A. Basing action and calls for it on facts rather than faith and wishful thinking

 

1. Concerning federal judges, on 30sep11, the number of federal judges, including justices and magistrates, on the federal bench was 2,131(* >jur:22fn13). It is within the bounds of educated speculation to assume arguendo that circa 10,000 judges may have served on the Federal Judiciary in the last 225 years since its creation in 1789. However, according to the official statistics of the Federal Judicial Center, the research and educational arm of the Judiciary, only 8 judges were impeached and removed(* >jur:21§a).   The fact that only 8 judges have been impeached is meaningless.    It may mean that there were only 8 dishonest judges, or it may mean something else.    Not all judges are criminals, political hacks etc.    Some judges - believe it or not - are honest people doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.

 

* All (parenthetical) blue text references are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s study of the Federal Judiciary titled,Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.

 

The study and related short articles and letters are in the file that can be downloaded through any of the following links, but see the Note at the end of this article:

 


or


or


or


or


or

Repeating the same old, some old is not impressive.    
 

2. I have repeatedly mentioned that official statistic. Since you are calling on the members of this group to submit information on judicial corruption, it follows that you read their emails and have found them lacking that information. 

Indeed,  you make assumptions  - as does everyone - and those that do not meet the criterion of being based upon facts that are backed by admissible evidence (facts) are lacking.    A fact to be admissible must have a foundation - i.e. when, where, how, etc.     A conclusion such as 'he is killing my mother' means nothing unless it is based upon facts.    If you can testify of your own knowledge that x, y, and z are true you are entitled to make the conclusion.

3. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that you have read my emails. If so, you must have realized that I do provide information on judicial corruption. Actually, it is of the best kind, for it consists of official statistics published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and other official documents(jur:iii/fn.ii)

A statistic that there were only 8 impeachments as you state supra is hardly  anything that I want to base any judgment of mine upon!   I certainly do not wish my government to base any tangible decision on it either.

4. So, in spite of the information that I have provided, you believe that the U.S. AG will take action on the strength of your packet of information.

Laws are violated  - I want the laws enacted by the Congress of the United STates enforced.    I do not wish a witch hunt to occur!   If a judge violates a law, then and only then do I want his conduct addressed.

5. Mr. Ditkowsky, your belief is in defiance of the facts. It does not show how a lawyer draws implications from them.

Name calling in any form is not effective as an argument - it only demonstrates weakness.       I do not accept your conclusions or any claim that all or even most judges are corrupt.    I based my position on the fact that I practiced law for over half a century.   I never gave a judge anything directly or indirectly of value in connection with any case, never asked a judge in one of my cases for a favor, or participated in any action that I am ashamed of during these Court proceedings.   
 
Yes, I appeared before some dishonest judges.   Yes, I appeared in cases in which the playing field was not level.   Yes, I know judges who were bribed or otherwise corrupt.   These judges were a distinct minority.
 
However, I appeared before hundreds of other judges who did their job and ruled on issues of law and fact honestly and appropriately.     In fact, during the early part of my career I was impressed by most of the lawyers and the judges I encountered.   Rarely did I get a case to address that I was not contacted (or did not contact) the other lawyer to discuss what, if anything, we could agree upon.    Usually there was only one or two issues and we could present them for the judge for a ruling.    
 
I certainly will believe my experience and personal observations to any conclusions written in a book or other publication.

6. Moreover, it necessarily assumes that despite our society being as litigious as it is(jur:8fn4, 5), you are the only one who has come up with the idea of presenting the U.S. AG with information on judicial corruption, and the only one capable of choosing information of such strength as to leave the AG ‘no excuse’ not to prosecute the judges that you believe are engaged in judicial corruption.

I certainly am not the only one who advocates the Rule of Law and petition to the law enforcement people to prosecute criminal behavior.     It is my belief that 18 USCA 4 requires the action that I advocate.

7. Although federal AGs historically do not prosecute federal judges, you believe that AG Nominee Lynch will prosecute state judges if only you confront her with your packet of information on judicial corruption.

 You are not making any sense.    The law enforcement people and the Administrative Branch of Government have an obligation to enforce the law.   It is the duty of every citizen to honor his/her citizenship and report public officials and particularly judicial officials who do not comply with their oath and the law.    Judges are normally removed by impeachment, but as happened in Greylord they are prosecuted for violation of Federal Law.

8. Your belief is unsupported by the facts. It is at odds with lawyerly reasoning.

You are once again repeating yourself -    If you repeat the same statement a dozen times it does not make it true.  If you repeat two dozen times it gains no credibility.     If you repeat it three dozen times *****. 

B. AGs head a Department of Justice criticized by both parties for being politicized

Few people in public life are not criticized.    Some critical comments are well founded and others are not.    Every AG has a political agenda.   Most of the time it is not consistent with my wants and desires, but, I have to live with it.

9. Do you remember AG Alberto Gonzales, President Bush’s AG? He had to resign because he told so many lies to Congress that not even its Republican members believed him anymore and there was a bipartisan call for his resignation.

 Indeed, I do.    I recall that I thought that he was not fairly treated, but that is water under the dam.   (I meant to spell dam - damn but I thought better of the editorial comment)

10. President Obama’s AG, Eric Holder, so much defied congressional subpoenas for documents, such as those concerning the Fast and Furious arms smuggling scandal, that Congress held him in contempt, the first time Congress has held an AG in contempt. Calls were made for his impeachment and he resigned.

 Indeed, I think Holder acted badly, however, as the Attorney General he still retains the obligation to enforce the laws and I expect him to do so until the day he hands over the reins to his successor.      (Lynch has not been confirmed).     I've made inquiries concerning Holder and those who have worked with him give him high marks.

11. Solicitor General Robert Bork was sworn in as Acting AG by President Nixon. Subsequently he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan. However, the Senate did not confirm him because it deemed him to have abused his power by executing in the Saturday Night Massacre President Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had issued a subpoena to Nixon for production of the White House tapes. Eventually, Nixon had to comply with a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court by producing the tapes, which incriminated him in the Watergate political espionage scandal and caused his resignation on August 8, 1974.

The Congress is given the power to consent to nominations - I learned a long time ago that all the brains did not go into my head ****.    I also wondered about the watergate breakin.     A year or so prior, I was with some law enforcement people as they were investigating a smuggling operation.   In the front seat of the vehicle was a disk like device that when pointed to a window turned the room that was the target into a sound chamber and we could hear every word uttered in the room.    As this device was owned by the USA I never understood the need for the breakin.

12. Precedent supports the conclusion that AGs do the bidding of the President who nominated them and disregard the law if that is what it takes.

I do not agree with your statement.    I do not think that any President has ever specifically directed an attorney general to ignore the law or disregard it.    Most AG's and most Presidents are honorable men and respect the law even if they disagree with us.     BUT WE ARE GETTING FAR AFIELD OF THE DISCUSSION.      

13. Having faith that the AG will take action against wrongdoing judges is not a basis for legal action. Faith that is counterfactual is certainly not a basis on which to take any action or base any belief.
 
Self help   is not appropriate.   I do not advocate any action that is illegal or contrary to the core values of America.

14. Therefore, on what facts do you base your belief that AG Nominee Lynch will ‘with no excuse’ do what your evidentiary information submitted to her will require, in your opinion, her to do?

The Laws of the United States of America.

15. Is your counterfactual belief nothing but wishful thinking that will not only disappoint those who submit their information to you, but also waste their time and effort while distracting them from supporting a proposed reasonable and realistic strategy?

 If citizens want relief, there are legal channels that are available.   If they just want to complain and contemplate their navals that is their privilege.   I made my recommendations to help the people who are being deprived of their rights.    No one has to follow my advice.   No one has to act in their own self interest either.     That is a core value of America.   
Let me make this very clear.    You and I have differences of opinion.   I respect that and will fight to the death to protect them.   I do not respect being misinterpreted or any intellectual dishonesty.

1. “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, Einstein

 Taking advantage of the remedies that government provides  is rational.

16. If everybody waits for the others to take action, nothing will be done at all. But doing the same thing that everybody has been doing for the past 225 years, that is, suing judges( ol:158) or submitting complaints about judges to the AGs(Lsch:17§C), will not achieve anything but the same result, namely, official indifference at, and cover-up of, wrongdoing judges. It will be what it has been in the past and for the same reasons: an exercise in futility because none of them wants to risk retaliation by the judicial class(ol:154 on avoiding irrational behavior).

If you are looking for an instant remedy or a magic solution there are none that I am aware of.    If you are looking for a sure=fire solution you are going to have to enter the cold water and be prepared for a bunch of set backs before you obtain justice.     Democracy like reform are not spectator sports nor do they come with easy solutions.    Corruption is a fact!     The human condition is a fact!     Ridding the body politic of corruption is extremely difficult and there is no easy solution.  The Analogy of ridding a human body of cancer comes to mind.

C. Basing your requests and recommendations to this group on facts found through law research

 YOU ARE REPEATING YOURSELF AGAIN AND PROTESTING TOO LOUDLY.    THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!    I am a victim of judicial corruption and therefore have a perspective on this problem that academics do not enjoy.     Jerome Larkin in an effort to protect criminals who were preying on the elderly and the disabled tried to silence me by suspending my law license for four years.    The suspension came immediately after I forwarded a deposition in which a prominent miscreant made admissions that in any prosecution proof would be virtually impossible.     Neither the Supreme Court of the US or Illinois would even consider the issue of the First Amendment.    My Supreme Court of the US filing received an award.
Our democracy depends on all citizens having faith in our institutions and the rule of law.    The injustice done to me is irrelevant.    If we abandon the ideals of America and attorn to the miscreant's view of our society we aid and abet the cancer that we are all united in fighting.    Like it or not we must by Caesar's wife in our actions and provide a lodestone for those who follow.    The fight against judicial corruption is winable, but not at the cost of abandonment of our heritage.    Our heritage is the Rule of Law and citizen protection of it.

17. If as regards the state AGs and district attorneys you want to base on facts a lawyerly opinion of what they may do if you present them with a packet of information about judicial corruption, you have the means of finding the facts in the form of legal precedent by conducting law research on the Decennial Digests published by West, which is, as you know, the largest law publisher in the U.S.; https://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/search?q=decennial+digest&r=13001&s=KEYWORDSEARCH&FindMethod=Search&FindMethod=Search.

 

18. You and the members of this group, whether lawyers or lay people, have a convenient means to base their opinions about the law and plan their conduct on facts rather than wishful thinking, anger, wild speculation, or conspiracy theories and similar freak concoctions:

 

19. You can conduct your research from your computer, using natural language, that is, plain English, to formulate your research query, if you have access to West’s Westlaw computerized law research service through a subscription of your own or through that of a public library of which you are a member.

 

20. Otherwise, the members and you can go to a public library or the law library of a law school, a court, a bar association, or a public defender organization to do law research there, either with some free guidance from the librarian or with the help of a law student who charges an hourly fee or a fixed fee for an assignment. Particularly adept at law research are law students who are members of law review or moot court. To contact them, ask the librarian or the dean of students or go to the law student lounge.

 

21. To find the law schools accredited by the American Bar Association near your area go to https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/official-guide-to-aba-approved-law-schools.html.  

 

22. It is up to your initiative and resourcefulness to find out whether by calling the law school and getting through it in touch with the student officers of moot court, law review, the student class, or a subject-related law clinic –a class where students deal with real cases under the supervision of a professor– you can contract a second or third year law student to engage in law research for you.

 

23. See generally my advice to requesters of pro bono legal assistance(ol:131).

 

24. You have the means to proceed on facts.

 

D. Political considerations will prevent the AG from prosecuting judges

 

25. If President Obama’s nominee for U.S. AG, Ms. Lynch, is confirmed, she will certainly take no action whatsoever against federal judges.

 

26. If she did, she would upset the whole class of federal judges. They close ranks in defense of anyone of them under attack: The investigation of anyone threatens the discovery of the participation of the others in their own wrongdoing or their condonation of that of the others, which makes them accessories before and after the fact of wrongdoing(ol:168§4).

 

27. Moreover, AG Nominee Lynch would not dare provoke federal judges into retaliation precisely when the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another challenge to Obamacare.

 

28. Last time, its constitutionality was saved by the single and very much unexpected vote of Chief Justice Roberts, who was nominated and confirmed by Republicans. Neither Nominee Lynch nor President Obama, her boss, will do anything that can give Justice Roberts ‘an excuse’ to join the other four justices that voted to strike down Obamacare, the President’s signature legislation and ticket to history.

 

29. What is more, if, for the sake of the argument though patently unreasonable, AG Nominee Lynch limited herself to investigating judges and justices appointed and confirmed by Democrats, she would have to include among them Justice Sotomayor, the first SCt. nominee of President Obama and the very one that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(65fn107a) suspected of concealing assets(65fn107c). No reasonable person can believe that Nominee Lynch would consider for a nanosecond doing that. Neither would state attorneys general, district attorneys, or their assistants.

 

30. It shows lack of strategic thinking to expect judges(ol:158) or prosecutors, whether federal or state ones, and for the same reason grand juries, whose indictments must be pursued by prosecutors, to investigate, never mind indict and prosecute, judges(Lsch:13).

 

31. If strategic thinking is just too difficult, what happened with showing at the very least awareness of the interpersonal dynamics in a professional work setting known as ‘office politics’ and perhaps even applying that awareness to analyze this situation?

 

E. The out-of-court strategy centered on journalists and an outraged public

 

32. Those who based their decisions on facts, must have realized that neither politicians, nor their appointees, nor judges(ol:158) are going to put at risk their vested interests by either investigating, prosecuting, or allowing judges to be found guilty or liable.

 

33. Thus, I have devised an out-of-court strategy(jur:83§§2-3; jur:xliv¶C) to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8). It is centered on the means of the media to inform the public and the power of an informed and outraged public to support or terminate the career of politicians, as shown by Virginia voters ousting HR Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the mid-term primaries.

