Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« August 2014 | Main | October 2014 »

Kefir and suero are simply wonderful and kefir with Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 added is even better

Recently while being in Colombia, South America I had the pleasure of being introduced to kefir and suero. Both are great for one’s health and tasty too. I had acquired Tibetan kefir grains and now have been making my own. Anybody need some kefir grains? It is so fun to make your own kefir and suero!

In any event for the healthy boost of my day I now make a novel and healthy drink with my morning kefir drink. I mix in Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 (BTT 2.0) which is also 100% Organic, GMO, shellfish and allergen free, has over 90 vitamins, minerals and amino acids as well as pre- and probiotics, plus more). I also mix in some chocolate protein powder on occasion and a little bit of acai juice.

In that I am an Executive Marketing Director with Youngevity and get 3 canisters of BTT 2.0 a month, I like to vary up the drinks I make with it. Adding it with the kefir has really been producing phenomenal health results. Order here

See the Dead Doctor’s Don’t Lie banner on the upper left for a wonderful and healthy way of supplementing and helping others as well or just click here

September 30, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Stan Monteith (1929 - Sept. 29, 2014)

Stanley Monteith (born 1929 - died September 29, 2014) was a radio host, had his own radio show (Radio Liberty), was an author and a retired orthopedic surgeon, popularly known as Doctor Stan.

One of his last interviews (August 21, 2014):

Transcript of 'The Enemy Within' Norman Dodd interview by Dr. Stan Monteith circa 1980s on Radio Liberty

September 29, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Scanned Retina's Encyclopedia of Tyranny

 The Encyclopedia of Tyranny

Most recent items of great interest – 04 August 2014

by arnierosner

By the time you have read all of these articles you will know how the world got so screwed up and how to restore sanity for the future of humanity. Olddog