 

34. The strategy can be implemented through a concrete, feasible, and realistic plan of action in three steps that:

 

a. expose the already available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A-B);

 

b. investigate the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:100) by principled and ambitious journalists(ol:3§F) and other professionals(jur:128§4); and

 

c. outrage thereby the national public at judges’ wrongdoing so that precisely during the primary and presidential election campaigns, when politicians are most responsive to the public’s mood and demands, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, an outraged public may demand that politicians investigate judges officially and at public hearings, and undertake judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).

 

F. Time is of the essence for implementing the strategy with the help of ‘allies’

 

35. Time is of the essence because we should take advantage of the impending start of the campaign for the primaries and the approaching swearing in of the new Congress: The two unique national stories can provoke a scandal that shapes the campaign theme and Congress’s agenda and eventually dominates them, as did balancing the budget, the sequestration of funds, and the shutdown of government in the recent past.

 

36. In this political context, it is appropriate to apply one of the principles of strategic thinking(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C): “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

 

37. It is obvious that Republican candidates for office would be more likely than Democrats to investigate Justice Sotomayor, not because they are more interested in an honest judiciary than Democrats are, but simply because they have an interest in gaining an electoral advantage in the midst of election campaigns by embarrassing the President; dealing a devastating blow to Obamacare(ol:79¶B; Lsch:20¶31; ol:67¶6); and tarnishing the Democratic brand.

 

38. Because by advancing their own interests, Republican can advance, even if unintendedly, ours of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about reform, we have harmonious interests despite the fact that our motives and objectives are different. That is enough to make us de facto allies(ol:52§C).

 

39. Hence the effort to contact Republican candidates to offer to make a presentation to them about why and how to investigate the two unique national stories of Obama-Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:100; 115).

 

40. In the same vein, the plan of action calls for us making presentations(Lsch:2) at graduate schools of journalism, law, business, and Information Technology(ol:130§4).

 

41. What can you do to put me in touch with journalists and arrange presentations at those schools?

 

42. How can you encourage the other members of this group and others to take action to implement the out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform?

 

43. As a first step, I encourage you also to share, distribute, and post this email as well as the article below as widely as possible

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City






 

Watch the interview with me by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, thereon, which can be used as a promotional tool, at:


and


 

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

 
 
 

Re: A strategic thinking choice: personal local common cases v. two unique national officers cases

 

How being realistic and thinking strategically can lead victims of judges’ wrongdoing to advance their interest in vindication and compensation by advocating the investigation by journalists of two unique national stories instead of their personal local stories

 
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
 
 
Many people have shared with me their stories or opinion about the arrogance, arbitrariness, abuse of power, incompetence, and disregard for the applicable law and the facts shown by the judges in their cases, whether in the trial, family, or appeals courts in NY or the other several states. I have experienced that too in the NYS courts and the federal bankruptcy, district, and circuit courts and even the Supreme Court[* >109b,114c].
 
Hence, there is no lack of stories of wrongdoing(* >jur:5§3; ol:127¶4) by state and federal judges. Adding theirs to the list(jur:126§3) will provide these victims of judges’ wrongdoing little comfort and hardly solve the problem underlying their respective stories. The difficulty in dealing with such wrongdoing lies elsewhere and is twofold, but there is a plan of action to address it.
 
* All (parenthetical) blue text references are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.
 
The study and related short articles and letters are in the file that can be downloaded through any of these links, but see the Note at the end of this article:
 
or
or
or
or
or
 
A. Victims of judges’ wrongdoing are only interested in telling their personal story, not in working toward judicial reform
 
1. Victims of judges’ wrongdoing are only interested in telling their story and obtaining redress for their personal grievances against judges, not in reforming the judiciary, which most cannot do because they were lay pro se parties.
 
2. Most are neither willing nor able to do what judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform require: a lot of library and field research to compare, corroborate, analyze, and edit the briefs, dockets, transcripts, rulings, and decisions of their cases in order to step up from telling their personal story, which is merely the anecdote of one biased lay party, to detecting a pattern of judges’ wrongdoing by analyzing documents and conducting interviews in a statistically significant number of cases and determining the impact on them of the circumstances enabling judicial wrongdoing(ol:154§1): unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness.
 
3. Does this sound like hard work, boring, pedantic, and unnecessary? How would you like it if on the account of one dissatisfied workmate, customer, or neighbor, you and all your colleagues, co-workers, relatives, and friends were not only described, but also treated as arrogant, abusive, and incompetent people to be fired and forced to compensate the account giver? You would likely feel that to be unjust. Being a judicial victim is not a qualification for being a judicial reformer.
 
4. To avoid such injustice, there is a need for advocates of honest judiciaries who can read critically and write analytical, objective, and detail-oriented statements(jur:128§4). They must show that judicial victims’ complaints are wrongly held by federal judges -members of the only national jurisdiction and the model for its state counterparts- and even many members of the public to concern the deviant conduct of only individual, rogue judges.
 
5. Instead, the advocates must show that underlying the complaints is coordination(jur:88§§a-c) of wrongful conduct among judges and between them and other insiders of the legal system169; and that coordinated wrongdoing is so widespread, routine, and grave that it has turned the nature(jur:133§4) of wrongdoing from individual conduct into the institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4) of the Federal Judiciary.
 
6. Coordinated wrongdoing among federal judges is the kind of wrongdoing that will catapult the subject to the national debate, for it will constitute the scandal that will most outrage a national public already distrustful of public officers due to a series of national scandals(ol:11). It is the ultimate betrayal of public trust because precisely those public officers charged with safe-guarding the rule of law and administering equal justice thereunder to everybody abused their office to arrogate(jur:21§§1-3) to themselves the corruptive28 status of Judges Above the Law.
 
1. Only a public outraged at judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and threatening to oust politicians can force them to investigate judges
 
7. Only a national public thus informed and outraged can put politicians’ highest interest, i.e., being reelected or elected, at stake and thereby force them to turn against the very judges that they recommended, nominated, confirmed, endorsed, appointed, donated to, and campaigned for, their judgeships. Politicians are in connivance with ‘their men and women on the bench’.
 
8. They have allowed judges’ wrongdoing to fester for the latter’s material213(jur:27§2), professional 69(jur:56§§e-f), and social(jur:62§g, a&p:1¶2nd) benefit; and the politicians’ own interest in protecting their legislative agenda17a and themselves(a&p:6¶¶7-8; ol:79§B) from retaliation.
 
9. A key principle of the law of torts provides that a person intends the known or foreseeable consequences of his or her acts. By politicians holding judges unaccountable, they have intended the wrongs that have been foreseeably, and keep being knowingly, done by judges to the parties before them and the rest of the public affected by their decisions’ precedential value.
 
10. That is how both politicians and judges do Unequal Justice In Contempt of Law to We the People. Politicians will continue to protect their judges as long as by so doing they will not imperil their own career survival. They will not investigate judges for wrongdoing or undertake judicial reform simply be-cause yet another constituent tells them that she or he has been victimized by a wrongdoing judge.
 
B. Journalists are afraid of taking on the powerful class of retaliation-prone judges and conniving politicians
 
11. For the national public to be thus informed and outraged, journalists and media outlets are indispensable. But despite the abundance of anecdotic stories of judges’ wrongdoing, there is a lack of journalists and media outlets not deterred by the specter of retaliation(Lsch:17§C for subtle but devastating forms of such retaliation) and willing to investigate and corroborate the stories and do what is necessary to outrage the public and stir it up into action:
 
12. Publish the resulting story of judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and its institutionalization in their judiciary. That final action is the most demanding and risky. Publication must be progressive over a long period of time during which the investigation keeps mounting the hierarchy of the judiciary to establish such coordination and institutionalization as well as the interbranch connivance.
 
13. Who would remember Edward Snowden or be disturbed by his revelations if he had published in one fell swoop all his documents on NSA surveillance abuse?
 
14. The publication of the story of judges’ wrongdoing goes to the issue of courage: a willingness to run the risk of being retaliated against by judges closing ranks to defend any one of their own be-ing investigated and to stop as early as possible the investigation from casting a pall of suspicion over all of them of active and passive complicity in individual and coordinated wrongdoing.
 
15. For its part, the progressiveness of the publication of the judicial wrongdoing story goes to the strategy for maximizing its public impact and developing an ever bigger audience more avid for updating news on the story so as to keep a strong stream of revenue flowing to the media outlets to amortize the considerable investment that such an investigation requires.
 
16. However, a progressive publication exposes journalists and media outlets also to ever more embarrassed and con-cerned judges and politicians’ trying to buy them off with an attractive quid pro quo for their ‘killing of the story’(jur:xlviii). Finding journalists and outlets that can resist the carrot and the stick is difficult but necessary to expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform.
 
 
 
C. Two courageous and prominent journalists to persuade to investigate judges’ wrongdoing through two unique national stories
 
 
 
17. Without the investigative skills and information sources of journalists and the information-disseminating power of media outlets, the national public cannot be informed of, and outraged at, (ol:136§3) judges’ wrongdoing and thus stirred up to force politicians to wield their intrusive investigative powers(ol:109¶4, 129¶9) to investigate judges and undertake reform(jur:158§§6-8).
 
 
 
18. So I encourage all judicial wrongdoing victims to contact the following investigative journalists who have proved their professional courage and are in prominent academic positions. They can be asked to offer students(ol:113§C) courses and practicums/externships(ol:116§A) and call on professors and other journalists(ol:66), contacted individually or addressed at a press conference(Lsch:2), to further conduct a pinpointed investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through two unique national stories(ol:100) intended to render their work focused and cost-effective:
 
 
 
Ms. Anya Schiffrin
 
Director of International Media,
 
    Advocacy and Communications Specialization
 
School of International Affairs
 
International Affairs Building, room 1319
 
Columbia University
 
420 W 118th Street #1
 
New York, NY 10027
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Professor Sheila Coronel
 
Dean of Academic Affairs
 
Director, Toni Stabile Center for
 
     Investigative Journalism
 
Columbia University
 
Pulitzer Hall, MC 3801
 
2950 Broadway
 
New York, NY 10027
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Confronting journalists with the moral question of their commitment to their professional values and public interest, watchdog mission
 
 
 
19. Judicial wrongdoing victims, just as all other advocates of honest judiciaries, are confronted with the moral question whether they are genuinely interested in the common good by exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform or rather only care about themselves and their respective case. They should reflect about not only their grievances, but also the pragmatic considerations of obtaining redress, which requires them to be realistic and think strategically.
 
 
 
20. They can satisfy that requirement by contacting Dean Coronel and Director Schiffrin and emphasizing what these journalists stand to gain(ol:100) by pursuing the two unique national stories.
 
 
 
21. They can also confront them with the need to be consistent with themselves by in addition to talking about the need for their students and colleagues to show courage as investigative journalists, they are also willing to show such courage by example as they take the lead in investigating the most harmful public officers in our country: life-tenured unaccountable federal wrongdoing judges who abuse their power to deprive We the People of our property, our liberty, and our birthright to lead our lives in ‘government, not of men, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6).
 
 
 
22. Their investigation must assert the principle that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’172 We the People are the masters while judges and politicians are our public servants. We are entitled to practice ‘reverse surveillance’(Lsch:2) to inform ourselves of their performance so as to make it transparent and be able to hold them accountable, disciplinable, and even liable(Lsch:10¶6) to compensate their victims.
 
 
 
23. An outraged public can thus force a new We the People-government relation as it develops into a Tea Party-like civic movement(164§9): the People’s Sunrise(ol:29).
 
 
 
2. When a judicial wrongdoing victim  contacts journalists, he should emphasize not his interest in his case, but rather theirs in their careers: what is in it for them
 
 
 
24. When contacting Dean Coronel and Director Schiffrin and other journalists(jur:xliv§§B,E-F) and even students(jur:xlvi§§H-I) and their class officers(Lsch:1), one must be realistic and think strategically (Lsch:14§§2-3, ol:52§C; jur:xliv¶C): Journalists are not going to drop what they are doing and investigate a judicial wrongdoing victim’s story merely to do the victim a favor.
 
 
 
25. Naturally, there must be something in it for the journalists. Investigating a victim’s respective story, which despite its outrageousness is only one of tens of thousands of similar ones, is hardly of any interest to either the journalists or their audience. It is of little interest to even victims in the other several states, who may have even worse judicial wrongdoing stories.
 
 
 
26. How much are you, the Reader, interested in a story similar to yours where the main character is a judge in any state other than yours? Why should people in those other states be interested in your story?
 
 
 
27. Let victims compare their personal story with one involving a Supreme Court justice, Then-Judge Sotomayor, suspected by The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and Politico107a,c of concealment of assets; and where a sitting president and her nominator, President Obama, lied (ol:63) to the American people by vouching for her honesty though he had an FBI vetting report pointing to her dishonesty(ol:100§A).
 
 
 
28. Would her story and the related story of possible collusion between the Federal Judiciary and NSA (ol: 101§C) interest you even more if its investigation could lead ever more journalists to jump onto the investigative bandwagon because of the enticing material and moral rewards(ol:3§F) that they could earn by exposing and bringing down a sitting president and sitting federal justices and judges(ol:70)?
 
 
 
D. Plan of action that offers a reasonable expectation of redress of grievances against judges and reform of the federal and state judiciaries
 
 
 
29. Circumstances that inflicted much pain and injustice on many people for thousands of years, like slavery and child labor, health care and education only for the rich, the right to vote reserved for men owning property, etc.(ol:§E; jur:xlv§G), were changed for the better by people who just would not give up trying to. There are recent, encouraging examples of the same(Lsch:12¶13).
 
 
 
30. Today, thanks to the collective effort of judicial wrongdoing victims, advocates of honest judiciaries, journalists, and students, the proposed plan of action can reasonably be expected to:
 
 
 
a. reveal(ol:129§2) the circumstances enabling wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary,
 
 
 
b. outrage the national public, turning it into an avid consumer of related news, thus increasing the advertisement revenue of the media publishing the news and giving them and economic incentive(jur:8¶¶25-26) to invest even more journalistic resources in the investigation, and
 
 
 
c. embolden ever more professional and citizen journalists to investigate similar wrongdoing in their respective state judiciary.
 
 
 
31. Such a series of realistic events will eventually benefit judicial wrongdoing victims and their res-pective story. That begs the question whether they have the discipline, foresight, and commit-ment necessary to think strategically and behave accordingly. They can show that they do if they:
 
 
 
a. read the study of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:1);
 
 
 
b. arrange the proposed presentations(ol:137¶¶ 14-15); and
 
 
 
c. contact Director Schiffrin and Dean Coronel, for which they can use as model the letters at ol:54, 100; Lsch:23, and this email, which they are invited to distribute and post widely.
 
 
 
32. Realistic and strategically thinking victims can set in motion a process that leads to holding judges accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Eventually, they too may be able to vindicate their rights and obtain compensation for the injustice done them.
 
 
 
Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may benefit from it.
 
 
 
Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:
 
 
or
 
 
 
 
See also:
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:00:44 +0000
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
To: dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.comart2pat35@hotmail.comhoytlaw@hotmail.comshannanpat@gmail.comtruth@masteragency.comemembee@charter.netwritejanet@live.comjanetclairephelan@yahoo.combillscheidler@outlook.comajo@bsolaw.comjeff@norkinlaw.comrolandhinkson@inbox.comrichardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.orgmarkadamsjdmba@hotmail.commccray.michael@gmail.comyania@horizonmgmtroc.comcrl14606@yahoo.comglenest03@yahoo.comceo@eciglobalcorp.comzcrenshaw@comcast.netexopolitics@exopolitics.comgdhicks@shaw.cacordero.ric@hotmail.comcorderoric@yahoo.comdr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.netbstone12@hotmail.comjon.roland@constitution.orghilljs@washpost.comjuanboricua@yahoo.com
CC: timlahrman@aol.comaskdoj@usdoj.govchicago@ic.fbi.govcivilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: Re: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause

 
 
Ok - enough talk
 
Lets get all the information that is possessed concerning judicial corruption on the table and before the Justice Department.    With the information laid out there can be no excuses:
 
As an example:   The criminal conduct that occurred in the Sykes is all set out in the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585.   I have also detailed it in affidavits of Gloria Sykes et al.   These were filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion commission f/k/a Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and ignored.    In their files you will also find complaint letter from various members of the Sykes family and excuses in direct violation of 18 USCA 4 (and 18 USCA 371) detailing the criminal activity of Mr. Larkin and certain members of his staff.
 
Similarly as to Alice Gore you will find complaints filed by Ms. Beverly Cooper.   You also will find information concerning the felonies that are alleged to have occurred in the Alice Gore case.   US Bank also has records as to the thefts that were promulgated by attorneys in connection with the Alice Gore case and how a senior citizen with a 1.5 million dollar estate wound up a pauper who the miscreants were so bold as to harvest her teeth for her gold filings.
 
The miscreants and persons to examine in the Sykes case are:  Judges:  Connors, Stuart ****   Attorneys :  Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, Jerome Larkin, Lea Black *****
 
witnesses are:  Gloria Sykes, Kathy Bakken, *****
 
****
 
It is time for the United States of America to make an example of some of the smug miscreants who are conducting a war against the elderly and the disabled.
 

From: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>
To: Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>; Att. Wes Hoyt <hoytlaw@hotmail.com>; "shannanpat@gmail.com" <shannanpat@gmail.com>; FYI <truth@masteragency.com>; "emembee@charter.net" <emembee@charter.net>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@outlook.com>; Andy Ostrowski <ajo@bsolaw.com>; Jeffrey Norkin <jeff@norkinlaw.com>; kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; "rolandhinkson@inbox.com" <rolandhinkson@inbox.com>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>; Attorney Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michael mccray <mccray.michael@gmail.com>; Yania Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; Charles R Livecchi <crl14606@yahoo.com>; Glenda Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Richard Hettler <ceo@eciglobalcorp.com>; "zcrenshaw@comcast.net" <zcrenshaw@comcast.net>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; "Cordero.Ric@hotmail.com" <cordero.ric@hotmail.com>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <corderoric@yahoo.com>; "Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net" <dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net>; barbara stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; "jon.roland@constitution.org" <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
 

Dear Ms. Rondeau, Mr. Hoyt, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

 

I remember the conversation that you, Ms. Rondeau, and I had on Monday, June 30, of this year. I have been looking forward to this moment when we can join forces:

1. to expose the available evidence of federal judges’ wrongdoing and

 

2. pursue its leads through the pinpointed investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama−Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary−NSA

 

3. with a view to attaining the ultimate objective of effective judicial reform that ensures judges’ best effort to realize the lofty ideal of Equal Justice Under Law.

 

The evidence(* >jur:21§§A,B) and the stories(* >ol:100) are set forth in my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing; Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting,.

 

* The study(jur:page Arabic numeral #) and related short articles and letters(jur:Roman numeral or ol:# or Lsch:#) are in the file that can be downloaded through any of the following links; all the (parenthetical) blue text references herein are keyed to that file:

 


or


or


or


or


or


 

A. Leveraging your experience with state judiciaries to investigate the Federal Judiciary

 

The experience that you have gained investigating the judiciaries of Tennessee and Florida must have prepared you well to take on the investigation of those stories of national interest. The latter will be heightened by politicians’ need to be perceived to respond to the mood and demands of the electorate as they begin campaigning for the primaries and presidential election with the support of their party leaders. The elements are there for a reciprocally reinforcing interest-response cycle.

 

In this electoral context, time is of the essence because we should take advantage of the impending start of those campaigns and the approaching swearing in of the new Congress: The two unique national stories can provoke a scandal that shapes the campaign theme and Congress’s agenda and eventually dominates them and the national discourse, as did the balancing of the budget, the sequestration of funds, and the shutdown of government in the recent past.

 

B. A plan to expose judges’ wrongdoing through the Trojan horse of exposing J. Sotomayor’s wrongdoing and searching for her concealed assets

 

This plan has three steps: know the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing; expose it in articles and presentations; and investigate it further by pursuing the stories.

 

1. Learn the evidence of federal judges’ wrongdoing: Knowledge is Power

 

The first step in undertaking this exposure and further investigation is to acquire a strong command of the substantial body of evidence(jur:21§§A,B) of federal judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3). It has been found in official documents(jur:iii/fn.ii) and court cases(jur:xxxv-xxxviii) and has been made available and analyzed(cf. jur:88§§a-c; Lsch:13; ol:158) in my study of the Federal Judiciary. In turn, that evidence contains the leads for the two stories.

 

You can become knowledgeable about that evidence by thoroughly reading this email together with the three introductory pages(Prefatory:i-iii) that succinctly set forth the study’s contents, strategy, and implementing plan of action, and checking their numerous references that provide detailed explanations or additional information, and which are readily accessible through links. As you do so, you will:

 

a. convince yourself of the solid foundation and promising perspective of the stories that you are invited to investigate further;

 

b. not waste your time inventing the wheel; on the contrary, use the available evidence(jur:21§A; 65§B) and the articles that lay it out in a coherent and reasonable presentation targeted on specific audiences and subjects(jur:65fn107a,c; ol:100) as springboards for your general investigation of the stories and the particular search for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets(jur:6¶¶21-22; jur:102§4; ol:66);

 

c. prove the wisdom of the saying ‘Knowledge is Power’. Doing your homework to acquire it is a manifestation of professional responsibility and intellectual integrity, for it allows you to know what you are talking about. Sweating it out to acquire that knowledge distinguishes armchair chatters swapping emails from you, who are working to win a Pulitzer Prize; become this generation’s Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame(jur:4¶¶10-14); and earn any of the many other valuable material and moral rewards(ol:3§F) available to principled and ambitious professionals who by din of hard work and superior performance can make history; and

 

d. come to the reassuring understanding that while the ultimate objective of my study and of our joining forces is to bring about judicial reform(Lsch:10§6; jur:158§§6-8), your journalistic endeavor has a realistic, feet-on-the-ground, manageable scope: You only need to be the initiator of the exposure of the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing and its further investigation through the two unique national stories even if you keep exposing and investigating until attaining that ultimate objective.

 

2. Expose the available evidence by publishing articles and making presentations

 

The second step is to initiatethe exposure of wrongdoing in the only national jurisdiction and thus the only one whose wrongdoing(jur:5§3; Lsch:21§A) affects and interests all Americans, the Federal Judiciary, by:

 

a. publishing a stream(ol:139¶¶7-8) of articles by you, me, and others on the available evidence, in general, of federal judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§A) and, in particular, of J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(jur:65fn107a,c; ol:100¶i) and her cover-up of her and her peers’ wrongdoing(jur:65§§1-3) as well as articles on the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(ol:19§D; ol:101¶ii);

 

b. calling on the President and J. Sotomayor to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports on her;

 

c. contacting individual journalists and media outlets(infra §C), talkshow hosts(ol:146), and documentarists(ol:85), and holding private or public press conferences(ol:150) so that we can present to them the evidence of federal judges’ wrongdoing and persuade them to pursue the two unique national stories, thereby

 

d. launching what is indispensable for effective judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform, that is, a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation(jur:100§3) guided by a proven devastating query thus rephrased:

 

Whatdid President Obama and the Supreme Court justices know

about Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing

–suspected by The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c)

of concealing assets, which is done to hide the assets’ illegal origin and

evade taxes on them, and constitutes a crime(ol:5fn10),

and enabled by the complicity of other judges(jur:66§§2-3), justices(jur:71§4), and staff of the Federal Judiciary(jur:30§1) as well as conniving politicians(jur:77§§5-6) –

and when did they know it?

 

e. presenting to politicians(jur:i, xvii) running in the primaries and their campaign managers the demographic extent(jur:8¶¶25-26) of judges’ wrongdoing and how it is in their interest to seize on that issue and the need for judicial reform in order to stand out from other politicians as We the People’s Champions of Justice(jur:xxxiv§4; ol:29);

 

3. Investigate the leads in the evidence through the two unique national stories

 

The third step is to begin the journalistic investigation of the evidence by means of:

 

a. the P. Obama-J. Sotomayor story(ol:100¶i) through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a) of the whereabouts of J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets, which will be successful even if it only shows her failure “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) rather than find the assets; and

 

b. the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(ol:101¶ii) through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; ol:19§D) of their abuse of their Information Technology expertise and networks to conceal or launder money through electronic transfers, and to interfere with the communications of exposers of judges’ wrongdoing(cf. ggl:1 et seq.).

 

Telling journalists ‘go investigate the Federal Judiciary’ is a directionless, overwhelming task. Instead, the stories offer them with the means of conducting a manageable, pinpointed investigation that follows the numerous leads in the available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing and is  reasonably calculated to attain the intended objective of judicial reform. The stories are part of the strategy for achieving such reform:

 

exposure of the available evidence through publications and presentations

>journalistic investigation of the stories

>public outrage

>voters demand and are courted by

>politicians who call for, or start, official investigations

>findings aggravate the outrage

>voters force politicians to reform the Federal Judiciary.

 

Only the media can provoke the indispensable element of the strategy: public outrage. At a time when so many people are struggling financially, the investigative findings will outrage them at the hypocrisy of, and abuse of public trust by, judges and justices who earn four or more times the average American household income(ol:3§D) and who force others to obey the law, yet break it in their own interest through the criminal act of evading taxes(jur:27§2), among other forms of wrongdoing.

 

The investigation of the stories will act as a Trojan horse(ol:101§C)  because it will prompt the question “how it is possible for J. Sotomayor and others to engage in wrongdoing?” and the ever deepening investigation to answer it will reveal the circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing(ol:129§2):

 

1. the unaccountability that conniving politicians(jur:23fn17a) have allowed judges to enjoy and that the latter have ensured for themselves(jur:21§§a-d);

 

2. the pervasive secrecy in which they perform all their activities, holding all their deliberative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors, and never appearing at a press conference(jur:27§e);

 

3. the coordination(jur:88§§a-c) among themselves and with other insiders(jur:81fn169) of the legal and bankruptcy systems, which has allowed them to increase the extent, efficiency, and profitability of their wrongdoing and its development into its most complex and harmful form: schemes, such as their docket clearing scheme(jur:43§1); their concealment of assets scheme(jur:65fn107a-c, 105fn213); and their bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:68§§2-3); and

 

4. the resulting risklessness, which has rendered doing wrong so enticing regardless of its nature and gravity and so widespread and routine that wrongdoing has become the institutionalized modus operandi(jur:149§4) of Judges Above the Law.

 

It is the understanding of the circumstances enabling wrongdoing that will allow the realization that J. Sotomayor is not a rogue judge, but rather a member of a class of wrongdoers; and that her resignation or impeachment is only necessary, but not sufficient, for preventing, detecting, punishing, and compensating for wrongdoing calls for judicial reform(Lsch:10¶6)..

 

C. Public outraged stoked by ever more people joining the investigation

 

It must be recognized that exposing the wrongdoing of the mighty life-tenured federal judges and their appointed bankruptcy judges(jur:43fn61a) and reforming the Federal Judiciary are a daunting project. It cannot be completed singlehandedly one journalist. It needs an outraged national public, who is the only capable of forcing politicians to make a survival choice: either officially and at public hearings investigate for wrongdoing those whom they recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed to a judgeship or be terminated as politicians.

 

This means that a key task of the journalist initiating the exposure and investigation is to bring on board as many other colleagues as possible, and thereby give rise to a Watergate-like generalized and first-ever media investigation of the Federal Judiciary.

 

1. The Newsday journalists who investigated NY judges

 

This explains the effort to contact the journalists of Newsday, a newspaper in NY, who conducted a major investigation of corruption among NY judges. It has been significant enough to have caused the chief judge for judicial administration to investigate the matter.