Home page / Archives
Maslow’s Hierarchy
World Domination plans are failing. The NWO is in a Panic.
Most recent items of great interest – 01 August 2014
Invoking Common Law – English Freemen Standing In Court
Is it possible to go beyond treason? Related Documents.
The Evidence of Fraud!
ITS OFFICIAL: The state legislature of Georgia Declares the Fraud of Congress – 1957
The Real Criminals – Judge Anna Von Reitz
We give legitimacy to the impostors.
So Just Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?
Proposal 02
As an American, it is you who are responsible. Can you deny your obligation?
Georgia State Assembly Charged Congress with Treason!
Confirmed…General Carter F. Ham Appointed: Joint Chiefs Noticed by order of Grand Jury.
Congress committing treason right now!!!
Reclaiming the Ranch…
The de jure will be Restored when First Member of Congress is tried for Treason!
Georgia Declares Official Fraud of Congress – 1957
If it sounds like an attorney..if it smells like an attorney…
Anna and Karen – on FB
I AM YOUR ANCHOR BABY: The Significance Of My Will – by Anna Von Reitz, Judge in Alaska
To the adults in the room… by Judge Anna von Reitz
General Civil Orders – 10 June14 – Refreshed 27 July 2014
  1. Jim Garrow: Arresting the President Of The United States
A response to Leonard – On orders to the Joint Chiefs. Press Release dated July 4, 2014.
Arnie says…Let the record speak for itself! Let Americans decide the truth!
Stripping away the Illusion and Exposing the Fraud! Henry County, GA – Tuesday, 5 August 14
Is it possible to go beyond treason? With link to related documents
Americans – Can there be any doubt?
POOOF…!!!! THE ILLUSION SHATTERED!!! Lawful government restored??
How you became a corporation
Revoke the Delegated Authority of Congress – The County Sheriff
Common Law Community Training Manual
Government Service Corporations Breach Contracts. Commit fraud upon the people.
The facts in summary.
Congress – Enemy Agents. Any Questions?
Warrant For Arrest Form AO-422: – Public Officer
Personage – Larry Beacraft
***Public Notice*** Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch – Common Law Grand Jury Administrator Announces…
Assemblyman Travis Allen: Call for action! Restore the de jure!
The NWO game plan in 90 seconds
Obama and the US Army Open the Door to the UN – by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Barratry – Larry Beacraft
Union Reserve of Texas
Deborah Tavares & Al Whitney/World Bank Attorney Exposes the Game
Sheridan County, NE: Return OUR Stolen Property! 2nd. Default Notice!
Presscore reports: Shooting linked to attempted arrest of Obama
Caution Advised! A reality about which you may not wish to acknowledge! Are you enough of an adult?
Randy Due Case
BAR – Larry Beacraft
Section 1 Cut 1
The Roman Catholic Church is Declared a Transnational Criminal Organization
The Cheapest, Most Efficient Prison of All – Your Own Mind. by Anna von Reitz
Hey Edward C. Noonan, put your money where your mouth is.
A question regarding the 13th Amendment – Judge Anna responds…
Unless you are the most stupid Idiot in the world…
Proposed Solution #01
Anna addresses Cardinal George
Major General David E. Quantock – Provost Marshal General of the Army
The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II
FINAL JUDGMENT AND CIVIL ORDERS – Background – A visit with Anna
Grand Jury – Join the National People’s Grand Jury Process
Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 01
BAR Member Affidavit – All BAR members are foreign agents of the Crown
Call to Action! Impeachment – JB Williams
A response to Jim.
Installing Jural Societies
Police Sgt violates civil rights of citizen? – Hialeah City, Florida
Clients…Citizens no more.
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President
Client Langford of Arizona – Bills the United Nations for the Imigration Abuse Costs
The Use of Bonds
The Patriot’s Encounter! or Why We love America!
“It is all the fault of the American People!” So says Lynn DeSpain.
CONGRESS Misprision Charge
Sheridan Common Law Grand Jury – Return Stolen Property
An exercise in the black art of legalese? Or…Why it does matter!
Duty, Honor, Country! The Randy Due Case
(W)rit of Assistance and Affidavit of Truth – RA 393 427 517 US – June 3, 2014
Affidavit of Distress Right
Retaliation! – Congress Complicit? You decide…
—P U B L I C N O T I C E — Civil Orders – 10 July 2014
Historical Significance beyond my ability to appreciate! UPDATE
TIMELINE – The Anatomy of Judicial Corruptions.
Common Law Grand Jury issues order to judge: Video
The Georgia Legislature charges Congress with treason in 1957
Observations while on the lam…
Public Service is an Honor…and a Trust.
Cold War .. For now .. by Jim Colter
Transparency: Obama; Not on my watch!
Its TOAST! – New World Order
Amend the 14th
Nothing to discuss here – Updated – 14 July 2014 11:28 PM PDT
From a man with more insight! On General Ham’s Appointment…
You have a right to be confused! That is by design
JB Williams is right.
Please provide your foreign agents registration certificate.
“The Corporation that Devvy Kidd claims does not exist.”
Germany a victim too!
Real Americans speak out! – David Lonier
Misprision of a Felony
All Public Servants in Dishonor – Fraud!
Common Law Grand Jury issues order to judge: Let our American People GO!
—P U B L I C N O T I C E — Civil Orders – 04 July 2014
Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 02 “Political Action”
2062 Foreign Agents Registration Act Enforcement
Judicial Crisis! – Updated
Colonel Edward Mandell House
“Gov’t Offices are Vacant?” Unverifed Report Would Confirm What Many Have Long Believed
Ernie-lee: Letter to Editor…”By What Authority?”
Current Actions
It is one thing to be totally ignorant.
Provost Marshal General Quantock – Obama – Treason…again?
Demand Proof of certification to hold office
PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL Quantock… Update: Notice of process service
Scanned Retina International reach – 03 August 2014
And by Whom is such a claim made? And by what Authority?
Executive Orders of Tyranny
Application of the DISTRESS Process
Foreign Agents; Elected Officials? Congress? County and City Commissions?
Hartford VanDyke Documents
Anal Traffic Stop
Sovereigns – Clients Notice of breach of Contract.
As the World Turns… Mississippi
Common Law Grand Jury Rules – Credit Mr. Bill Thorton
Special Notice… Hidden in Plain Sight!
Randy Due Case – Index
By What Authority?
ObamaCare declared “unconstitutional” by US Supreme Court
  1. S. Senator Confirms the U.S. Constitution is in Effect!
Question to Elected Officials…Are you a Public Servant?
Grand Jury Manuals: The truth will set all of us free.
Authentication! Grand Jury Issues Orders to Joint Chiefs
Anna sez….Ernie Gets IT! How about you?
Snowden’s “Doomsday” Safeguard
Coup d’etat – Phelps and Strunk
Public Officers are Trustees of the Public Trust- They are Accountable!
Enough of the Kings…A Sovereign Queen addresses some issues
“Obamacare” Plan and the RFID Chip
Strong Message to Follow
1933 – The treason of the government exposed
The Ghost Behind the Dome! – Inouye Warned of Shadow Government
Pike Syndrome
YOU are an ENEMY of the STATE: Congress Declares in 1933!
Public Service is a Public Trust…These are the rules by which public servants must comply!
The Biggest Swindle in World History! “Acts of the Congress?”
You Trust Peaceful Muslims?
Violation of your Civil Rights – The Congress
Cardinal George — A Lawful Process fails upon the first defect.
Scanned Retina – Current topics of interest – 05 July 2014
Updated -County Counsel fails to deflect legal exposure! Obama Criminally unfit to hold office!
Top Secret – Details of the Treason by Congress
Sorry….There is no Debt!
Steve’s message regarding Randy Due, American Political Prisoner, to Alex Jones
Public Servants; you are all accountable!
The Judicial Deception Presented by Judge Lamberth, himself.
A Traitor to America? – Who Is David Coleman,
— Public Notice — Sheridan County, Ne – Common Law Grand Jury Reports: State Drops Cases!
With No Delegated Authority
License to carry – Ventura County, CA
Real Americans Speak out – Arnie Rosner
CAFR in Depth
Sandy Hook – CT Hoax buster Jonathan Reich reported arrested
Remember us? We are only the people – the Sovereigns.
Pedophilia and male prostitutes in the White House
NWO Globalist have gone mad!
Historical Notice: We the People of Henry County, Ga…
Gene Forte ‘The Badger’ – Wins Against Corrupt Ex-Mayor of Los Banos Tommy Jones
GODADDY engaged in Censorship activities?
Of Judge Dale (retired)
Randy Due Case – Additional Comments
Major General David E. Quantock – A serious letter from Bill
On Your Watch… Will you continue to give recognition and legitimacy?
1933 – Congress Did IT!
Kevin Annett – The Connections
The American People Have Never Had a Lawful Government
  1. Hagan Smith speaks to Americans…
We Come in Peace; We mean You No Harm.
Goodby Congress
FINAL JUDGMENT AND CIVIL ORDERS – the law of the Sea – Admiralty
The American Republic:
Gowdy, one more disgusting traitor.
Manatee County Common Law Grand Jury Delivers Mandamus to County Commissioners.
Foreign Invaders Defined – The BAR
I M P A C T!
House Joint Resolution 192 – Your Birth Certificate Connection
The Unanimous Declaration
The People to Investigate? San Diego: Corrupt Officials – Jan Goldsmith, Robert Trentacosta?
Proclamation 2040 – By 1939 all American Common Law Civil Process will be gone.
The truth about the Constitution and the behavior of the federal government
Related to press release: Authentication! Grand Jury Issues Orders to Joint Chiefs
Kurt KallanBach – The Truth…for which you are not ready.
International Organizations Immunities Act, December 9, 1945
Dissolve the Corporation
Cody Enterprise Attacks TEA Party – ?By Ray DiLorenzo???
Randy Due Case – Updated 8-31-2013
Henry County, Ga: UN Globalist cabal called out: Tuesday 15 July 2014 6:00 PM
Sheriff Mack; Help is on the Way!
Judicial Corruption – Los Angeles County
A Federal Crime! Violating Their Oath; cause for removal from office!
  1. .My Government would not do that…! is not your government.
Successful Common Law Courts held in Colorado:
Interview with an American Political Prisoner; Randy Due.
Not only the Congress is complicit…but you were betrayed by your own parents!
General Quantock… A serious matter of national security requires your immediate attention!
The Plan…The Plan!
Your Birth Certificate…it’s Worth Billions!
  1. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III Arrested; Exposing Judicial Corruption
Exactly Who is Responsible for this Extortion? US courts are NOT COURTS
How would you know?
Orange County, CA Recorder’s Office – Incident Report
Colorado BAR – to be Dismantled? A foreign Control Mechanism over Courts.
Box Butte County, NE – Common Law Grand Jury Meets
Administrative Agencies as Common Law Courts
Report from the Field: BLM/Bundy family confrontation
An Open Letter to John Darash – by Rita Ann
Corruption: US Marshals Service, encourages perjury?
The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin
No…No…a thousand times NO!
Elected Officials…You are my Trustee. You are a Public Servant! rb steps up for all of us…
Sacred Trust – Oath of Office!
The Solution
Challenge was accepted. I was proven Wrong! In gratitude…Thank you Anna!
An Action Worthy of your Attention?
Client Langford also vacates the fraudulent de facto! You too have such choices!
63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees Summary
The End of the United States
Randall David Due: I Demand “Full Disclosure” from you, Scott Howell
Senate Report 93-549 as related to 1933
Misprision of Treason: No statutes of limitations
California, Jerry Brown: Deliberate misappropriating public funds? Personally Criminally Liable?
Criminal Complaints to be filed against key Colorado Public Officers
OK…So We are the New World Order.
Kirk MacKenzie of Defend Rural America, Asks—Are We A Nation?
Randy Due Kidnapping by FBI
***Public Notice*** State of Nebraska drops case CR14-07 and CR 14-08
Attn Bounty Hunters – Judicially Corrupt Offenders of the public trust. REWARDS OFFERED
General Quantock; the lawful government of the American people has been systematically usurped
Fountain Valley Police Department – Josie the Outlaw
Lowering the bar on the BAR! Evict the Crown Agents!
The Real Thirteenth Article of Amendment
The Corporate America as according to “Dink”
Corruption: US Marshals Service: Where is Randy Due?
BAR news….It is DEAD!!! Kaput!!!!
Montrose County, Co. – Retaliation?
Scanned Retina – Current topics of interest – 02 July 2014
Hartford VanDyke – American Patriot
De Facto!
Military to Prosecute Public Officials Who Violate Oath
Still Don’t Get IT? Consider this as a plan of action! Modify it to suit your circumstances.
  1. Schroder’s Work – War Powers Act
Criminal Penalties for Public Corruption/Violations of State Ethics Laws
Spectators NO MORE!!!…The People are the Final Arbiters.
Are we seeing a proper lawful government of the people, installed??
Don Hank (his real name?), addressed by Captain Neil Turner, an American.
The Biggest Con of ALL?
When We the People Have Had Enough – The Birth of a New Nation: The Republic of…
Federal Register: trading with the enemy act
So sayeth 3 wise men
Harry Reid…Fraud, Corruption, Criminal complicity.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Christopher-Earl: Strunk
sovereignty stands on its own
Truckers: “We’re asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office.”
AN American COMMENTS on Egyptian open letter to Zero, the Usurper.
We demand a grand Jury!
The Decree that becomes law today (01 September 2010) — Published by David Robinson
“The Day of Infamy” Declaration – Download
Lies…Lies….Lies….as of 10/16/2012 1:55 AM PDT
With Malice Aforethought?
FedEx faces U.S. criminal charges
Al-Taqiyah – The Practice of Islamic Deception
A Questionable Policy
Stand with the living man!
—PUBLIC NOTICE—State of Tennessee vs. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
Steve Curry – JUDGE HENDERSON’S ADVISORY – Post Script
Judicial Fraud Upon the Court
First Amendment Administrative Commercial Lien Process
A response to Marje…time to file criminal charges against Public Servants
In Support of Lt. Col Matthew Dooley – by Bill Ascherfeld
THE BLACK HOLE – Financial: Mysterious lost documents…Ocwen Financial
Public Officers playing Hard ball with citizens….? Dissolve the Municipal Corporation!!
Client Steve tells patriot how the cow eats the cabbage
Call for immediate Action! Convene common law grand juries and investigate!
Public Servants…Violate your oath…you could be financially liable. Here is the law
Senator Feinstein engaged in Extortion?
As lawful public servants, trustees to the public trust, you are all accountable!
It is treason for legitimate lawmakers to even consider Sharia
Default judgement against Federal Judge Laura Smith Camp.
Local Process
  1. Mr. James Adams – Regarding that Pertinent Federal Law
California Constitution – evidence of fraud on the people
Kenya: Authorities Release Barack Obama’s “Real” Birth Certificate
Mairi addresses Cardinal George.
Exaggerating the perception; I know nothing! I am not in charge!
BOMBSHELL!!! – All Government Offices Have Been Vacant All Along!
David launches second attack on Goliath….
Sid Miller Warns that Bureau of Land Management Actions in Nevada & Texas Violate U.S. Constitution
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers – Derelict, Ignorant or Corrupt?
Boxer and Reid Accused of Bribery and Intimidation
Notice! Public Servants…you ARE financially liable for violating the law!
The Skeleton In Uncle Sam’s Closet
Cestui Qui Trust = The Strawman
Saul Alinsky – Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Thesis
Paul Andrew Mitchell – Political Prisoner?
Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract
And Where is the Provost Marshal General?
Press Release: John Dummett, Presidential Candidate for 2012, Sues California SOS Bowen
Randy Due files complaint – JUDICIAL FRAUD IN AND UPON THE COURT
A Summary of Events – David Johnson, New Hampshire
The Dumbing Down of America
What Happened to Seal Team 6
Letters of St. Peter
—Public Notice—Exposed Judical attempt to Undermine Randy Due Competence
Five aircraft carriers in port
Obama Violates Civil Rights using color of office he usurped!
File Actions—NOW!
— P U B L I C N O T I C E — Randy Due served the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Under fire…Clayton County Commissioner throws the Race Card?
Global BANKRUPTCY’S – The people sold out by their governments?
Public Notice – Establishment of THE Randall David Due PUBLIC WEALTH REBATE BANK/TRUST
SBX-211 Campaign – Richard I. Fine
Sandy Hook Hoax – Ex-Florida State Trooper has unanswered questions
Government “Made” News – “Propaganda” Became Legal in 2013
Orange County, CA. Elected Officals: Who among you will stand by your sacred oath? Update 12/02/2012
Obama’s Charge – Destroy America
Mel Stampler – Marine Helicopter Pilot (ret) – Author – Fruit from a Poisonous Tree
Commercial Jetliner – Struck by Missile: Explodes Over Ukraine
The Ultimate Authority—YOU! – Updated!
Bundy – Source of Terrorism Exposed!
Congressman Rohrabacher… Guilty of treason? Guilty of fraud?
Joaquin DeMoreta – We are the Supreme Rulers of America
Sculpting Mt. Rushmore with a butter knife – Carl Swensson
And the Justice for the victims?
Fleecing the Sheeple…a new Congressional job description!
The Real Joaquin Speaks on Liberty
And Dr. Taitz…what is the name of the crime when you are aware of a crime and don’t report it?
Elected Officials: Served Legal Notice! Obama Criminally unfit to hold office!
Rush was right! He failed!
Independent Congressional Oversight Council (ICOC)
The Red Coats Won! Your “BAR” Attorney Is A Fraud
Sovereigns need no permission!
Banks Exposed: Illegal Mortgage Fraud. Are your Documents fake?
of what substance?
Attention Government Employees; All codes, rules and regulations only apply to you!
An Act to Repeal and Ammend sections of SBX-211; Letter to California State Lawmakers
The Government; They are just people.
Public Records Filing Laws of Commerce – ATTENTION: ADAYNA B. BROOME
A very serious message of Concern!
For Sovereign Americans Only!
Rodrigues v. United States Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 081261r98s)
Obama led assault on a free press?
Man who indicted Obama to form whistleblower group
Sandy Hook – CT Officals block access
America’s 41st President a Nazi?
The Smell of Fear – The Common Law Grand Jury!
Your “BAR” Attorney Is A Fraud
The united states Of America is a corporation – owned by foreign interests
The Nebraska Summary of Corruption
Surprise! The imposter government exposed!
Do you know if Your Sheriff is Constitutionally Compliant? Better ask. Here is how…
Dedicated to Prisoner #3306749 Omaha, Nebraska – Governor Dave Heineman
Federal Regisgtry: NDAA
Sorry Richard…No! In fact HELL NO!!!
Bundy – Inclined to Act?
Joseph F. Bataillon; Impersonating a Judge?
Its the Money Stupid! The Engine that Drives de facto
Judicial Corruption Exposed: The Commercial Lien shell game
In A Nutshell!
RETRACTION: Mr. Hagan Smith DID NOT speak to Americans…
Common Law Grand Juries Established! – MAINE
“There were threats made”
‘Articles of Impeachment’ Filed
Beyond the bounds of their lawful authority – It is the Congress!
Retired Judge Dale – Spills the beans
Harry Reid… A matter of Fraud, Deceit and National Security!
rb discusses registered foreign agent
AP Reports: Appeals court judges violated ethics laws – Is this something new?
State of Nebraska, versus Edmond R. Jesse, defendant. CR13-362 and CR13-363
IRS – Non-government Collection Agency Abuses Civil Rights
No to Audit the FED! Outwit it instead!
The 1866 Civil Rights Act
How Many Times did Obama Personally Commit Voter Fraud?
Et Tu Rohrabacher? Et Tu? A Traitor to America?
Judicial Corruption – SBX-211 Cover-up by California Government update
‘Why are we letting him in here?’ – Attn: Dr. Taitz
Canons of Professional Ethics
Letter to two patriots…
Control the Court
Judicial Corruption: “Bribes” to California State Judges!
Texas Action Alert: 3 Nullification Bills Need your Support this Week
Agenda 21 – Congressional Complicity
  1. 7, 2014 – Foreclosure news BOA vulnerable – Other banks as well
Current Bill to Tax Payer – $ 4,402,637,717.85 as of 07/04/2014 and still counting.
Clarification of the Role of the Church in the obama attack on Americans?
Attention Public Servants: Please Certify and Verify your Citizenship and Nationality
Take Action!
Sheriff…Time to arrest members of Congress!
Judicial Abuse of Power – Florida Judge Reversed
The People will do it Ourselves
It is the CAFR’s STUPID!!!!
Cat has the mouse right where the mouse wants him?
Obama Administration Offical Accused of Child Molesting, Bestiality
Ben Swann: “Ben Swann: Tired of NSA Spying? Turn Off Their Water”
Full Surveillance Grid Is Now Active – to catch the little fish
The City of London – “The British Crown”
Senator Ted Cruz – the connection.
  1. Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, positions himself to prevent murder?
Stop Illegal Immigration – Michael Gaddy
It takes money to buy whiskey – Randy Due; Message from Randy in Prison
Now About That Unconstitutional ObamaCare…
  1. Judge: Unconstitutional behavior? Violation of oath?
One more bone? Call for one more Congressional Investigation?
We the people Yield Not our Sovereignty! – Clark County Sheriff Precinct
What you need to know about the border
Declaration of Non-Consent
A Historical Perspective – to be confirmed.
Congress Complicit: Democrats Deliberately Gave Communist Victory in VietNam
Bachmann = so you thought you could trust her?
It is the BONDS Stupid! The key to compliance of the Oath is the bonds!!!!
Treason in Georgia – Regionalism Commission?
Exactly Mr. Rohrabacher…what is your problem?
PURGE OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY! General Quantock…If not now…when? If not you…Who?
What is wrong with Americans?
18 USC § 1031 – Major fraud against the United States
Fox News Reports: Obama’s “Brownshirts
“WRIT” to all Federal & State agencies
Class Action!
Will you permit this opportunity to pass? SHOW US THE LAW!
FED AND IMF DONE…? YES…according to…
Randy Due under serious Threat of Bodily Harm – Marshal Service Responsible?
Randy Due Letter 2013_11_30
They do just make it up!
The Kidnapping of Ken Scott Ball
An Unprecedented Threat (UNCLASSIFIED)
It is Bush’s Fault! Bush Senior!
An act to ammend SBX-211
David (Randy Due, American patriot) Attacks Goliath (Unlawful British Crown Judidical system)
  1. XIII Congress Exposed!
And Chickens Have Lips – Agenda 21
Without your consent….
SOVEREIGNTY (Law Dictionary)
Citizens of New Jersey have acted…What about you?
The Colorado Summary of Corruption
A Serious Reflection of the LOCAL Police State
San Bernardino, CA – County Coroner – Cover-up? By Janet Phelan
Kind of makes one wonder….Carroll D. Childers P.E., Major General ARNG (ret)
The City Of Fountain Valley, California – “A nice Place to Live.”
Immediate Fix: Eliminate the Criminals in Congress – Contest
They Doth Protest too Much!
The Judicial Criminal Enterprise – Exposed
End the FED…with Bitcoin