 

The purpose is to make a presentation(Lsch:2) to them and their assigning editor of:

a. the already available evidence of federal judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A-B);

 

b. the two unique national stories(ol:100);

 

c. the profit that journalists and media outlets can make by offering the news that an outraged public(jur:8fn4, 5) will demand as the long term investigative project keeps making ever more outrageous findings; and

 

d. the personal and professional rewards available to them(ol:3§F).

 

See:

 

Sandra Peddie and Will Van,

The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; Saturday, 4oct14; https://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/

 

Editor Deborah Henley                    editor@newsday.com

Ms. Sandra Peddie                             Santsandra.peddie@newsday.com

Mr. Will Van                                       will.vansant@newsday.com

Newsday                                                li@newsday.com;  or 631-843-2700; 1(800_639-7329

235 Pinelawn Road


 

news tips: newsday.com/isend

 

2. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and their Follow the money!  expertise

 

Every effort should be made to present at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, headquartered in Washington, D.C., www.icij.org(ol:1), in order to benefit from their unequalled experience in Follow the money! investigations when we track down the concealed assets of J. Sotomayor and her peers.

 

The Investigative Journalists conducted a massive investigation of a network of 120,000 offshore companies and trusts in 170 countries managing between $21-32 trillion in private financial assets on behalf of VIPs, including top government officers, and the wealthy. Its investigation, named Offshore Leaks, was so revealing that it persuaded the most industrialized nations to sign at their following G-8 summit an agreement to put an end to bank secrecy and dismantle tax heavens(ol:2).

 

Now the Investigative Journalists have published the findings of their investigation involving scores of journalists of how the largest companies in the world have engaged in an elaborate web of shady transactions to escape taxes with the help of the fiscal authorities of Luxembourg during the prime ministership of the person who just last November 1 became the president of the European Commission, Jean Claude Junker. It is a scandal that has forced President Junker to defend himself before the European Parliament.

 

All this goes to showing that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have the expertise and ‘temerity’ necessary to take on the investigation of the life-tenured, fearless, and frightening judges of the Federal Judiciary.

 

3. Presentations at graduate schools and other professional venues

 

The considerable amount of investigative field and library work(jur:106§§c-e) to be done justifies the effort to hold presentations(Lsch:2) at graduate schools of journalism, law, business, and Information Technology(ol:137¶15) to recruit hardworking and idealistic students(jur:128§b)  as well as professors to investigate(ol:115) the two unique national stories in the context of an internship or seminary for academic credit(cf. dcc:1).

 

Likewise justified are presentations at public interest organizations and think tanks(jur:86§4), large civic organizations, such as that of veterans(ol:90, 94), political meetings(ol:51, 58, 109), and financial entities in order to attract professionals with necessary investigative and managerial skills(jur:128§a) and financial resources(jur:110§1).

 

Thereby ‘Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting’ can acquire a permanent form through the creation of an institute of judicial unaccountability and reform advocacy(jur:130§5).

 

4. The need for a critical mass of outrageous findings and public outrage

 

You certainly must have other contacts in the media to whom you or we can present to cause them to join the exposure and investigation together with us or on their own.

 

The more journalists expose and investigate, the higher the chances of reaching the critical mass of outrageous findings and public outrage necessary to force Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts to investigate justices, judges, and top politicians, and cause their resignation or impeachment, for which there is precedent.

 

Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas had to resign after a series of Life magazine articles revealed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d).

 

President Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, as a result of the generalized media investigation that implicated him in the political espionage under way as five burglars were caught in the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972(jur:4¶¶10-14).

 

The work of all of us is necessary to expose the most corruptive of motives behind judges’ wrongdoing: money!  Indeed, the Late Chief Justice Rehnquist and Chief Justice Robert identified ‘the single most important issue affecting federal judges: inadequate judicial salaries’(jur:27§2 and fn30; ol:76§B). The investigation of the stories will reveal how federal judges are solving that issue by resorting to wrongful self-help.

 

In addition to risklessly grabbing material(jur:27§2; 32§2) benefits, federal judges grab professional(25§c; 60§f) and social(62§g) ones through a wide array of wrongdoing forms.

 

Thus, exposing the Federal Judiciary as the safe haven of wrongdoers will require all hands on deck. We have to call them up. Rest assured that there will be enough credit to go around.

 

Hence, you may share, distribute, and post this email widely.

 

I look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt of this email.

 

Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City






 

Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:


and


 

From: art2pat35@hotmail.com
To: dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 08:43:04 -0500

Hi, Dr. Cordero, I have been receiving and studying your emails on the subject of judicial corruption.  You and I had a conversation about six months ago in which I described my investigation into judges in Tennessee, exposing a massive criminal enterprise which extends into the federal judiciary.

I am now covering a case in Florida in which the same criminal tactics are used to incarcerate people.

Over the last five years, I have reported on:

  • judicially-appointed grand jury foremen throughout the state of Tennessee who commandeer the grand jury into either indicting or refraining to indict according to the will of the criminal court judge
  • rigged grand juries and trial juries arranged by court clerks, judges and others
  • the criminal enterprise of "prisoners-for-profit" in which the judges and grand juries are cogs in the wheel of an operation designed to incarcerate as many citizens of the community as possible for financial gain.  The operation necessitates that everyone working in the courts participate. 
  • I have obtained copies of transcripts which have been altered or posted on the internet before an official version was released, and we have proof of collusion between the mayor of a small town and Obama regime operatives
  • Since I began to report, a constitutional attorney has taken up the case of a retired military commander who has risked his life to continue to expose the corruption and is now in state prison for doing so
  • I have shown that the entire state government of Tennessee participates in the corruption.
  • The objective of the criminal enterprise is most likely to continue the drug trade, specifically methamphetamines, which is ravaging Tennessee.  The Post & Email has shown that cash, personal property, and land are confiscated to fuel the engine of the corruption ring.

Tangible results over the last five years:

  • Judge Carroll Lee Ross, who illegally ordered the military commander's arrest in 2010, has retired
  • Judge Amy Armstrong Reedy, who appointed numerous grand jury foremen who served for decades to do her bidding, was not re-elected this past August
  • A long-serving grand jury foreman in Hamilton County was dismissed in 2012 for an alleged lack of "objectivity"
  • A grand jury foreman in Davidson County was discovered to have served as a convicted felon in violation of state law (this was not my discovery, but I am told by officials there that grand jurors now undergo a background check routinely as a result of the felon who served as foreman, who a judge had hand-picked)
  • Responses from court clerks and spokesmen on how the county grand juries are operated have revealed that each judicial district operates in its own way, not necessarily in accordance with state law
  • The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has shown itself to be complicit in judges' wrongdoing, as has the Tennessee Supreme Court
  • Prosecutors have been shown to be colluding with judges to obtain convictions against certain defendants, including the military commander
  • In August 2012, a mainstream newspaper, The Chattanooga Times Free Press, began to report on the corruption in the Tenth Judicial District, where my newspaper had primarily focused its efforts
  • Last summer I contacted the media spokesmen of the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees and was asked to forward proof of judicial corruption as it related to federal judges.  I plan to recontact the committees when the new Congress is seated in January
  • I have demonstrated likely collusion between Tennessee state judges and at least one federal courthouse in Knoxville and have exposed an FBI agent as misrepresenting the facts in an affidavit used to try and imprison another Navy veteran
  • I have proved that Public Records Act requests are dishonored in violation of the law by court clerks and others in Tennessee
  • We have proved that an average citizen cannot testify to a federal grand jury because of the obstruction of federal judges and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. 


I am not sure how one would go about researching Sonia Sotomayor's alleged lack of disclosure of assets, and my resources are limited, but I would not be afraid to expose such a story provided I had the documents to prove it.  Can you point me to where I might begin if I were to undertake such a project?  Also, do we know that it is against the law for a judge nominee not to disclose assets?


Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
www.thepostemail.com
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT  06076


From: dr.richard.cordero.esq@hotmail.com
To: majors.bruce@gmail.comderhoaxster@gmail.comdon_lashley@att.netezzrath138@hotmail.comforum_for_disclosures@yahoogroups.comvaughan.smith@frontlineclub.comftgfarm@yahoo.comgaryjvotoy@aol.comj.rolls@cox.netlate_linda@yahoo.comaskahorse@letsgofirstclass.comnphilippov@amcham.com.brpaul.dunk@hotmail.comphilholtz54@yahoo.comrhgusn@gmail.comrichslick@gmail.comattorneydonbailey@gmail.comusvfnews@charter.netclive@getited.comdwperry2002@yahoo.comcopmagazine@aol.commail2rich@yahoogroups.combydefinitionofunderstanding@yahoo.comnewsmatters@yahoogroups.comsmacko9@comcast.net
Subject: Taking advantage of an opportunity to advance our common cause
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 05:14:17 -0500

 
Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
 
If you sent me emails in response to the ones that I sent you under the subject line “On suing judges: duty of accountability supplanted by…”, I did not receive them.
 
A. Interference with communications
 
I sent you the article below from all my email accounts so as to increase the chance that at least one would reach you given that
1. Google disabled my account, i.e., Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com, without any explanation,
 
 
3. the statistical analysis pointing to interference with the communications of critics of wrongdoing judges, as discussed in my study of the Federal Judiciary Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing; Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, at * >jur:19§D.
 
or
or
or
or
or
 
 
B. The futility of suing judges, appealing to AGs, and relying on grand juries
 
Those pages and the rest of the study also show that suing judges is an exercise in futility, as the facts demonstrate that are laid out in the article below.
 
It should be intuitively unreasonable to expect judges presiding over the suits against their peers to allow the latter to be found guilty or liable to the plaintiffs. As journalist and lawyers, would you expect a fair examination by police officers of a complaint filed against their peer police officers?
 
The same holds true for:
 
1. letters to a state attorney general, who depends on judges to secure enough convictions so as to appear to be a competent AG and be reelected, which explains why it should be intuitive that AGs are not going to investigate judges(* >Lsch:17§C); and
 
2. grand juries, which are powerless given that after whatever investigation they are allowed to undertake and indictment that they may return, a prosecution most be conducted before judges, that is, the peers of the accused judges(* >Lsch:13§A).
 
C. The out-of-court strategy and an opportunity to set it in motion
 
That justifies the proposed out-of-court strategy centered on the journalistic investigation of two unique national stories involving President Obama and SCt. Justice Sotomayor, and the Federal Judiciary and NSA, set forth in the article below.
 
Nothing would outrage the national public, precisely as it enters the season of the primary and presidential election campaigns, as “the appearance of impropriety”(* >jur:68fn123a) by J. Sotomayor shown through the investigation of the leads in the articles of The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and Politico(* >jur:65fn107a,c) suspecting her of concealment of assets; and many other leads(* >ol:100§B).
 
Indeed, the public would demand to know more about the circumstances enabling J. Sotomayor’s wrongdoing. In response to that market demand, ever more journalists and media outlets would offer their investigative reports on those two unique national stories. That is how their investigation would work as Trojan Horses into first in the Federal Judiciary and then the state judiciaries.
 
We can seize upon the opportunity to cause the launch of that investigation by contacting two journalists and their assigning editor who successfully conducted a major investigation of corrupt judges in New York.
 
They can reasonably be expected to be willing and able to leverage the experience thus gained by investigating unique national stories that hold out the expectation of making their names known nationally, winning a Pulitzer Prize, and becoming this generation’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame(*> jur:4¶¶10-14).
 
See also the long list of material and moral rewards with which they can be enticed to investigate those stories(* >ol:3§F).
 
1. The Newsday journalists who investigated NY judges
 
Sandra Peddie and Will Van, Santsandra.peddie@newsday.com,   will.vansant@newsday.com
The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; Saturday, 4oct14; https://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/
 
Editor Deborah Henley                    editor@newsday.com
Ms. Sandra Peddie                             Santsandra.peddie@newsday.com
and Mr. Will Van                               will.vansant@newsday.com
Newsday                                                li@newsday.com;  or 631-843-2700; 1(800_639-7329
235 Pinelawn Road
 
news tips: newsday.com/isend
 
3. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and their Follow the money! expertise
 
In the same vein, consider bringing to the attention of the Newsday journalists as well as contacting directly the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, headquartered in Washington, D.C., www.icij.org, to induce them to apply their unequalled experience in Follow the money! investigations to track down the concealed assets of Justice Sotomayor and peers of hers.
 
The Investigative Journalists conducted a massive investigation of a network of offshore financial institutions concealing trillions of dollars in some 120,000 offshore accounts for the benefit of heads of states, the wealthy, and the super wealthy. Its investigation, named Offshore Leaks, was so revealing that it persuaded the most industrialized nations to sign at their following G-8 summit an agreement to put an end to bank secrecy and dismantle tax heavens(* >ol:1,2)
 
Now the Consortium has published the result of its investigation of how the largest companies in the world have engaged in an elaborate web of transactions to escape taxes with the help of the fiscal authorities of Luxembourg during the prime ministership of the person who just last November 1 became the president of the European Commission, Jean Claude Junker.
 
D. Thinking strategically v. the irrationality of doing the same thing while expecting a different result
 
Consider the potential of those Newsday journalists and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists teaming up to investigate judges’ wrongdoing in midst of the political campaigns under way.
 
They can expose the most corruptive of motives behind judges’ wrongdoing: money!(* >jur:27§2 and fn30; ol:76§B), they money that they obtain illegally and the money that they conceal to evade declaring its unlawful origin and evade taxes.
 
Let us think and proceed strategically and join forces in an effort reasonably calculated to advance our common cause of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform.
 
I look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate your acknowledgment of this email.
 
Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it!
 
Sincerely,
 
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
******************************
 
 
 
Re: On suing judges: duty of accountability supplanted by doctrine of judicial immunity and immunizing practices; and an out-of-court strategy
 
 
 
Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
 
 
 
Kindly find below an article that answers the question whether judges can be sued in spite of the doctrine of judicial immunity.
 
 
 
As noted before, Google disabled my email account Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq at gmail.com; and neither Google nor Dropbox allows the downloading of the file containing both the article and the rest of my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing; Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.
 
 
 
Since other companies may follow suit, I have listed in the article several email addresses to communicate with me as well as several links to download the file.
 
 
 
If you sent me emails to my gmail address in the last three weeks, kindly resend them to my other addresses.
 
 
 
I encourage you to implement the strategy proposed below to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform. The implementation can take advantage of the impending start of the campaign for the primaries, which offers us the opportunity to induce politicians to:
 
 
 
1. recognize this issue as a means of setting themselves apart from the rest;
 
 
 
2. further embarrass the President to distance themselves from him; and
 
 
 
3. call attention to connivance between federal judges and NSA to abuse their power and, to that end, their interference with the communications of their exposers.
 
 
 
We need to stimulate those politicians, together with the journalists who will cover them, to pursue their own interests by so doing, for thereby they will as an unintended consequence advance our common interest in judicial exposure and reform.
 
 
 
We must find allies or we will make only as much progress in ensuring honest judiciaries as we have so far, which is none.
 
 
 
I welcome your comments on the article and invite you to distribute it as widely as possible.
 
 
 
I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
 
Judicial Discipline Reform
 
New York City
 
 
******************************************
 
 
 
On Suing Judges For Wrongdoing
 
Sources of authority that impose a duty of accountability on judges
 
and that can be invoked when suing a judge for wrongdoing,
 
but that judges have supplanted with
 
their self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity and
 
abusive practices to the same effect;
 
and an out-of-court strategy to expose judges’ wrongdoing and
 
bring about judicial reform
 
 
 
By
 
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
 
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
 
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
 
Judicial Discipline Reform
 
New York City
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
 
 

A. How federal judges are unaccountable in practice and engage in wrongdoing risklessly

 
 
 

B. Sources of authority that establish the accountability of federal judges

 
 
 

1. ‘Bad Behaviour’ under Article III of the Constitution

 
 
 

2. Impeachment under Article II of the Constitution

 
 
 

3. Equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments

 
 
 

4. Complaints under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

 
 
 

5. Oath of office and the sworn commitment to equality and legality

 
 
 

6. Duty under a law that requires judges to report a violation

 
 
 

7. Disqualification of judge by affidavit

 
 
 

8. Disqualification on judge’s, or party’s, motion 

 
 
 

9. Integrity and impropriety under the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges

 
 
 

 10. Public confidence: the masters’ trust in their servants

 
 
 

C. What drives judges to immunize judges sued for wrongdoing and afford them passive protection through their silence

 
 
 

1. Reciprocal wrongful loyalty

 
 
 

2. The instinct of self-preservation and how peer retaliation can trigger it

 
 
 

3. Passive cover-ups: judges’ 3-monkeys’ wrongful conduct

 
 
 

4. Judges who keep silent about the wrongdoing committed by others as principals become wrongdoers as accessories before and after the fact

 
 
 

D. Judges’ active protection of their colleagues through practices that have the effect of immunizing them from their duty of accountability

 
 
 

1. Dismissing the case

 
 
 

2. Steering the case in favor of the sued judge

 
 
 
3. Petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to district judges
 
 
 
4. Petitions for en banc review of panel decisions in circuit courts
 
 
 
5. Petitions to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari
 
 
 

6. Peer pressure and retaliation to force a judge to immunize a peer  

 
 
 

7. Self-inflicted pain when deciding whether to show integrity

 
 
 

E. Politicians in connivance with judges have allowed them to become unimpeachable, unsuable Judges Above the Law

 
 
 

F. From unaccountability to riskless wrongdoing, coordination, and schemes, to a Federal Judiciary that is the safe haven of wrongdoing judges

 
 
 

G. Suing judges is an exercise in futility because judges judging judges will make suits fail: an out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

 
 
 

1. The action that you can take to expose judge’s wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform

 
 
 

2. One way for principled judges and journalists to collaborate to expose judges’ wrongdoing

 
 
 

3. The need for every Advocate of Honest Judiciaries to take action, lest they become a useless debating society of armchair judicial victims

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

A. How federal judges are unaccountable in practice and engage in wrongdoing risklessly

 
 
 
1. Imagine that your boss and the other officers of the entity for which you work or where you study or the officers of the entity that supervises your profession can treat you however they like and disregard your rights as much as they want. Assume that they do so because they are contractually secured in their jobs for life. Nobody dare investigate them. Moreover, you are required to file any complaint against anyone of them with your boss’s peers, who immunized each other from liability to any complainant.
 
 
 
2. Under those circumstances, are you afraid that those officers will abuse you routinely and all the more so whenever they can profit from it?
 
 
 
3. Federal judges are in the position of those officers:
 
 
 
4. Justices and circuit and district judges have life appointments. Politicians do not dare investigate them for fear of retaliation(* >jur:23fn17a). People can only complain about any of them to his or her peers, who systematically dismiss their complaints by pretending that they relate to matters subject to appeal rather than to complaint(jur:21§§a-c). If people sue anyone in court, his or her peers dismiss the suit by invoking the doctrine of judicial immunity(jur:26§d).
 
 
 
* All (parenthetical) blue text references are keyed to Dr. Cordero’s study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.
 
 
 
The study and this and related articles and letters are in the file that can be downloaded through any of these links; but see the Note at the end of this article:
 
 
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
 
 
5. Indeed, the Supreme Court has made the scope of judicial immunity absolute: “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”(jur:26fn26).
 
 
 
6. Through that statement of policy, the highest court of the land has only expressed in words what practice has made the historic reality in the Federal Judiciary:
 
 
 
7. Whereas 2,131 federal judges –including justices, bankruptcy judges, and magistrates– were in office on September 30, 2011(jur:22fn13), in the 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!(jur:22fn14) A sober statistical analysis shows that such amazingly low number is an anomaly that cannot possibly be explained by judges being above corruptibility(jur:22fn14).
 
 
 
8. But it is a reliable historic record that has given judges the assurance that they are in practice unimpeachable and in effect irremovable: Judges Above the Law.
 
 
 
9. The following article shows that federal judges are subject to a duty of accountability both as a matter of law and the very nature of our ‘government, not of men, but of laws’(ol:5fn6). It also shows how  in practice, however, they hold themselves and are held unaccountable by politicians and the law enforcement authorities that they control, and that regardless of the type, extent, and gravity of their wrongdoing(jur:5§3; Lsch:21§A).
 
 
 
10. Moreover, the article lays out a realistic out-of-court strategy that you, the Reader, can participate in implementing to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform.
 
 
 
11. This article can be used as a template to analyze any state judiciary and the out-of-court strategy can be applied to expose state judges’ wrongdoing and reform a state judiciary.
 
 
 

B. Sources of authority that establish the accountability of federal judges

 
 
 

1. ‘Bad Behaviour’ under Article III of the Constitution

 
 
 
12. Article III of the Constitution(jur:22fn12b) sets up the judicial power of the federal government and it does not grant federal judges any immunity. On the contrary, Section 1 thereunder provides that federal judges can only ‘hold Office during good Behaviour’.
 
 
 
13. The Constitution does not prohibit anybody from suing a federal judge on a claim that he or she has engaged in ‘bad Behaviour’. A suit conducted fairly and impartially is an appropriate way of showing that a judge has ‘badly behaved’, particularly in a system of justice whose foundational principle is inscribed in the cornice of the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law.
 
 
 
14. That principle allows any person or entity to sue, for example, a police officer and his police department for excessive use of force or deprivation of a civil right.
 
 
 
15. A civil suit against a police officer and department is not prohibited on the pragmatic consideration that the ever present threat of it would prevent them from carrying out their public duties without fear of retribution.
 
 
 
16. Far from it, the suit is allowed on both the legal principle that police officers and departments are accountable for their individual and institutional performance of their public duties and the pragmatic consideration that the possibility of such a suit contributes to a better, lawful performance of such duties by constantly reminding them that they have been entrusted with public power to be exercised responsibly because they are accountable for it.
 
 
 
17. This calls to mind the shooting by a police officer of a civilian in the City of Ferguson and the impending suit by his parents for wrongful death against the officer and the department. The other officers and their department have not become paralyzed by fear of being sued. The opposite is the case, for they have become more responsive to the needs and demands of those who hired them and made it their duty to render lawful, honest police services: the people of Ferguson.
 
 
 
18. Consequently, there is no justification either on constitutional or pragmatic grounds for prohibiting everybody from suing any judge on any claim of misperformance of his or her public duty to render honest judicial services. This conclusion follows from a fair and impartial application of the law. It supports a claim of abuse of judicial power and unlawful deprivation of rights.
 
 
 

2. Impeachment under Article II of the Constitution

 
 
 
19. In fact, Article II, Section 4(jur:22fn12b) provides that “all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
 
 
 
20. What this Section shows is that even “Misdemeanors” can provide sufficient cause for removing a judge. For the sake of consistency, it must be held that it is constitutionally possible to institute a proceeding against a judge for any offense comprised in the range “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, particularly where the relief requested is not removal.
 
 
 
21. Section 4 neither limits to impeachment the proceeding that can be brought against “all civil Officers of the United States”, among whom judges are included, nor confines to removal the relief that can be requested in any such proceeding.
 
 
 
22. This must be the case because practice shows that an impeachment is a politically highly charged proceeding where politics interferes with establishing fairly and impartially whether “[a] civil Officer[committed] Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and, if so, whether relief should be granted to anyone injured by any such offense.
 
 
 
23. Indeed, members of Congress are the very ones who recommend, endorse, and confirm the people that the president nominates to a federal justiceship. Of course, those people have the same party affiliation and views as their supporting members, who very much expect that once those people become judges, they will uphold the constitutionality of the key laws through which the members implement their legislative agenda(jur:23fn17).
 
 
 
24. It follows that the last thing that the supporting members would like to do is admit that they so poorly assessed the character and competence of those people that the latter now must be impeached for having engaged in ‘bad Behaviour’, whether it be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
 
 
 
25. On the contrary, those members would defend ‘their men and women on the bench’ from any impeachment in order to cement their loyalty forever and turn them into staunch upholders of the members’ laws and even protectors of the members themselves if the latter ever were brought up before those judges on any charge, such as corruption, abuse of power, influence peddling, conflict of interests, misuse of campaign contribution, etc.(jur:22fn15)
 
 
 
26. This is how impeachment pitches the party of the president who nominated, and of the most senators who confirmed, the federal judge being impeached against the other party.
 
 
 
27. That occurs first in the House, which adopts the articles of impeachment as if it were a grand jury returning an indictment, and then in the Senate, where the judge is tried on those articles and the senators serve as the jury with the chief justice as the presiding trial judge. Members of Congress may serve as prosecutors and defense attorneys.
 
 
 
28. To avoid such cumbersome proceeding and protect ‘their judges’, members of Congress have proceeded on the basis of reciprocal deference, to wit, ‘if you don’t impeach our judges, we won’t impeach yours’.
 
 
 
29. As a result, historically(supra, ¶7) impeachment has played no effective role as a formal mechanism to police and discipline judicial “civil Officers”. This has allowed judges to engage in ‘bad Behaviour’ without fear of being impeached, never mind being removed.
 
 
 
30. However, Articles II, III, and the rest of the Constitution leave open a suit for compensation against “civil Officers”, including judges, who misperform or engage in ‘bad Behaviour’ and thereby injure the plaintiffs.
 
 
 

3. Equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments

 
 
 
31. Equal protection of the law is a fundamental interest of every person and of the body politic itself. It underlies the notion of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6). Hence, the equal protection clause is inscribed in the Fourteenth Amendment and implied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
 
 
 
32. The doctrine of judicial immunity from suit contradicts the letter of the Constitution and offends against its spirit. So it cannot be derived by implication from either.
 
 
 
33. In defiance of the equal protection clause, judges have concocted that doctrine, whereby they have arrogated to themselves Unequal Protection From The Law at the expense of those whom they have denied its protection: We the People.
 
 
 
34. The People cannot possibly be presumed to have written in the preamble to the Constitution that they ‘establish the Constitution to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity’ only to create a class of unequal “civil Officers” above ‘Justice’ because they can exercise abusively precisely the power that the People entrusted to them to ‘establish Justice’ and are immune from the recourse against them that people can pursue to obtain justice, that is, suits, so that those judicial “civil Officers” can use that power to enslave We the People.
 
 
 
35. It follows that the doctrine of judicial immunity is unconstitutional as well as inimical to the democratic form of government the People chose for themselves.
 
 
 

4. Complaints under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

 
 
 
36. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(28 U.S.C. §§351-364; jur:24fn18a) was adopted upon Congress’s realization(jur:62¶133-quotation) that the process of impeachment was practically never used.(Congressional Record – Senate, September 30, 1980, p. 28086; jur:159fn280a)
 
 
 
37. Through the adoption of the Act, Congress entrusted the responsibility of self-policing and –disciplining to the judges themselves. The Act gives any person, including judges, the right to file with the respective chief circuit judge a complaint for misconduct against any judge of the circuit, and the right to appeal the decision to the circuit’s judicial council, an all-judge body of his or her colleagues presided over by that same chief judge(jur:24§b).
 
 
 
38. However, far from discharging their self-policing and –disciplining duty under the Act, federal judges have protected themselves from it, as shown by the official statistics on the handling of complaints thereunder:
 
 
 
39. On an annual average, 99.82% of complaints filed under the Act against federal judges are dismissed(jur:10, 11; jur:24§b). Up to 100% of petitions to review those dis-missals are denied. Such handling of complaints and petitions is without any investigation (jur:25§c) despite the provision in the Act for setting up a committee to investigate a complaint.
 