September 29, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Eric Holder Jr. resigns after having been under arrest

Share this out:

Protect and defend the Constitution? Eric Holder Jr. resigns while being under arrest, American political prisoner being tortured by US Gov (civil rights aren't just about the color of one's skin)

September 25, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

What is Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)?

The Covert Origins of ISIS

Evidence exposing who put #ISIS in power, and how it was done.

Sources and full transcript:

September 24, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

SURFING THE PHOTON (as given by Jules Buccieri)

Typed and edited by Anita Sands Hernandez

Re-edited by Juan Schoch

Primary in creating a SHIFT in realization and accomplishment and to move to the new page in your own life as a personal challenge, is the need for purification. If you don’t purify, the nervous system doesn’t get handled, doesn’t get smoothed out, calmed and fortified with powerful foundation of centeredness and purpose. So purification is the foundation or work that everyone needs to do to have centeredness and focus. That means purification of your body, colon, bloodstream, lungs and eventually of your brain.

When your body gets purified what happens? Your nervous system, which is connected to your thinking processes, mind and the way you feel, and the way you react, and the way you act, changes. You enter into the state that philosophers and writers call “the superman”. It is characterized by bliss, a brain simmering with creative ideas, a feeling of love for and forgiveness toward everyone. It’s a good thing, too, so, the conditions for purification must be established. Are you anywhere close? Let’s look at what’s happening with you now...

What’s the state of your nervous system, have trouble sleeping? What’s the state of your colon, which reflects your eating habits? Toxic? Constipated? Look at your breathing habits, little nervous, shallow breathing probably. What about your exercise habits, can you run a mile? Look at your meditation habits. Can you still your mind when it’s giving you yammer? Tell me what you read or watch on television. The anguish of the nightly news? Crime shows? Mysteries? Porn?

How you nutrify your brain and body and perceive life to be has to be looked at and evaluated every moment that you’re alive to see if you’re making the right choices in those particular things to bring about purification of your physical body which will bring about purification of your emotional body, your mental body and eventually, your spiritual body.

These are connected to your physicalness, the physical thing, what you exist in, this bag of bones. This body has a nervous system, a brain. We cannot function in this world in equanimity without doing some purification. It doesn’t matter if you’re a millionaire or a homeless bum. If you don’t purify, you will not be able to fly, you will not be able to feel powerful, you will not be courageous, you will not be creative.

Remind yourself right now: the most important thing is to be creative, satisfied, happy, fulfilled, serving, giving, having everything you want, creating your dreams, creating your vision, being in the space called I am one with the universe, I am God, I am powerful to be a Jesus, to be a Buddha, to be an enlightened being—feeling that love and bliss.

Those guys were the simplest, most purified people that we’ve ever encountered. If you read the actual words of Jesus, he was the sharpest, most convoluted thinker, no country hick. He had immersed himself in the Essene texts of Jewish mysticism that were a thousand years old, copied in the Qumran monastery, stashed in jars, thousands of chapters. You know them as the Dead Sea Scrolls, full of the most sophisticated philosophy. He spent years reading and talking it over at the Synagogue with the rabbis and more years digesting and distilling his own unique take on it, bouncing it off life around him. Then, he went out in the countryside to share the good news with the humble people who didn’t read. And they just loved him. He was better than TV, a revelation to them. In those days they used to stone women for adultery, so the Gospel of love and forgiveness had them awestruck. It was bold. He said that we who followed him could create change in people and in ourselves, intrinsically do the same as he did. He said that we’d do him one better. Therefore, we have to become the most simple, purified people to be able to be like Jesus or Buddha.. that’s where the process starts and it goes on and on by being devoted to this godliness, this centeredness, this oneness, this simplicity, this egolessness, this spiritually attuned, open-minded person, every minute that you’re alive. You cannot let one second escape that you’re not devoted to your God-self. That’s where you really live, in your soul, your spirit. When you’re devoted to that, you’re on the right path.

To do that, you have to purify yourself from the things that are keeping you from being there, the things that make your nervous system NOT be able to do that, the entertainment that dyes your mind black, the foods that give you insomnia, the things that keep your mind reactive instead of creative, bummed out instead of blissed out, without problems. I feel that if you think you have a problem and have to deal with it, THAT is the problem. That continual, negative approach can only be eliminated by not dealing with the problem, looking at the problem or seeing any problem.

You have to go to the opposite end which is to see where the solution is, where the clarity and spiritual truth is, where the fundamental reality and light of the truth is, that dispels the problem. When you shine the light in the darkness, there’s no more darkness. What happened to it? Well, you found out there was no darkness, it was an illusion called darkness. As soon as the light shows up, there’s no darkness, there is no problem. And you say, “What happened to the problem? I don’t know, it isn’t here anymore. I can’t see it. I can’t find any problem.”

As soon as you say, “I have feelings of not being adequate,” that’s the case. When you say, “This person is a thief, this other person is a liar,” you get stuck with that person tearing at you. A man says, “I only feel great if I have a relationship based on possessiveness where this person wants and needs me.” He’s got the wrong formula to open the safe, but it’ll keep him tinkering with the combination to the safe and spinning dials for most of his adult life.

These misbeliefs are all really illusions. They’re problems that you created in your life and they grow long roots and take over like vines that seize hold of your entire life and strangle it. You’re no longer the cause, they are. When you believe in problems they start to grow fat. They soon exist without any solution. The clarity, the satisfaction that you need in order to create, never comes. The vines grow bigger and create nothing but more dissent in your mind. You’re utterly on the path to madness, so never study your problems or lacks.

If you feel inadequate, and that sends you looking for ways to show up as adequate, you will constantly be fortifying inadequacy. We laugh at the guy in midlife crisis who buys a red convertible to advertise he’s a sexy, attractive, hot guy. Certain women can read that and lo, he’s created a life destroyer.

If you have a desire.. you want something.. and you constantly want this something and try to find out how to get what you want, all you’re doing is fortifying and magnifying what you want and inviting total nemesis. When it seems to someone that the only solution to the problem is having what you want, you’re nuts. When you actually have what you want, like the guy in the red car with the peroxide blonde, guaranteed you won't want it anymore. If you still do want it when you have it, then you’re insane.

The process is too difficult to look at in terms of any logic. You have to get completely out of your mind. The creation of what you want is a process in which you act as the creator, to act out the process of being the thing that you ‘wish to create’.  If you want to be attractive to women and you’re fifty, work out, swim, get tan, be interested in the interesting things. If you want to be rich, be consciously rich, be absolutely certain and secure in your richness. Feel it, live it, act it, know it in every fiber of your being, without having any evidence for it. Be the solution not the problem.

This is the teachings and training of Science of Mind, how they heal. Don't be ill, be healed. It’s the metaphysics of transformation, of higher consciousness, of God-training. How do you get someone to be Christ, to be as God, to BE God, in the moment, to see things already done, believing it is already done? You have to first have the thought, the idea, the belief and the process. Start with the thought, idea, understanding and then transfer it into the belief, the acting out, the acting ‘as if’. Follow through with every fiber of your being, with every action, with every feeling, with every re-action to be a creativeness. That’s it. You can’t teach this, you only have to see it, and see it, and practice it, and read it, and hear it, and then become it.

Everyone you or I know are living the opposite. They think in terms of I can or I can’t, or I’m poor or I’m rich, bouncing back and forth like a ball off the wall. People think in a reactive way, they react to the way others maybe think they are, or the way they have been or the way things are that week or the way things look.

You are doomed to be the ball—eternally slammed by the wall—thinking those things. You are the creation of your beliefs, thoughts and reactions. What is the difference between being slammed around by your mind and God-consciousness, and wanting to create in a moment the power to change things and create them the way you want them? The difference is, the wise man is busy being creative every moment and not ever being up in his head, thinking, counting, score-keeping and reactive. To be or not to be, that is the question.

So let’s not let the ball play us. Let’s put the ball in play. When you’re on the court playing this tennis game and you’re McEnroe, there’s no ego there, there’s only the ball and the racquet and the perfect hit and that’s called the zen of tennis. Of course McEnroe wasn’t perfect. When the umpire says the ball was out and McEnroe goes crazy and says it was in, he took himself totally out of the zen of the game. What happened to him? He got enough money, ego and bullshit in his life to become involved, addicted to winning and not be the zen master of tennis anymore. Now the experience of all that is a great lesson in humility, maturity and non-attachment.

Therefore, our job is to stay as the zen master, student, disciple, teacher, ‘God-neophyte’, always playing every side at every moment. Our job is being receptive, open, surrendered and totally confident in every moment. It’s the ultimate position. You’re playing all the positions at every moment because there is no you. You’re every side, every mind.

The part of anybody’s life that is an expression of the beauty and the power and creativity, eloquence, the mastery, the talent, the real creative part of you, whether it’s creating a house, sculpture, painting, novel, song, music, that part of us that is able to create that, to make a dinner or make love, clean a house, drive a car, swim in the ocean.. that part that allows us to do and master and learn those things and be able to create, is the part that is truly soulful, truly a student, truly open, accepting, willing, disciplined, aware and conscious. The part that lives and functions as a truly magnificent, high-minded teacher or student or lover or one who is loved, one who can give and receive, that part of us which is the true creator is not ego, is not selfish, reactive, bound up in survival. That part of us is truly the one who is free and working on mastery whether you’re Streisand, Monroe or Einstein. That part of those people, doing the thing they love to do, was in ecstasy and was totally free of the constraints of ego and survival and hurt and pain.

The part that lives in pain and hurt is the part involved in the conversation of the ego, “I want more from life or from my lover.” “It’s not good enough, I’d like to be greater.” “Is this all there is?” “Is this enough money?” “Do people like me?” “What about my next business deal, novel, movie, song or sculpture?” That part of us that speaks that way is the defensive survivalist, egotistical, needy, wanting one more big score.

As long as we stay in our desires, as Buddha said, we suffer. When we stay non-attached, then we’re on the path, the open road, the path of non-attachment, the middle way.

Ego and spirit can’t live in the same house, just like problems and solutions can’t live in the same house. If a person is afraid, they go in the ocean but they’re afraid, they can’t really enjoy the waves. So what do they have? Fear? They want to get out. If you’re in a relationship and you’re afraid, or jealous, it can’t last. The only way you can be in the ocean, in a relationship or in a job is to be free of the self that talks to itself about “what if”. “What if she left me?” “What if he cheated?” Keep pushing fear away. The state of being Godly is the state of being free, selfless. People take drugs to get there, but the problem with drugs is the downside, they exhaust and age, they mask the ego for a few hours but they don’t decimate it, and next day when you’re tired, the ego is worse than ever.

What’s the problem with ego? It’ll kill anything good in your life. You have a relationship, you fall in love. You think that being in the mating game, you will now have someone you’re close to. You can depend on each other and you always will be OK.

BUT as soon as that person isn’t the way you want them to be, you feel hurt, in pain, you feel lost, you feel fear. You feel like “I don’t know what to do now.” “I don’t like them anymore. I want to pull away from them.” That’s ego. Or “this person is pulling away from me, now I want them, need them. I’m in love with them and they’re not in love with me.” All those things occur in a mind that talks to itself, being identified with desires. That’s ego.

Only in the desireless state, where you don’t care what occurs in the external world.. you only care about your internal state, that it’s calm, peaceful, secure, happy and one with your spirit and has no fears and has no desires. It only creates. It doesn’t react. Only in that state can you live in Paradise every second. Practice gets you there. How do you play the piano? Practice. How do you make sculpture? Practice. That nagging, desiring voice of the Ego is always there, so you have to constantly silence it. You can’t just clean for five minutes and when your ego tells you that you’re tired, quit and hope the house is clean. You have to push beyond your usual limits of boredom. Gurdgieff taught that. He asked huge time and effort commitments from his students, and they got to that bliss place as they’d killed their own egos and all of them wrote books about the miracles of consciousness the old guy was able to squeeze from them.

You use anything, yoga, swimming, housecleaning as a ‘push past your own ego exercise’, like ancient monks in hairshirts or fakirs sitting on nailboards. You can even use more painful things, like your own insecurity and jealousy. Let the sweetheart go on that weekend without you. Let it burn. Monday morning you just say hello and give them a kiss. No questions, just silence and bliss. Assume the pose.

You use everything that’s at hand to constantly practice burning up the ego until it actually dies and that practice period is ended. You have to constantly be aware of quieting the voice that is talking with you. It’s about consistency.