 
 
40. Hence, judges have deprived complainants and the rest of the public of their statutory right to complain effectively against wrongdoing judges. They have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in practice and in their own wrongful interest that Act of Congress.
 
 
 

5. Oath of office and the sworn commitment to equality and legality

 
 
 
41.Judges are under the legal duty of accountability that they assumed when they took the oath of office at 28 U.S.C. §453(jur:53fn90).
 
 
 
42. They swore ‘to administer equal right to the poor [in knowledge, intelligence, and money to seek and obtain Equal Justice Under Law] and to the rich [in judicial colleagues and connections to those with abundant political and economic power].
 
 
 
43. They also swore ‘to faithfully perform their duties under the Constitution and the laws of the United States’ so that theirs is not ‘justice by above the law men and women, but rather by the rule of law’.
 
 
 
44. A case in court is a controversy between parties who call on judges to discharge their public duty to apply the law as the standard for measuring the relative merits of the parties’ factual and legal contentions, and determine whose contentions are legally more meritorious of the right to obtain or not to give the relief sought.
 
 
 
45. When judges apply the law unequally to the parties or do not apply it at all and instead act arbitrarily so that they administer to the parties unequal rights, they breach their oath of office. Their breach causes the withdrawal from them of what they received in exchange for giving their word to discharge their duty under the terms of the oath, namely, judicial authority to determine controversies between parties to cases.
 
 
 

6. Duty under a law that requires judges to report a violation

 
 
 
46. Judges are under the statutory duty ‘whenever they believe that a violation of bankruptcy and related laws has taken place or merely that an investigation into it should be had in connection therewith, to report such case to U.S. attorneys’ under 18 U.S.C. §3057a(jur:69fn130a).
 
 
 
47. Judges break the law when they fail to abide by their legal duty to make such report.
 
 
 
48. A principle of tort law states that ‘A person is deemed to intend the reasonable consequences of his or her actions’, because what is reasonable can be foreseen, which affords the person the opportunity to undertake or not to undertake those actions. It applies here:
 
 
 
49. Federal judges have failed to report violations of bankruptcy law. The motive for that is the staggering amount of money in controversy in bankruptcy cases, which constitute about 80% of all federal cases filed annually(jur:28fn33).
 
 
 
50. In calendar year 2010, the amount in controversy in only consumer bankruptcies, as opposed to commercial ones, was $373 billion!(jur:27fn31) Disposing unaccountably of well over a third of a trillion dollars on average annually in both types of bankruptcies, never mind all other types of cases, is ‘a root of absolute corruption’(jur:27fn28, 32).
 
 
 
51. That is corruption that infiltrates every aspect of the judges’ activities and manifests itself in their disposition of controversies with contempt for the law and in pursuit of their own interest. It is the result of judges and other insiders(jur:81fn169) of the bankruptcy and legal systems who violate bankruptcy law as well as of judges who fail to report them. All those judges have allowed those violations to keep growing thanks to roots that go deep and wide into the richest ground for corruption: money, lots of money!
 
 
 
52. Even judges who do not commit such violations, but condone them by not reporting them, have intended the reasonable consequence of the further growth of those violations: a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by federal judges(jur:66§§2-3).
 
 
 

7. Disqualification of judge by affidavit

 
 
 
53. A party can file an affidavit stating that a judge in his or her case is biased or prejudiced toward one or more of the parties, with the result that “the judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding”, as provided for under 28 U.S.C. §144(emphasis added; jur:75¶159).
 
 
 
54. This provision is remarkable because the judge has no say in his or her disqualification. It is an automatic consequence of the party’s filing of the affidavit. It recognizes a fundamental right of every party and foundational principle of due process: the right to a fair and impartial tribunal that can determine the controversy without favor or animus toward any party, but only in accordance with the rule of law applied to the facts of the case.
 
 
 
55. The provision is also remarkable because it belies the doctrine of judicial immunity: A judge can be disqualified from a case, thus losing any power to determine it, even when she has committed not even a misdemeanor, let alone a crime. She has shown ‘only’ to be biased or prejudiced.
 
 
 
56. What is more, the disqualification occurs on the party’s say so, that is, an affidavit that need not be accompanied by evidence required to satisfy the rules of evidence to be introduced at any trial.
 
 
 
57. Indeed, the affidavit is not subject either to challenge by the judge in question or the evaluation of the sworn statements’ truth, weight, or sufficiency in law by other judges, whose acquiescence in those statements or lack thereof is irrelevant and need not be sought in a trial.
 
 
 
58. Therefore, if, on the one hand, a judge is unappealably disqualifiable by affidavit of a party, then, on the other hand, she cannot be immune to a complaint filed by a plaintiff in a suit charging her with wrongdoing that caused injury in fact and willing to support his charges with evidence in an adversarial proceeding that gives the judge the opportunity to challenge the charges and have a jury of her peers as well as peer judges evaluate fairly and impartially the evidence’s truth, weight, and sufficiency, and conclude therefrom that plaintiff’s requested relief should be denied.  
 
 
 
59. The law is a set of behavioral rules addressed to and to be understood and complied with by ‘the reasonable men and women in the street’. The doctrine of judicial immunity cannot be reasonably understood, for it is predicated on a basis that has nothing to do with reason, i.e., judges’ self-interested abuse of power to evade the law and benefit therefrom. (On the means, motive, and opportunity for judges to engage in wrongdoing see jur:21§§A-B).
 
 
 

8. Disqualification on judge’s, or party’s, motion  

 
 
 
60. A judge need not wait to be disqualified at a party’s request. Rather, he has the duty to take the initiative to do so under 28 U.S.C. §455, which provides that he “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”(emphasis added; jur:75¶159).
 
 
 
61. Again, no evidence of partiality is required; reasonable questioning of the judge’s impartiality suffices to trigger the duty for the judge to disqualify himself. The questioning need not have already happened; it is enough that it “might” happen.
 
 
 
62. Moreover, the questioning is not performed from the subjective point of view of the judge, but rather from the objective point of view of other people. What matters is not whether the judge feels that he is or is not being partial.
 
 
 
63. What matter is that reasonable people other than the judge could question that he “might” not be acting or not be able to act impartially. They are not required to prove anything whatsoever, just question his impartiality reasonably.
 
 
 
64. Here applies the logical and legal principle ‘he who cannot oppose the lesser cannot prevent the greater’. Section 455 provides that a judge is powerless to preside over a case if opposition to presiding over it is raised in his mind by his own reasonable questioning of his impartiality, for he “shall disqualify himself”.
 
 
 
65. Where the opposition arises through the questioning expressed by other people, the judge’s only recourse could conceivably be to challenge the questioning’s reasonableness. Even if the possibility of that challenge were admitted arguendo, the judge would have to mount it before a fair and impartial arbiter; he could not unilaterally both challenge the questioning’s reasonableness and find in favor of his challenge.
 
 
 
66. Hence it is patently inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of §455 and constitutes abuse of power for judges to adopt a self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity preventing any plaintiff from suing a judge to prove the reasonableness of her questioning of the judge’s impartiality on the strength of evidence to be evaluated by a jury in an adversarial proceeding that affords the judge the opportunity to challenge it.
 
 
 
67. Such doctrine is all the more abusive because §455 requires that the judge “shall disqualify himself” where he has “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts”; “served as lawyer in the matter in controversy” or a former law firm colleague did; was involved as a government employee in the case; “has a financial interest in the subject matter” or relatives do; is or relatives “within the third degree of relationship” are connected to a party; etc.
 
 
 
68. Those are very concrete and provable circumstances. Each of them casts into question a judge’s impartiality. Each and all of them deprive of every legal or pragmatic justification judges’ self-immunization from suits:
 
 
 
69. A judge’s partiality can be reasonably questioned on the hard evidence of having engaged in specifically prohibited conduct, either intentionally or due to lack of due diligence in performing his duty.
 
 
 
70. Likewise, his liability to the plaintiffs is strongly supported by traditional notions of compensatory justice underlying torts: Defendant must put plaintiff in the position where plaintiff would be but for defendant’s violation of the law.
 
 
 

9. Integrity and impropriety under the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges

 
 
 
71. Under the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges(jur:68fn123a), judges are accountable not only for their performance of their duties, but also for their personal conduct.
 
 
 
72. (The Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the American Bar Association and in turn adopted by the states or incorporated into their legal systems is essentially the same as the one for U.S. Judges; jur:68fn123b.)
 
 
 
73. Canon 1 requires judges ‘to safeguard the integrity of the Judiciary’. That duty includes applying the law and discharging all duties constitutionally and statutorily imposed on judges as well as the subtle duties imposed by the ethical considerations of what constitutes ‘good and bad Behaviour’.
 
 
 
74. This is made apparent by the injunction in Canon 2 ‘to avoid even the appearance of improprieties’. The latter need not be misdemeanors, let alone crimes. It includes conduct that simply is deemed inappropriate for a person invested with judicial power, so it extends to conduct in the judge’s personal life(jur:92§d). The scope of this Canon’s injunction is so broad that it reaches what is not even an ‘impropriety’ in fact, but simply ‘the appearance’ thereof.
 
 
 
75. The indefiniteness of the notions of ‘integrity’ and ‘improprieties’ is by no means a bar to their use in litigation to establish the nature and quality of a judge’s conduct.
 
 
 
76. The fact is that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, customarily referred to as the Bill of Rights, are a collection of rights minimally expressed, e.g., free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of law, no excessive bail, fine, or cruel or unusual punishment, etc., to which must be added the 14th amendment’s equal protection of the laws.
 
 
 
77. Those pithy clauses have been given substance through litigation; cases invoking them constitute the bulk of those that the Supreme Court agrees to review. Neither has the public been deprived of those rights because of the pithiness of those clauses nor has the Court been overwhelmed by the review of cases thereunder. On the contrary, litigation with those clauses at stake has contributed to securing the practical benefits of the inspirational objective of ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’(ol:5fn6).
 
 
 
78. Likewise, the Canons’ pithy notions of ‘the integrity of the judiciary’ and ‘the appearance of impropriety’ could have been fleshed out through litigation. It would have contributed to judges’ becoming progressively more aware of the place of certain forms of conduct in the broad area of the ethically right and wrong.
 
 
 
79.Litigation over those notions would also have enabled the parties and the rest of the public to ensure that judges determined controversies fairly and impartially according to law or at least gave the appearance of so doing and otherwise behaved with such integrity and propriety as to raise the reasonable expectation that they would determine controversies thus.
 
 
 
80. Instead, judges have swept lack of integrity and all forms of impropriety under a self-serving blanket immunization from process. Thereby they have covered up conduct that has caused and keeps causing injury in fact to litigants and the rest of the public and that detracts from ‘deference to their judgments and rulings’(see next).
 
 
 

10. Public confidence: the masters’ trust in their servants

 
 
 
81. Another source of judges’ duty of accountability is unwritten, just as their duty to maintain “good Behaviour” is not defined in the Constitution in any way. It also undergirds the injunction in Canon 2 “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”. It is acknowledged in the Commentary on Canon 1 on ‘safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary’:
 
 
 
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.
 
 
 
82. “Public confidence” is not only unwritten, it is also subjective. But not because it consists of opinions and feelings is it any less strong than the other sources of authority of judges’ duty of accountability.
 
 
 
83. Far from it, ‘in government of, by, and for the people’, “public confidence” is the foundation on which the masters of government, We the People, make an entrustment of a portion of our sovereign powers to our servants, the “civil Officers”, to perform certain services needed by the masters. That includes judicial services, for which the People entrust power to judges so that they may serve as fair and impartial arbiters in determining controversies through the administration of “Equal Justice Under Law”.
 
 
 
84. Judges are judicial public servants who owe a duty to account for their performance of their duty and their duty of “good Behaviour” to their masters, We the People. Once the foundation of “public confidence” is so weakened in the minds of the People that they no longer feel judges to be worthy of “deference to their judgments and rulings”, the entrustment of power is cancelled and the entrusted power reverts to the People.
 
 
 

C. What drives judges to immunize judges sued for wrongdoing and afford them passive protection through their silence

 
 
 

1. Reciprocal wrongful loyalty

 
 
 
85. Federal justices and circuit and district judges are life-tenured; bankruptcy judges are appointed(jur:43fn61a) by circuit judges for renewable 14-year terms. They are likely to have worked together for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years or more. As a result, they know a lot about each other’s professional and personal lives and, more importantly, about their wrongdoing.
 
 
 
86. Judges who are sued come before presiding judges who have been their peers, colleagues, and friends for that long. Implicitly or explicitly, presiding judges hear the sued judges’ hurt cry:
 
 
 
We have known each other for years. How can you let the complaint against me of this nobody who dropped out of the blue move forward to tarnish my name and disrupt my peace of mind? Just dismiss it. What, you have never made a mistake or even done something a bit shady? I know you have! I can also find out your darkest dealings by asking my true friends. I thought you too were my friend. But if you turn against me, we will remember how you’re harming me now when it is your turn to be sued by one of those disgruntled losers. You can be sure of that!
 
 
 
87. Their reaction has been a most reassuring one for their friends: They have dismissed the cases or steered them toward a finding in favor of their sued friends.
 
 
 

2. The instinct of self-preservation and how peer retaliation can trigger it

 
 
 
88. In showing wrongful loyalty, judges have also been motivated by their interest in securing a benefit for themselves: self-preservation.
 
 
 
89. If the presiding judges allowed a criminal prosecution to move forward against a defendant judge, the latter could in plea bargain trade up testimony against ‘bigger fish’ or the whole bank of fish below or around him in exchange for partial or total immunity or some leniency. All the judges could fall through a domino effect.
 
 
 
90. In a civil prosecution, the sued judge could call any number of colleagues as witnesses and force them either to be character witnesses for him or to affirm that the sued judge could not possibly have done whatever he is sued for because, for instance, the sealed file containing confidential trade secrets had been misplaced at the time in question so that the sued judge could not have known and misused those secrets.
 