To see then, all the phobias and mischief and foibles that we create in our life, how we are, how we listen to our crazy inner yammer, just look in the mirror and see our unhappiness, our broken hearts because our yammer drove off loving friends. We must look at our poor posture, our sagging spines, the blubber drooping down like a mudslide. We must look at our poor health, how our cruddy bodies cannot even taste or smell food anymore, so toxic are they. We must observe our poor habits, the indulgences we have whether it’s drugs, sugar, tea, coffee, carbs, sugar, alcohol or envy and jealousy, or mouthing off negatively. Rage. That’s a big one. For some rage is wound. Whatever it is, when we see those addictions, we put that on our list. Finished with that. We write it down, we sign our name. It’s a vow, we break those habits.

When you see that you’re anxious all the time, you stop. When you see that you’re speeding all the time, stop. And you see what’s creating it. Is it coffee giving you mind yammer? Sugar giving you highs then lows? Bad food making you sludgey? Too much toxicity in your system? Too much fear? What is the habit?

Knowing your habits are wrong is hopeless. Understanding and knowing are sort of a booby prize. The real prize is wisdom, which is the application of knowing and understanding. When you apply what you know and understand, you practice which makes perfect. If you know sugar is bad for you, or cigarettes, being way overweight is bad for you, not exercising is bad for you, being angry all the time, speedy and anxious is bad for you, you work on changing that.

If you don’t work on it, you’re the mischievous one in your own life. Remember, ‘Who is the problem in your life?’ YOU are. ‘Who is the barrier?’ I am.

You have to see the program you’ve put into your mind. If you’re using cigarettes and you know you have to give them up because they’re screwing up your body, your lungs, your ability to taste food, enjoy simple food, or even exercise or make love, they’re screwing up more than just the way you smell and if you keep on smoking, life continues to be miserable and you’ll die.

Some people, dumb people, refuse to wake up from the sleep. They should recognize they’re asleep, say to themselves, “I will wake up.” That’s a great start by the way. Then, they have to work at it, read, study, get a teacher, a buddy system, “Did you smoke today?” You know a truthteller of a pal. They have to practice, they have to remember that they are aware you have always been awake, you know, the good stuff.

They have to breath walk until their lungs come back. Breath walk as a baby, don’t look at what is keeping you from walking, just keep practicing walking until your lungs and your legs get strong. You can feel the muscles get stronger. You can quit smoking and your lungs will heal and you’ll feel better.

The speed junkie can quit coffee and white sugar and pop a raw green juice which will really get him high and he won’t have anxieties and be speeding around dithering like an idiot with his eyes bulging and his heart going 120. And he starts digging personifying calm wisdom, not agitated yammer, nervous in the service.

You and others will see you as a powerful, healthy person when you’re doing meditation, reading the great books, listening to the really thoughtful, deep FM radio talk shows (great nutrition for the mind), going to classes, swimming, doing yoga. You will impress.

There are a million ways to improve but you can’t deal with improvement if you’re dealing with your faults. You have to throw all memory of your faults away, burn them in the fire of willingness to let go. Surrender. You burn all your attachments, negativity in total surrender. Let it go. Drop it. Let it be in the background. Just that conversation that’s constantly in your mind, put it on the back burner. Let it be. It’s always there, just like the crickets are always there, the sky and air are always there. We don’t have to pay attention to that conversation in our heads. Just let it be like you let the air be.

You can strengthen your lungs by breathing, and you can strengthen your psyche by taking in the right thoughts, affirmations, prayer, awareness of God, awareness of self, higher-consciousness and putting those thoughts into your brain computer, and don’t worry, when they’re digested, you will start to exude a sweet perfume but also you’ll start to mend your own fences.

You know how when you’re worried, you go to a film, you focus on something else so much like a meditation that everything else is on the back burner. It’s a form of letting go of the question and then you come out of the movie and the answer comes.

You want to get past that point, where you don’t have a question about the right thing to do. You do the right thing because you’re conscious of what the right thing is, rather than having to make a decision. Decisions have to be eliminated eventually, replaced by choices. The choice for the truth is simple.

What is reality? What is the truth about reality? What’s the real skivvy on the whole deal? It’s that I’m here, you’re there, they are over there, three distinct human beings, five billion distinct human beings, entities throughout the universe, there’s the chair, wall and lamp, the floor, sky, ocean, the planet... all distinct and material entities, objects that we call the external world.

You can touch and rub your hand and you can say that’s the external world. I can feel the skin, bone, fingernail. That’s outside. Where I’m sensing, experiencing and feeling it and where I live is INSIDE. But the inside is not inside and the outside is not outside, they’re just relative terms. I’m experiencing inside what is outside. What is that reality? There isn’t any inside outside, the inside is you, the experiencer, the energy. The outside is what you’re touching and looking at and feeling and seeing, and it’s all the same thing.

In other words, everything has an internal and external reality but it’s all this God-source, this creative energy that is expressing itself in different forms which we as human beings have had the power and insight to see. With our imagination and in our minds and thoughts we can actually create and mold things to be a tiled bathroom, a house, a saxophone, a swimming pool. We have the ability to write a book, to speak words that touch others so much that the words trigger a new them. Five hundred years ago, the human mind considered children were small adults. As soon as the child was weaned, it was on its own, an adult to be left to wander, starve or be misused. Was it any wonder that so many people of that day were sociopath killers and warriors? Considering the childhoods they had? Even so close as a hundred years ago, children had to work in factories 10 hours a day, until Queen Victoria’s time. One writer named Dickens changed all that. His novels were about compassion for the child. The thinking about child labor, in the western world at least, changed, and laws changed. Fifty years ago, a black man could be mistreated in the cruelest ways, sanctioned by popular consensus. What happened? Evolution happened. Now half of films and TV is full of happy blacks enjoying equality, and that reality has happened.

We can create evolution through sharing our thoughts whether as TV scripts, novels, laws, music or language. We function with each other and think and reflect about life and create our insights about reality and share them, and almost effortlessly life moves a click up and evolves and improves.

All of that should affirm for you the mysterious power of basic energy, the same energy being expressed everywhere, constantly, instantaneously in the now. In this moment. That’s all there is, the wave upon which matter is moved, the unseen photon. The moment that just occurred and the moment that is now and the moment that is coming... that is now... is all there is. And that continuous continuum of now, that constant reality is what, who, where, when we are. Play and make things, know yourself as all there is, and above all, forward the action.

Realize that you are playing tennis with God. If you’re lame, do you think He wants to stay on the court where you are stumbling about with your racket? It would be tedious for him. But if you practice and avoid petty thinking and take yourself into what works, exercise, health foods, charity to your brothers, watchfulness in speech and word, compassion for the amazing sensitivity of children, the spirit of service which is you forwarding the action, then God is going to want to play with you. Those God photons are going to be available on your energy continuum.

Have faith in the invisible Photon. Recognize the God principle that is your life, that is everyone’s life, that is the life of the universe, and recognize that it exists everywhere simultaneously, so all truth and energy is you and is surrounding you and is intimately expressed everywhere. You wake up and 99 other monkeys will too. Have faith in that invisible law. Time and space are nothing but a projection of our inside insight and perception... just a projection of that... doesn’t mean they exist as they exist, they exist as structures but the reality that sees all the structures is not a structure. It doesn’t have a form. It’s formless. There is something beyond that is unseen but which contains you, is you, generates you and in turn, you generate IT. This is the key to the puzzle—when you know that you who perceives and knows all the changes are changeless, that the part that knows and perceives all the forms is formless, the changeless, formless Being, the eternal, internal being that has no structure and no form. Therefore, when you know this, you know that you’re one with the Creator and you’re one with all other Creators because in the formless state everything is joined. Everything is. Everything is infinite throughout the universe and it’s not in a state of measurement, nor in perceivability, nor in form. It just is. And that is why we can never talk about, or put into words or express that which is inexpressible but we can point to it with our words (philosophies, religions, spirituality, enlightenment) and with our actions. I’m reminded by the scene in Indiana Jones where he knows the diving board is there, though it’s invisible and he walks out over the edge of the cliff on the invisible diving board. Well the feats of magic that you can do when you know you’re supported by the invisible Matrix, are immense.

You have to be able to see what’s not real to see what IS real. If we keep seeing the world of negativity and fear and want and greed and all this competition as real, we will never get to the real. There was an educator who won the greatest educator award and all he was saying in essence was we have to go back to the turn of the century when people went to school twelve to fourteen weeks a year and knew more and learned more and read more. There was no illiteracy because everybody taught everyone. A schoolroom was five different grades in one room with one teacher teaching eighty children who all became teachers of each other and there was no competitiveness. Now, children are kept children, little babies with balloons and birthday parties and craving the new in-toys until they’re twelve years old. Then, they’re thrown into the zoo of having to compete and see who’s going to get the best score and we have the Bell Curve and it’s all insanity and the government thinks everybody needs to go to college until they’re twenty-nine and then they’ll be OK. The only OK is when people educate themselves to be truly their own, committed, responsible person and try to be the master of themselves. Mastery is the only game. And until that occurs, everyone has the karma of being buffeted about thinking that they have to score, to make it, to do something and be somebody, all the words involved with keeping score.

Everyone who is well-read, did it on their own. When you become a musician, it doesn’t matter how many music schools you go to, it’s how much you practice. My mother and your mother and all immigrants that came to this country from the old country, didn’t have educations. My mother never finished grade school. She could read beautifully, read books all her life, spoke three languages. She ran a grocery store for her parents at age eleven as they couldn’t speak English. My father came to Pittsburg when he was 17, had never gone to school. He put himself through college, got a master’s degree and became a college professor. How did they do that? Initiative. But what makes initiative?

It’s about being interested, not trying to be interesting, about being interested in the books put in front of you, the history, the English books, interested in having your life be a wondrous thing that you love, and loving to do the things that excite you the most. It’s about being very excited, interested and inspired and passionate about working on something, anything and everything that life is about.

Be interested. You become a person of value, a person that enjoys your life because you can do things, play, make things work. You can know about understanding others. You can travel, enjoy yourself, be in the world but not of it. You can be a child of God playing in the ocean of love and light.

See, what happens from the idea that you are God in the universe is that your word is law in the universe, that you are one with God, that there is no difference between your consciousness and the mind of God. You’re not just a mind, ego or powerless victim. The truth of the thought that you’re not an ego, but that you are God comes about when you give up all thought about having to want anything rather than just getting busy creating it. Just create and enjoy your creation. That rumor that Life unfolds in a linear way is the illusion. The truth is that we live in the now always so the only time we can ever be happy is now. The only time we can feel abundant and healthy is now, no matter what it is, no matter what’s happening to you. You put yourself in the now. You say “I’m having this pain but I know that it will pass because I can create whatever I want.” And your consciousness extends out into the universe to see what it takes to be healthy, what it takes to be happy, it is all now, it is all right, being conscious, aware and sensitive every minute to do the right thing.

The right thing comes out of your ability to know that you are God. You are not an ego, you are spirit connected to everything in the universe and your vibes which you send out which are your actions and thoughts, your sponsoring thoughts, the real thought behind your thoughts. That vibe that you’re sending out, that vibration, that wave goes throughout the universe. That’s why thoughts are things that never stop creating a reality. So, the sponsoring thought of your life is the thought that is behind your thinking, behind your desires and fears. Those sponsoring thoughts are the ones you have to be totally conscious of to change. If you want things to be different, if you want your life to be a certain way and it isn’t that way, then you look to yourself and see what way have you been thinking, acting. How have you been spending your time? Because it’s a cause and effect role. You’re the cause and the effects. You say, you think, you feel powerful, wonderful, creative, intelligent, or practice, train yourself, master yourself to be a great, powerful, masterful being. Then you will be sponsoring those thoughts which create mastery.

If you create and sponsor thoughts which create weakness, victimhood, ignorance, poverty, alcoholism, then you’ll be producing those results. Nobody is out there dictating that you should be intelligent or stupid. In fact, you can come from the lowest level of stupidity to the highest level of intelligence by training, by putting your attention and awareness on the reality you sponsor.

The caution and the reality of this physical world is to realize that we have all potential, good or bad. It doesn’t matter what you do. What matters is that you understand who you are—that you are God in the universe, that you have the same substance to create as God does. Be the creator.

That’s the important thing, not to realize why you’ve failed or succeeded, but to see how you succeed and how you fail is by the way you sponsor your own feelings, language, attitude and your way of being in the world.

Underneath it all, we’re all one, we’re all God, all perfect. It’s when we react and talk, have misbeliefs that we become imperfect, fearful, insecure, paranoid, without time for creating. When we have faith, silence and organize our time we become commanding, creative, talented. It’s a choice. Study, read, go to college, learn the most important things, bring your awareness, attention to the highest level or don’t, but be interested.

If you’re Albert Einstein and you don’t see how you’re Einstein, then you’re obviously not at the library looking at stimulating books on math, numbers and science, are you? If you’re not looking, you’re not at the highest level. The highest level is to be the interested researcher, reader, observer, experiencer, to see who you are in the matter, that you’re cause, that you create your life.

Nobody is doing anything to you. You are able to control all circumstances by being the sponsor of your circumstances. No matter what comes up, you handle it. If someone hates you, causes you pain, you don’t have to suffer the hurt. You can say, “This is temporary, this will pass. It’s only a mistake.” “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” Or the better thing to say is, “If they’re like that, who needs them? It’s a good thing they’re leaving.” And you bless it. And you’re at one with how it is.

Of course, your ego can whisper to you and you can be reactive and lash out and go load a few guns and create a war with them and create more pain—centuries of Israel and Arabs killing each other—or you can stop immediately by saying we’re all the same, let’s love each other and live in harmony.

Order, balance, growth is what leads you to harmony. If you don’t have order, you can’t be balanced. Order your life, the way you spend your time, order your priorities, the way you think about what is satisfying to your inner soul. When those are ordered, your life will create a balance of health, well-being, harmony in your relationships. When this growing self which is constantly changing to be better, closer to being God-like, happy, talented, creative and powerful creates the harmony that you wish to have in your life—that gives you the God-perception that is necessary, which comes because you’re able to see that everything and everybody is like you, is you.

The whole universe is you. There’s no difference. You’re not different, better, or smarter than anybody else. Potentially, you’re the same. And that’s what God-perception is. That everyone is God, created by him and you see God in every thing. And you perceive yourself as God perceiving God in everything. And then, what else can there be but love because you see the whole universe as one unified thing and then you can only have compassion for everything in the universe because you know to love without prejudice—without prejudice is true compassion.

Behind it all you’ve always been there, always OK; you were always God. You always were this higher consciousness but one day you realized it. You realize that there never was time, it was always now and all you had to do was reach this point of perception where you saw the truth. And that’s the truth, you’ve always been there. It’s all right now.

When you’re asleep, you can’t see this truth about who you really are, so then you act out of selfishness, self-preservation, survival rather than selflessness. The definition of selfishness as juxtaposed against selflessness, is simply when you think of yourself first and others afterwards, you’re selfish; when you think of others first and yourself after, you’re selfless—and when you’re selfless you’re high as a kite. That’s a very simple equation.

A Christ, a Buddha, always thought about others first; they were Christ-conscious. They knew they were going to bring the light to the world. They ate light, spoke light. They never had to worry about what others were thinking, or if that bellyache was too much pork the night before. They could focus on the ideas, and how to phrase it for the level of the listener. They were out there, being effective communicators, not in here, scorekeeping.

The first meditation, action to reach a higher state of consciousness is to stop your thinking and stop your thoughts. Whatever they are, don’t pay attention to them. They aren’t going to get you there. The only thing that is going to get you there is to live and to be, to communicate, to serve, to forward the action. Live this consciousness. Be this consciousness. Not to think, worry, desire, fantasize about a future that isn’t here yet, and how you’re going somewhere and always planning what you're going to have or get. That’s a waste of time.

Just live in a state of God-consciousness and command life to be as wonderful and powerful and abundant and beautiful as you can possibly ambition. Just command it to be that way for you. Affirm it for others. Use the verb form ‘this will happen’ a lot. It’s very affirming.

Know that all evil things pass. When you’re sick, if you’re not attached to eating, you won’t be sick very long, you’ll get well. When you’re hurt by someone, and you’re not attached to what that person thinks of you, or what they did to you, you won’t be hurt for very long. It will go away. This too shall pass. So it is attachments which keep us locked in to misery and suffering. It’s non-attachment which keeps us happy and harmonious, where we’re not allowing anything to attack our invulnerability.

God is invulnerable. He can’t be hurt by anything because he’s not attached to anything. He’s not attached to pleasure or pain. He’s not attached to tasty food and pleasurable sex and He’s not attached to how dull brown rice tastes. He’s not attached to the thread count of sheets or the marble floors keeping their luster. He’s not attached to Bentleys and what is the plural of Lexus, Lexi? He’s not attached to wealth. Whatever comes around, he ignores it and goes on with being non-attached. And because He’s relaxed, guess what, He gets wealthy. Stress impoverishes us. The relaxed mind naturally evolves.

Ponder what action of non-attachment you need to take, what course of non-attachment do you need to follow to be non-attached? What way does your mind have to think, what way does your action and reaction have to be? What way do you have to control your desires and enter a little monastery up in your head to be non-attached? When you make your monk’s list, you will find yourself to be in harmony.


When you’re asking questions, when you’re talking intellectually, when you want to know things and find things, you’re already coming from a place in which the mind is talking to itself. It’s saying, “I want to know the difference between consciousness and being, between awareness and consciousness. I want to know the difference between reality and unreality, the ego and the real self, the difference between mind and God.”

Those questions are ultimate questions, but they’re coming from some idea you have about the way it is. What you want to do is give up all ideas and all thoughts and all reactions and all wanting anything, rather observe them.

What I mean by giving them up is that you don’t actually express them as questions or as statements or as the way you see it or react to it. Observe, be able to see that your mind is talking to itself and constantly creating thoughts, ideas, feelings and reactions. As in Blavatsky’s quote, “The mind is the slayer of the real, slay the slayer.” Whatever your mind is doing, that is not it. So what is it? When you slay the slayer called the mind, then you see reality.

You see reality by seeing that your soulular self, your essence, the silence in you, the watcher, the experiencer, the observer, the one that notes and perceives all the changes, who is changeless, that soul, that real self, that one which is united in silence with the eternal now and the eternal presence of God-consciousness, awareness, being, whatever you want to call it—only words to describe the undescribable, pointing at your real consciousness, God, self, soul, no-thing—it is you, you the one that notes and perceives, the one who listens and walks and talks and speaks, that one. That’s the one you have to come to each moment of your existence as a blank canvas, not to try to be intelligent about it, not to talk about and not to know anything about it.