 
 
91. Worse yet, the sued judge could call to the stand other judges to show that they forced him to do what he is charged with having done or that they were in on it and helped him do it and then sue them as third-party defendants for contribution or indemnification. In support of his third party complaint, the sued judge could call as witness the most vulnerable witnesses, with the least to gain, and with an enormous amount of knowledge about the wrongdoing by all judges: the clerks. In addition, of course, the sued judge could call to testify lawyers, their clients, and other insiders(jur:39§5).
 
 
 
92. The sued judge could give his colleagues a foretaste of what awaited them if they did not dismiss the case against him by deposing all them. In depositions, he could ask them all sorts of questions, even those that elicited information not admissible at trial and that were only part of a fishing expedition, for that is exactly what discovery is, encompassing “Relevant information [that] need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, as provided for under FRCivP 26(b)(1))(jur:47fn79); etc.
 
 
 
93. The potential for embarrassment and a host of other suits causing incalculable damage would far exceed the case at bar. The message of the sued judge to his peers would get through loud and clear:
 
 
 
If you don’t get rid of this suit against me right now, I promise, every cent you let this plaintiff get from me will cost you a thousand dollars! And be prepared to swim because after I file my depositions and make them part of the publicly accessible record; post them on the Internet to call for similar or additional information; or send copies to the losers in cases before you guys, you all will be flooded with hundreds and hundreds of motions to reopen discovery in light of new evidence or to vacate judgments and hold new trials on a claim that you were unfair and partial due to your conflict of interests, disregard for the rules for disqualification(jur:146fn272), socializing with parties before(146fn271a), your general lack of integrity, you name it.
 
 
 
94. The exposure of any judge’s wrongdoing raises the specter of calamity for all the judges of the court and beyond. It always appears as a common threat to all of them. Theirs is a mutually dependent survival.
 
 
 
We all have done it and done it together. Don’t you dare think you can leave me out there to hang dry alone and you just go on doing it and profiting from it. Mind my words: If I go down, I’ll take you all with me!
 
 
 

3. Passive cover-ups: judges’ 3-monkeys’ wrongful conduct

 
 
 
95. More frequently and importantly than in a judge-judging-judge setting, judges reciprocally keep silent about the wrongdoing that they have witnessed their colleagues commit or learned that they committed.
 
 
 
a. They cover their eyes to avoid looking for an explanation for suspicious conduct –which constitutes willful ignorance– and to avoid seeing wrongdoing that is staring at them –willful blindness–(jur:88§§a-c).
 
 
 
b. They cover their ears or exit the room to avoid hearing their colleagues planning to do wrong or turn a deaf ear to their competitive boasting about how they gamed the system, for example, after their colleagues’ tongues and inhibitions have been loosened with several bottles of cognac gulped throughout the night in the suite of a chief judge while attending the biannual meetings of the Judicial Conference(jur:54fn91a; 107fn221), a circuit meeting(107fn222), a corporation’s judicial junket, or a seminar(107fn223).
 
 
 
c. They cover their mouths so that not a peep escapes to say anything about their peers’ wrongdoing to an authority with supervisory authority who could and would be reasonably expected to launch an investigation into it, such as the chairs of the congressional committees on the Judiciary, the Speaker of the House and the House leaders, the leaders of the Senate, the U.S. Attorney General, the local U.S. attorneys, state attorneys general, and district attorneys…or the ‘officers’ of the fourth power: journalists.
 
 
 
96. By thus covering for each other’s wrongdoing, judges share in collegial complicity.
 
 
 

Judges who keep silent about the wrongdoing committed by others as principals become wrongdoers as accessories before and after the fact

 
 
 
97. Judges who fail to report other judges’ wrongdoing are in dereliction of their duty both to maintain the integrity of the judiciary, which makes them bear institutional responsibility for their colleagues’ conduct, and to self-police and –discipline by exercising the power entrusted to them therefor.
 
 
 
98. By failing to report other wrongdoing judges and even without committing themselves any wrongdoing as principals, they become accessories before and after the fact to all their colleagues’ wrongdoing:
 
 
 
99. With their silence, judges have abetted their colleagues’ already committed wrongdoing by enabling it to go undetected and unpunished. Thereby they have helped them ‘perfect their wrongdoing’.
 
 
 
100. They have also contributed to making ‘wrongdoing pay’ for the principals, who profit from their wrongdoing by keeping whatever intended or consequential material(jur:105fn213; 27§2), professional(44fn69; 56§§e-f), and social benefits(62§g, a&p:1¶2nd) they ill got from it.
 
 
 
101. That way the silent judges have become accessories after the fact.
 
 
 
102. Moreover, by keeping their mouths shut about already committed wrongdoing, judges have provided the implicit or explicit assurance that they will likewise keep silent about wrongdoing yet to be committed by the same or other judges acting as principals.
 
 
 
103. By judges who can be the source of the deterring risk of reporting judges if they do wrong providing principals with such assurance of silence, they have aided the principals by clearing from their path to doing wrong the concern about being reported, thus giving them peace of mind.
 
 
 
104. They have also facilitated the principals’ wrongdoing in very practical terms by eliminating the latter’s need to plan and implement effort-money-and-time-consuming measures to evade detection and punishment.
 
 
 
105. Thereby the silent judges have become accessories before the fact(ol:72¶9; jur:171¶372; Lsch:22¶6).
 
 
 

D. . Judges’ active protection of their colleagues through practices that have the effect of immunizing them from their duty of accountability

 
 
 
106. Out of reciprocal wrongful loyalty and self-preservation, judges presiding over a suit brought against one of their own will not allow it to succeed. They have a panoply of measures that they can actively apply to that end.
 
 
 

1. Dismissing the case

 
 
 
107. Judges judging judges invoke their own self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity to dismiss the suit at the beginning. This is particularly so when dealing with a civil suit and the plaintiff is not a law enforcement authority, not to mention when it is a pro se.
 
 
 
108. They can also dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(jur:47fn79) by pretending that it is due to the plaintiff’s ‘failure to state a cause of action under which relief can be granted’.
 
 
 
109. Since those Federal Rules are the model for the states’ rules of civil procedure, state judges can invoke to the same end the equivalent state rules, which are likely to bear the same numbers as the federal ones.
 
 
 
110. Likewise, they can issue summary judgment under Rule 56 for the defendant judge by claiming that even if all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations were admitted by the defendant, the latter would still be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
 
 
 
111. The presiding judges can proceed on their own motion under Rule 56(f)(3) and pretend that where no genuine issue of material fact exists and as a matter of law judgment can only be granted for a given party, then on grounds of judicial economy the court should not waste taxpayers’ money and limited judicial resources on a trial that is unnecessary to reach a judgment dictated by law.
 
 
 

112. Steering the case in favor of the sued judge

 
 
 
112. It can happen that, for instance, due to extensive media coverage, judges judging judges cannot nip in the bud a case against a colleague by dismissing it. Where a show trial is unavoidable, they can steer the case to a judgment for the defendant judge by resorting to other active, self-help measures that in effect will ensure her immunization from process.
 
 
 
113. To that end, judges can:
 
 
 
a. grant the defendant judge’s motions to deny plaintiff’s requests for discovery alleged to be:
 
 
 
1) outside the scope of the complaint;
 
 
 
2) unduly burdensome relative to the evidence to be obtained;
 
 
 
3) of no probative value;
 
 
 
4) sought only for its vexing and harassing effect;
 
 
 
5) a fishing expedition(supra, ¶92);
 
 
 
b. not admit evidence that proves plaintiff’s claims against the sued judge while admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence that exonerates the judge;
 
 
 
c. overrule systematically plaintiff’s objections and uphold the judge’s;
 
 
 
d. not allow plaintiff’s witnesses to take the stand or disqualify them after taking it and strike their testimony from the record on the allegation that the witnesses:
 
 
 
1) are biased due to their animosity toward the sued judge or all judges;
 
 
 
2) have no personal knowledge concerning the facts in controversy to which they are asked to bear testimony;
 
 
 
3) have a conflict of interest that disqualifies their testimony as unreliable;
 
 
 
4) are not credible due to their known penchant for untruthfulness;
 
 
 
5) are not qualified to offer expert testimony in the field of their alleged expertise; etc.;
 
 
 
e. issue instructions to the jury that all but command a verdict for the defendant judge;
 
 
 
f. if a runaway jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff, come to the rescue of her defendant colleague by ordering a new trial under Rule 59(d) on her own motion and even for reasons not stated in the colleague’s motion for a new trial;
 
 
 
g avoid the criticism of taking the initiative to rescue the defendant judge while sparing him a new trial by simply granting his motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend a judgment that was harsh on him only for the sake of the show and that when altered or amended allows the defendant judge to get off with merely a slap on the wrist…and a wink from his friend on the bench;
 
 
 
h. resort to the wide array of subtle forms of chicanery(Lsch:17§C) through which judges manipulate elements of case management and procedure to end up with the predetermined winners and losers in cases before them.
 
 
 
3. Petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to district judges
 
 
 
114. A trial court judge is subject to a writ of mandamus or prohibition petitioned in circuit court under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure(jur:44fn70a). It can order the lower court judge to take or not to take a certain action.
 
 
 
115. However, circuit judges can deny the petition by using the form for summary orders(jur:43§1) whose only operative word is “denied”, that is, without giving any reason.
 
 
 
116. Therefore, it has no substance that could establish a precedent. In fact, it is “non-precedential” and in all likelihood will be marked “not for publication” by the panel or the clerk who prepared it. For all practical purposes, it is merely an element of a docket clearing scheme(jur:43§1).
 
 
 
117. What can the petitioner do? Nothing, for a petition for review by the Supreme Court has among all the filings with it, including writs of certiorari, less than 1 chance in 100 of being chosen by at least four justices for review by the Court, which does not mean in any way that a majority of the justices will grant the petition or order the writ issued(jur:47fn81a).
 
 
 
4. Petitions for en banc review of panel decisions in circuit courts
 
 
 
118. A 3-circuit judge panel is subject to have its decision reviewed en banc by all the judges of the circuit court upon a petition under Appellate Rule 35. However, the rate of denial of such petitions approaches a 100%.
 
 
 
119. As Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit put it, “to rely on tradition to deny rehearing in banc starts to look very much like abuse of discretion”(jur:45§2).
 
 
 
120. The abuse is motivated by the benefit that circuit judges implicitly or explicitly have granted each other:
 
 
 
If you vote not to review en banc my wrong or wrongful decisions, I’ll return the courtesy to you when your decisions are the subject of an en banc petition. After all, you and I, we all are stuck with each other for the rest of our professional lives. We don’t want grudges among us, do we? Who cares what a onetime en banc petitioner wants or is entitled to. He’ll get over it soon enough.
 
 
 
121. That kind of expedient pragmatism and disregard for the rule of law and the rights of parties govern the relations among federal judges. They constitute a blatant breach of their duty of accountability.
 
 
 
5. Petitions to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari
 
 
 
122. A petition for a writ of certiorari will not remedy a breach of the duty of accountability, for the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly likely to deny it. After all, most justices are the former peers of circuit judges. They extended each other that ‘courtesy’ at the time. Doing so as justices can be rationalized by more expedient pragmatism:
 
 
 
If all our colleagues of the court below decided not to review the decision of one of their panels, why should we care? If they can live with it, so can we. It is not as if we didn’t have enough cases to deal with.
 
 
 
123. The class of judges takes care of their own.
 
 
 

6. Peer pressure and retaliation to force a judge to immunize a peer 

 
 
 
124. A judge who did not take advantage of all the available measures to immunize from suit or its consequences a sued judge would be deemed by all the other judges a traitor to the class. That judge can be literally cast out of the class through removal, non-reappointment, banishment, transfer, and ‘gypsying’ under several provisions of the Judicial Code of Title 28 of the U.S. Code(jur:56§e on the stick to enforce class loyalty).
 
 
 
125. Treatment as a pariah can take a heavy toll in emotional and practical terms:
 
 
 
126. Nobody would ride with her on the elevator, sit with her at the table in the lounge, or invite her to the parties in the hotel suite of the chief judge while at a judicial conference. The briefs, motions, and her writings in her cases would never get on time wherever they had to get, if they ever did.
 
 
 
127. Her computer would frequently freeze and it would take forever to get somebody to fix it; her files would ‘inexplicably’ disappear from it; and when they reappeared they would have all sorts of typos, missing words, and tortured phrases that made her decisions appear to have been written by an illiterate whose vernacular was Pidgin English…and all her citations would be gone!
 
 
 

7. Self-inflicted pain when deciding whether to show integrity

 
 
 
128. It takes a person with an enormous amount of integrity to do the right thing in the face of peer pressure to do the opposite. This is particularly so when the person is asked to protect one of her own by doing a wrong thing that is riskless so that refusal to do it is purely a matter of principle.
 
 
 
129. Integrity is put to the test when doing the wrong thing will be deemed by all the peers to constitute loyal ‘good Behaviour’ to be rewarded by participation in the rich benefits available to all members of the class in good standing(jur:60§f on the carrot to induce class loyalty).
 
 
 
130. Integrity is tested almost to the limit when doing the wrong thing means acquiring the assurance that in the event one gets into trouble for doing the right thing or making a mistake the whole class will close ranks to protect one.
 
 
 
131. And integrity is tested to the breaking point when doing the wrong thing to protect a peer means earning the entitlement to do whatever wrong thing one wants to do in the knowledge that all the peers will likewise be there to keep one from having to pay any adverse consequence and to enable one to keep all wrongful benefits.
 
 
 
132. If it were easy to show integrity, everybody would do so and integrity would not be such a rare and precious quality of a person’s character. Lack of integrity, of course, is no excuse for breaking the law and harming others. Showing and not showing integrity as a judge is what makes the difference between living one’s exacting and ennobling conviction that administering justice is one of the highest callings to serve one’s fellow men that a person can respond to and being an opportunistic employee that goes through the motions of the job while embezzling the masters’ public power to turn it into private benefits with the help of a clique of dishonest servants.
 