This is all a metaphor for the reality that we wish to accomplish in everything in life which means I have to stop my thoughts. This private conversation is tyrannizing me, dominating and running my life and making me think I know something, think that I am something, think that there’s some value in my thoughts, reactions, whereas the truth exists in becoming silent, conscious and aware and totally in the moment, seeing my vision, my goal, my promise. What am I accomplishing, moving the action forward today to push myself in a way that I don’t usually do. How am I going to change those things that I wish to change? How am I going to accomplish those things that I wish to accomplish? How am I going to become greater than I am today and yesterday? By giving up my mind. Only by giving up my thoughts, any idea I have about it, and in that space there’s power. In that space of silence and awareness, there is the motivation and awareness to push me in a powerful way to react and act consciously to accomplish the very things that I envision.

The only problem that arises in all of this is our old way of being, reacting, our old posture, our old habits of being, our way of speaking, our old mind which talks and reacts. Stop paying attention to the old ways, old thoughts. Only pay attention to expanding your way of becoming more honest than you were yesterday, more real than you were yesterday. The expansion of your consciousness, that you can push yourself to accomplish right now, this now, this now, constantly paying attention to more creativity, organization, perfection, mastery, giving up your old self to have a new self. You can’t pour new wine into old bottles. They have to be cleansed of the old, then you put the new wine in. There’s only this now, when you’re sleeping, dreaming, creating, washing the car, painting the house. The now in which you engage God, in which you involve yourself with God, in which you propose to yourself that you will love, praise, worship and adore and thank God—your true self—which is united with the true self of the whole cosmic universe. It doesn’t matter what it is, but to know to be it. To be it is to know it and you can’t know it with your mind. Killing the mind is total silence, awareness.

The books we read, the words we hear are inspirational. The truth that’s been perennially told to us by every philosopher, poet, saint and wiseman has always been the insight into God’s truth. Our job is to be one of those poets, one of those saints, one of those Christs ourself so we must consciously be an open channel to receive the word of God, the wisdom of the universe, the knowledge. And you can only do that by having a blank canvas mind on which this beautiful truth is painted every moment, every now that you exist.

Let your mind expand every minute to ask ‘how, where, what’ you should be doing, knowing, practicing, promising, envisioning, mastering and becoming. Whatever you’re doing, no matter how low it is or how high, in terms of your evaluation, has nothing to do with reality. You can be scrubbing a floor or a toilet bowl or playing a musical instrument on a stage before a hundred thousand people, they are the same consciousness. The same consciousness is to be created doing any of those tasks. To be in conscious awareness unified and linked with the God source, your real, soulular source.. it doesn’t matter what you do or where you are.

You will be led to do what your real heart, soul wants to create by being in the moment, loving and enjoying it, whether you’re having a massage, mastering your instrument or writing the greatest book in the world. It’s all the same. This moment is the same moment that has existed forever, it is perfect in itself. We’re not going anywhere and there’s no place to go. All you need to do is be in this moment now and enjoy. Praise and thank God for the love and wisdom that is pouring to you from every atom and cosmic ray of the universe. It is all vibration, unseen photons that shape matter.

There’s no judgment about anything you’re doing or anybody else is doing. The only thing that you ever need is to be conscious and aware, now, in this moment and have no reaction and no ego about it and constantly be in thankful gratitude, love and praise for the opportunity to be in ecstasy this moment.

The truth is always that the mind is the slayer of reality, slay the slayer. You are the changeless, soul, this silent watcher and everything that comes to your mind as a reaction, need, desire, feeling, idea has only the value of a movie. You watch it and you see if it’s important to your goal and your vision that you gave yourself to accomplish.

The truth is, in essence that you can never find the truth in the false and you can never find the false in the truth. By pointing out somebody’s faults, you can never get them to see the truth. And by pointing out the truth to someone who lives in the false or in their faults, they will never see that truth. The only way is to live and be the truth yourself and then to no man can you be false.

You have it today. You’ll have it forever.

September 23, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

White House Fence-jumper

Tongue in cheek but serious as the same time: White House fence-jumper, note in hand, barges through the White House doors while exclaiming, "Have you seen this!": Ex-US Officials Demanded 30 Billion Dollar Bribe (and work closely with other ex-government and current US Congress members,.), -> <-

(Note: Please click on the above story and gathered research info. and links to get to the main meat of this, it's rather important, especially if you live here in the USA [although this does affect the rest of the world too.])

September 20, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


These are just some of the reasons that GodAddy illegally shut down my website on back September 9, 2014, and 17 other websites by September 10.  We should be back online by Monday or before.

These websites are still up and info will be posted there if my website does not come back online.  

Also remember if dot COM sites do not work try dot INFO with the same domain name. Also is still functioning.  Though, update info may be found on as well.

The SirDavidAndrew webpage will be temporarily posted at  if the website master is able to get it to function. The front page will hopefully soon be there, however, most of the links may not work.

Obviously someone did not want me reporting on the murder of Edgar Steele by the gestapo.

Nor did they want me expose the attempted blackmail and plot to murder Ambassador Lee Wanta by former Governor Sundquist of Tennessee and former Senator Sheldon Songstad of South Dakota.

Folks, keep your eye on the vote in Scotland.  Freedom smells so sweet.  "Free, free at last!" However, there is trouble already afoot, since the International banksters are trying to force the new Scottish government before it even exists to enter into contract with them.  I certainly hope that the people have sense enough to tell these bankster gangsters to take a hike.  Too, I would hope that Scotland will join BRICS, which would totally destroy the Zionist banksters' death grip on this old world.

Then too, the Scots may decide to reinstate their monarchy.  Oops!  Queen Elizabeth abdicated the Scottish Throne in October 1996 and she returned King David's Throne Chair to Edinburgh Castle in May of 1997.  The Throne of David is vacant, and the new age knocks at the door, 2016 looks to be very import year in history.   I wonder who the prospective candidates may be.  Hum!

Keep your powder dry and your sword handy, things are about to boil.

Sir David-Andrew.

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:51:28 -0400

With the stock market and US Dollar looking rock solid  due to massive manipulation the Sheeple are fast asleep.
But behind the scenes the battles are RAGING!!!
A few things to take place OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS:
1) Ron Paul's original Audit the Fed Bill gets voted on today. Not sure what to expect but a YES vote speaks volumes as to who is winning the secret battles.
2) Scotland votes tomorrow on their independence and either way the vote goes there should be chaos in the FX Derivative William Wallace says "FREEDOM!" :-)
3) All eyes are on the Fed's FOMC meeting with an announcement due out today. Timing is everything!
4) The new physical gold market, the Shanghai Gold Exchange, made a surprise announcement today that they will begin trading TOMORROW!!!
and finally... 
5) Senator Carl Levin waits in the wings to BEGIN THE HEARINGS on commodity manipulation.
Hmmm. And everyone thinks the gold and silver markets will NEVER be released from their control.
...and this is just through the rest of September!!!
May the Road you choose be the Right Road.
Bix Weir
PO Box 10626, Oakland, CA 94610, USA

September 18, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Greg Szymanski's 2006 Interviews with Lee Wanta the 27.5 Trillion Dollar Man (Full transcript)


Some of the latest confirmations:

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


GREG: Investigative Journal is travelling to Switzerland today and my guest [is] Leo Wanta. Tell us how this all started for you.

LEO: Okay in 1980... But going way back prior to that, I was being mentored by the Chairman of the Senate Foriegn Relations Commitee, Senator Alexander Wiley. I was trained in financials and government, intelligence and so on and so forth.

So in 1980, when President Regan won the election he retained the services of William French Smith a[n] attorney in California who was going to be his Attorney General. So then we all got together with Casey and Colby, William French Smith and President-elect Reagan.

GREG: And you're sitting in talking with these guys correct?

LEO: Yeah, I was already known within a very tight group through Senator Wiley of my background and my management training and my engineering training.

Uncle Sam, arranged for me to get a 5 year apprenticeship in tool and die. When I'm in foriegn countries, I can kind of glance at it and know what they're doing. I didn't have to have blueprints. I can design my own blueprints, because I had an engineering degree as well.

So I was introduced to the future Attorney General Wiliam French Smith, and Bill Casey, which I'd already known through Bill Colby. We started having some meetings prior to him being elected on how he could control the East European environment.

So then, after a number of meetings and discussions, it was decided by the new Reagan administration that I should be the Inspector General of the Department of Defense because that would give me kind of a chance to review things. "Cap" Weinberger, who was now the Secretary of Defense, said: "He's the last S.O.B. I need walking around me. He'll have my job in a couple of months."

So Pen James, who was the director of Whitehouse personnel, and Rick Shelby, [who] was now a senator, decided we should be doing some other stuff. So Bill Casey decided I should work hand-in-hand with him.

So they were all talking about Krushchev and the old days, and him pounding the desk at the United Nations. [How] they're going to bury us with our own shovels, and so on, and so forth.

President Reagan was a union guy in California. So they were looking at ways to get our country back through the apprenticeship programs and things of that nature; to rebuild infrastructure of the American people. The youth... give them some skilled trades, training, education, and medical services, and things of that nature.

The biggest problem was the expenses [that] were always going out to fight the Cold War on the Soviet Union. They kept spending money for the military industrial giants and nothing for the average person. They agreed to my idea going back to Maynard Keynes, 'the best way to control a country is to control the economy and the currency.'

President Reagan, he was not a politician; didn't feel he should be a politician. He was a simple person and he wanted to undermine the USSR by destabilzing their military [and] their economy, and to get the people to understand that the rubles were only of value within the USSR.

President Reagan wanted to destabilize the USSR because they were a pain and he didn't trust them at all. He could not depend on anybody over there and he still had a lot of wounds from the past. So we decided, with William French Smith and a few other guys, how we could figure out a mission to destabilze the USSR so they couldn't buy anything. This is why you had the Star Wars [Strategic Defense Initiative] and everything. So President Reagan, started all kinds of development programs to spend a lot of money, but only on paper not in actual cash. That got the Soviets. Nobody understands a Soviets a Soviet; a Russians a Russian. They're not the same.

After a number of meetings and discussions with people within the military and everything else, we agreed we would get a grant from the US Treasury for $150 billion. And we would start to destabilize their economy, their military, their GRU [Main Intelligence Directorate], and the like, by picking up their internal currency.

So we got together Mr. Kwok [Kok Howie Kwong], who was part of the Chinese intelligence group in Peking at that time. [We] were off to Vienna where we established New Republic/USA Financial Groupe, which was the security code of the Contras way back when. [Vienna] was where the core of all the Soviet rubles were because they were not allowed to leave the USSR. They could not buy any food, any refrigerators, any medicine, they couldn't buy anything. Anything you want to buy was all internal to the USSR and you couldn't take out the currency.

Yet, the Soviet Central Bank [Gosbank] said that every ruble is worth $1.20. Of course nobody's going to give you $1.20 because there's nothing to buy with a ruble.

So we were based in Vienna, in June 1988. We started to trade rubles through Brinks in Holland, into the the GRU, military, the postal savings accounts, the manufacturing facilities in the USSR. We would give them hard currency for their rubles. They knew their rubles were worth zero.

We purchased Aneko Credit Pte Ltd. Singapore which was grandfathered to do these kind of things in Singapore. We would run all of these rubles through Aneko Credit and Asia-Europa Development Group and Trans-Asia Resources and New Republic/USA Financial Groupe in Austria. So I was sent to Austria in June 1988. I was a permenent resident of Austria.

We were starting through the KGB and the GRU, and anybody and everybody that was trying to make a fast buck, to gather up all of the rubles. So suddenly, we were getting all of the rubles. They wrote stories about this in major magazines and newspapers, that we were idiots in buying all these Soviet rubles. So more people came to us all the time and we were negotiating between 18 to 28 cents a ruble. We would pay them off outside of the USSR in all the major banks, Hungarian banks as well. We had 109 accounts. If you got the rubles credited to our account we would would give you the hard currency of your choice. We had PROMIS software, four units of [equ..s?]. It's a specialized banking center software, of Inslaw in Washington, DC. So people were bringing us rubles, rubles, rubles, left and right in [to] Brinks in Holland, and other banks, and we were paying them in hard currency.

So here we are. We're all in Vienna. I speak very little German, but I'm there. We started to meet with a number of people within the Soviet bloc, and Hungary, and Iran, Iraq, so on, and so forth. And they're, shall we say, in an economic pinch because the USSR had no food, no meat, no nothing, no jet fuel. Because nobody would accept the ruble outside the country. So we used Brinks in Holland, and started to purchase rubles. Not purchase, say swap, you can't purchase currency but you can swap currencies. Something for something.

GREG: Okay. So basically, your job was to destabilize the ruble in an effort to bring the Cold War to an end, correct?

LEO: Correct. Because then they had no funds for the military. No funds for their intelligence. No funds for the KGB and the GRU and the like.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now during this period of time, you set to work on this goal and you were pretty sucessful at it, correct? Your system worked.

LEO WANTA: Oh yes, very good at it. We had a draw from the US Treasury of $150 billion. Using the PROMIS software, we were bringing to the Russians and the postal savings accounts and certain manufacturers an opportunity to get hard currency for their rubles at a swap value much less... Well it was really much more than it was worth, because it was worth zero. And we were paying between 18 and 28 cents per ruble in hard currency of Swiss francs, Italian lira, deutchmarks?, British pounds sterling and the like.

So based on that we entertained with the Development Bank of Singapore. We sent them 70 billion rubles, worth $84 billion US. We met with the big shots at the USSR embassy in Singapore and they were screaming at us, and yelling at us, that we were destroying their economy.


GREG SZYMANSKI: And, at that point is there any particular reason why the money wasn't immediately returned? What was the whole idea behind this, how did it get lost? That's one question people ask me.

LEO WANTA: [We] have Brinks in Holland counting, and wrapping, and packaging, and sorting out all the rubles. And making sure there were no counterfeits.

And then the Central Bank of the USSR, [it] was deemed that they had to [do the] exchange because they're the ones who set the benchmark and all that.

We met with the bigshots at the Soviet Embassy in Singapore and they were telling my Chinese partner Mr. Kok that there is no way, no way in the world that they were going to give us $1.20 per ruble. And we argued back and forth, back and forth, and they said, "No, we're never going to give you $1.20."

So after a lot of arguing, and them drinking their goofy drinks, they came and said that the Kremlin authorized [them] to only pay us $1.08. I jumped up and down [on] the top of the tables and I said, "$1.08, Howie, we got more than that invested in the program!"

They were really happy that we were going to lose out. Unknown to them that we're [paying] 18, 22, 28 cents, a ruble which is a very good mark up of 4 or 5 times value. So we have the agreements with the Bank of China, that they sent all of the wire transfers to, that they would pay us $1.08. If we didn't like it we could get the hell out of town.

So I left. Howie stayed behind. They didn't trust me, being an American, but they would trust him because he was a Chinese authority. So, we have all the landmark agreements and the benchmarks at $1.08. Now, we were in the foriegn exchange of off-station rubles.

So the Russian people were now getting hard currency. Now they were bringing back in refrigerators from Budapest, and from Vienna. Everyday they were going from Budapest to Vienna, buying anything that wasn't parked. Bring it back to Budapest and trade it back for rubles.

We had a number of Budapest main banks accepting rubles on our behalf and paying them in hard currency.

They wrote articles that all the rubles were missing from the street, so they had to reprint new rubles. The finance minister was screaming that I, Wanta of New Republic, has all the rubles in my possesion and they had no rubles. So we kept bringing them rubles back to the Central Bank.

Suddenly, they were short of rubles; so we had to figure out another way to get rubles back. So Howie and I talked to India, Pakistan, China, Malaysia and all these countries and says, "Look you guys all have a national debt to the USSR and the Central Bank. What if we paid that debt off and we gave you rubles at 88 cents a ruble?"

They thought we were crazy but as long as we had the receipts and confirmation that their national debts were paid, perfect. So now all of these countries are paying their national debt to zero into the Central Bank of the USSR. Now [Sheshanko?] and everybody there are really, really excited that all of these countries are paying their debts back to the USSR. But keep in mind the rubles are worth [benchmarked at] $1.20. They took all the rubles and started paying all their national debts, based on about two-thirds the value, but getting 100% value.

So that worked out real good. They [USSR] were getting the hard currency, they were buying refrigerators, carpets, medicine in Vienna, Austria and everything else. We were bringing them meat through [authraw?] Poland.

We were negotiating with Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee to pick up their whole brewery and move it to Russia. The same with Intercontinental Baking or Continental Baking, they were closing their whole facility; we were going to bring that thing lock, stock and barrel. We bought horses from Mexico that they wanted, and everyone was having a real great time by buying something with hard currency.

All of these countries are buying them from Howie and I at 88 cents. Not buying, but trading their hard currencies for what we wanted. So now the Central Bank is flooded with rubles, but they don't have any real hard currency, because everybody is paying them in rubles. So [Greshanko?] and everybody they says, "We got 2000 [tons] bullion of gold." In 75 kilos, 35, 35.5 kilos, 25 kilos, all mixed, one-off, and all this crap. And they gave us a huge discount if we would pay them in hard currency.

So now you've got 2000 tons in hard currency that we already made three or four-hundred percent on if not more.

We missed 246 tons in Latvia/Lithuania and Jim Baker said I was not doing my job because they still had 200 some tons of gold. If nobody tells me that how do I know to find it? We still had 2000 tons of bling, which is pretty good. We had to resmelt it at [Johnson Matthey] at Singapore under heavy security and made out to our name. And paid cash.


So that worked out real good. And Gorbachev was very much involved, the Central Bank was involved; everybody knew. So suddently they were very pleased in the USSR, because they're gettting all these rubles. Everybody's paying their national debts and they had all this currency coming back into the Central Bank in Moscow. Unknown to them, that President Reagan could stop at anytime the swapping, or the trading, of the rubles for hard currency which was in Swiss francs, or German marks and so on so forth. And they were getting, running low out of hard currency because they were paying everybody $1.20, $1.08 and so on and so forth. So now they are low on hard currency of the G7 for example. So we decided that we would do them a favor. We purchased 2000 tons of their gold that was in the Central Bank in USSR, and naturally they ripped us off. They would only give us $1.08 for every ruble, still unknown to the important people that we were paying less than 28 cents a piece. So now we have 2000 tons of gold based on actual cost of 28 cents but getting market value of $1.08 per ruble.

So that went on very well and then everybody decided in the Whitehouse that there will be no more treaty arrangements of trading rubles for hard currency. Therefore, now the USSR is absolutely bankrupt, the GRU is bankrupt, the KGB is bankrupt but in reality they're really not bankrupt because Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Yegor Gaidar the Prime Minister took all of their rubles which really had a 'Monopoly' value in a kids game and have hard currency, in German marks, and Swiss francs, and British pounds sterling, and everything else.

Now the USSR is absolutely bankrupt. They make a