 
 

E. Politicians in connivance with judges have allowed them to become unimpeachable, unsuable Judges Above the Law

 
 
 
133. Politicians are aware that judges can doom their legislative agenda by declaring its component laws unconstitutional(jur:23fn17). Obamacare would be but a footnote in the annals of legislation if Chief Justice Roberts had joined the other four conservatives on the Supreme Court in declaring it unconstitutional.
 
 
 
134. To avoid such retaliation, politicians have in self-interest(jur:22¶31) allowed judges to maintain the doctrine of judicial immunity in force and hold them unaccountable.
 
 
 
135. Why would they ever turn against, and expose the wrongdoing, of ‘their own men and women on the bench’, the very ones that they recommended, endorsed, and confirmed to a federal judgeship?
 
 
 
136. If politicians did so, they would be admitting at the very least their bad judgment of character or incompetent vetting process when considering them for a judgeship.
 
 
 
137. At worst, they would run the risk of being charged with having known about the judicial candidates’ wrongdoing but condoned it as part of a quid pro quo arrangement providing for their appointment to the bench in exchange for favorable decisions as judges or other benefits.
 
 
 
138. Due to their connivance with judges(jur:81§1; ol:147¶6), politicians are part of the problem of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. To appeal to them for help only betrays naiveté and a lack of understanding of how allies and foes are lined up in the game of power politics, where power is the paramount consideration and the only prize at stake and not even electoral slogans include any reference to judges’ unaccountability, wrongdoing, and the need for their exposure and judicial reform.
 
 
 
139. Hence, it is not by seeking politicians’ participation in suing judges for wrongdoing that the chances of success are enhanced.
 
 
 

F. From unaccountability to riskless wrongdoing, coordination, and schemes, to a Federal Judiciary that is the safe haven of wrongdoing judges

 
 
 
140. Federal judges have self-servingly crafted the unconstitutional doctrine of judicial immunity to hold themselves beyond suit; steer in their favor suits that exceptionally reach them; and systematically dismiss 99.82%(supra, ¶39) of complaints against their colleagues.
 
 
 
141. By so doing, they have left the public without any recourse to obtain relief from, or compensation for, judges’ injurious ‘bad Behaviour’.
 
 
 
142. Quite the contrary, they have condemned the public to be further and ever more profoundly injured by judges that are not deterred from engaging in ‘bad Behaviour’ because they hold themselves and are held by politicians unaccountable.
 
 
 
143. Consequently, their wrongdoing is riskless. It grows worse as it becomes ever more routine, widespread, and graver. Progressively, the inhibitions about behaving badly fall away, their wrongdoing becomes common knowledge, and its material(jur:105fn213; 27§2), professional(jur:44fn69; 56§§e-f), and social benefits(jur:62§g, a&p:1¶2nd) become more enticing. Naturally the most harmful feature of ‘bad Behaviour’ in a group takes over: coordination(jur:88§§a-c) among wrongdoers.
 
 
 
144. Through coordination, judges can make the most of their means(jur:21§1), motive(jur:27§2), and opportunity(jur:28§3) to engage in wrongdoing. Coordination among themselves and between them and other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems(jur:81fn169) enables judges to increase ever more their wrongdoing’s effectiveness and benefits.
 
 
 
145. The opportunity for coordinating their wrongdoing and implementing their coordinated plan of action is significantly enhanced by a feature of their operation that has no parallel in the rest of government: pervasive secrecy. Federal judges hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never hold press conferences(jur:27§e). If “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Justice Brandeis put it(jur:158fn279), secrecy is the petri dish of corruption.
 
 
 
146. Gradually, coordinated wrongdoing judges operating in secrecy develop into a corrupt organization with structured personnel, an articulated mode of operation, and the shared objective of achieving current and new benefits with expanding ranges and increasing levels.
 
 
 
147. Unaccountability, coordination, and secrecy have enabled federal judges to engage in the most harmful form of riskless wrongdoing: schemes. That is how they have been able to set up and run their bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), a concealment of assets scheme(65fn107a,c; 105fn213), and a docket clearing scheme(43§1).
 
 
 
148. Coordination in secrecy has made wrongdoing so accepted among judges and has so intimately integrated it with their daily activities that wrongdoing has become the institutionalized modus operandi(49§4) of the Federal Judiciary while the Judiciary has become the profitable safe haven for wrongdoers beyond process through self-immunization.
 
 
 
149. Federal judges’ own historic record and current statistics(supra) show that once a person is confirmed to his or her life-tenured federal judgeship, they can disregard their duty of accountability, their oath of office, and the law without fear of any adverse consequences. That is how they have elevated themselves acting in connivance with politicians to a place where no person is entitled to be in government by the rule of law: Judges Above the Law(jur:49§4).
 
 
 

G. Suing judges is an exercise in futility because judges judging judges will make suits fail: an out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform

 
 
 
150. There is no way of suing a judge in court and force the judges judging their peer not to apply the doctrine of judicial immunity, not to dismiss the suit under a procedural rule, and not to steer it to a favorable outcome for the judge.
 
 
 
151. This calls for an out-of-court strategy for judicial exposure and reform.
 
 
 
152. The out-of-court strategy provides for the national public to be informed about the wrongdoing of judges through the journalistic investigation of two unique national stories: the President Obama-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor story and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(ol:100).
 
 
 
153. Those stories will so outrage(jur:83§§2-3; ol:136§3) the public at judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians as to stir it up to force politicians to investigate judges officially and at public hearings, and bring about meaningful judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8).
 
 
 
154. The power that the public has to force politicians to take into account its mood and demands lies in that it can withhold its donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, endorsement when asked by pollsters, and of course, its vote on Election Day. Its power is particularly strong when politicians are most vulnerable, that is, during the long primary and presidential election campaigns.
 
 
 
155. That is why time is of the essence and why Advocates of Honest Judiciaries must not miss this long political season to take action.
 
 
 

1. The action that you can take to expose judge’s wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform

 
 
 
156. The strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform can be implemented through a plan of action that sets forth the concrete, realistic, and feasible action that you, the Reader, and all other Advocates of Honest Judiciaries can take. To that end, you can:
 
 
 
a. Contact
 
 
 
1) talkshow hosts(ol:146) and
 
 
 
2) student class officers, deans, and professors at schools of journalism, law, business, and Information Technology(ol:137§B) to
 
 
 
b. arrange for your and Dr. Cordero’s or his appearance in their talkshows or at their schools to make presentations of the evidence(jur:21§§A-B) of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3; Lsch:21§A) and the plan of action for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(Lsch:2);
 
 
 
c. use the interview with Dr. Cordero by Mr. Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, thereon as a promotional tool. It can be watched at:
 
 
 
 
and
 
 
 
 
d. facilitate through those presentations contact with professional and citizen journalists to encourage them to further investigate(jur:102§4; ol:115) the two unique national stories so that their investigation may
 
 
 
e. launch a Watergate-like(jur:100§3) generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing guided by a proven(jur:4¶¶10-14) query rephrased thus:
 
 
 
What did President Obama and the Supreme Court justices know
 
about Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing
 
–suspected by The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c)
 
of concealing assets, which is done to hide the assets’ illegal origin and evade taxes on them
 
and constitutes a crime(ol:5fn10)–
 
with the complicity of the other justices, judges, and staff of the Federal Judiciary,
 
and when did they know it?
 
 
 
f. stir up an outraged national public to force campaigning politicians to
 
 
 
g. take a stand on judicial wrongdoing and reform, and even call for, and open, official investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts, of judges’ wrongdoing, and in light of the full extent, nature, and gravity of their wrongdoing(ol:135),
 
 
 
h. establish an independent inspector general for the Federal Judiciary(jur:158§6);
 
 
 
i. legislate judicial reform that requires the Judiciary and its judges to operate transparently and on an open door basis(jur:158§7); and
 
 
 
j. create citizen boards(jur:160§8) empowered to receive publicly filed complaints against federal judges; investigate them with subpoena and contempt powers; conduct public hearings; and hold judges accountable, disciplinable, and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(Lsch:10¶6);
 
 
 
k. make these developments the model to be followed at the state level.
 
 
 

2. One way for principled judges and journalists to collaborate to expose judges’ wrongdoing

 
 
 
157. Principled and courageous judges can inform journalists about judges’ wrongdoing. They can do so on deep background, and thus become modern day Deep Throats(jur:106§c), whose identity will be protected by the journalists to whom they provide information confidentially.
 
 
 
158. Journalists and media outlets can investigate that information in their own professional and commercial interest, for they can earn numerous material and moral rewards thereby(ol:3§F).
 
 
 
159. Let journalists and media outlets take a hint: If they want to investigate judges as proposed(ol:100), they should go to the venue of judges’ conferences and meetings, which normally are announced on the courts’ websites(jur:20) and those of their associations(jur:107fn22e) to talk to the waiters, the waitresses, particularly the beautiful ones, the drivers, bartenders, room cleaners, and similar “small people” with underestimated intelligence –more than matched by their street smarts ad their experience with other VIPs– who are invisible to life-tenured, in practice unimpeachable judges, and in whose ghostly presence judges without any concern discuss, or blab about, their wrongdoing. The leads gained by so doing can prove invaluable(jur:106¶¶240-243).
 
 
 

3. The need for every Advocate of Honest Judiciaries to take action, lest they become a useless debating society of armchair judicial victims

 
 
 
160. I encourage you, the Reader, to take action so that thanks to your novel and imaginative organizing work, you can turn talkshow hosts and relevant graduate schools into a force to be reckoned with for its effective impact on the national public and on behalf of its rights, such as its fundamental right to honest judiciaries that administer Equal Justice Under Law.
 
 
 
161. If you do so, you can be recognized by a grateful nation as one of We the People’s Champions of Justice.
 
 
 
Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.
 
 
 
Watch the interview with Dr. Cordero by Mr. Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, at:
 
 
and
 
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
 
Judicial Discipline Reform
 
New York City
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTE On Interference with Communications: When emailing Dr. Cordero, send your email to all the email above addresses to enhance the chances of at least one of your emails reaching him.
 
 
 
See in this regard:
 
 
 
1. the facts supporting his probable cause to believe that there is interference with his communications so as to hinder his effort to join forces with others to expose federal judges’ wrongdoing(*>* >ol:19§D);
 
 
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
https://1drv.ms/1tiLsXe >* >ol:19§D   
 
 
 
2. Dropbox’s suspension of his account allegedly because it is generating too much traffic, although it is precisely in its interest, as it competes with the likes of Google Drive, Microsoft Drive One, Apple iCloud, etc., to become known as the most reliable cloud depository from which the whole world can download the files that its subscribers have uploaded to it;
 
 
 
 
3. Google’s notice -https://1drv.ms/1vlWjRP- informing Dr. Cordero that his account, i.e., Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com, had been disabled, but:
 
 
 
a) stating no reason therefor; instead
 
 
 
b) referring him to its terms and conditions for him to guess how he might have violated any of them so that he would be the one to justify Google’s abusive disablement of his account(ol:175);
 
 
 
c) giving him no opportunity to correct whatever conduct that had prompted the disablement;
 
 
 
d) allowing no downloading of his saved emails for his record;
 
 
 
e) giving him no time to read or download his unread emails;
 
 
 
f) permitting no copying of his list of contacts so that he could inform them where to email him in future;
 
 
 
g) offering no forwarding of incoming emails to a non-gmail account; and
 
 
 
h) setting no latest date by which it would resolve the appeal that it stated his protest constituted, whereby Google may have intended to cause him not to take any action in reliance on the misleading impression that there is the possibility that it may reverse its decision when in fact Google has no appeal mechanism to review an account disabling decision and no intention to enable his account again, so that Google’s reference to its review of an appeal may be a dishonest tactic to drag out time during which it expects Dr. Cordero to resign himself that the account is and will remain disable and find alternative ways to dealing with his emailing.
 
 
 
4. Thus, Google has avoided taking any reasonable measure to limit the professional and practical harm caused Dr. Cordero by disabling his gmail account without warning. On the contrary, by disabling it in such an abrupt and inconsiderate manner, it intended to cause him the maximum harm: A torts principle states that “a person is deemed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her actions”.
 
 
 
5. Did Google act on its own initiative or did it receive a request or an order to disable Dr. Cordero’s account to which it responded by bargaining a quid pro quo benefit?
 
 
 
Cf. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:xlviii) may have entered into a quid pro quo arrangement when they abruptly killed their series of articles suspecting Then-Judge, Now-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets107a,c, although it was in their interest to pursue a story that could have earned them the historic credit and a Pulitzer Prize for having set in motion a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation that led to the non-confirmation of J. Sotomayor, or the resignation or impeachment of her and of President Obama for connivingly nominating her in his own political and personal interest(ol:67¶6) despite knowing about her concealment of assets(jur:xviii) so that he lied to the American public when he vouched for her honest and under false pretense obtained its support for her confirmation.
 
**********************************************

___

Related: 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

Federal Judicial/Governmental Insanity Has Corrupted And Destroyed Our Republic / A Call For A Grand Jury Investigation Of Richard C. “Dick” Tallman (Ninth Circuit)

https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/05/federal-judicialgovernmental-insanity-has-corrupted-and-destroyed-our-republic-a-call-for-a-grand-ju.html

Godel's Proof on how the US Constitution has a flaw that could allow a dictatorship

https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2011/06/godels-proof-on-how-the-us-constitution-has-a-flaw-that-could-allow-a-dictatorship.html

Private Attorney General in USA Comments on: “Democratic Dictatorship”: The Transition towards Authoritarian Rule in America, by Dr. Robert P. Abele

https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/01/private-attorney-general-in-usa-comments-on-democratic-dictatorship-the-transition-towards-authorita.html

 

September 11, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink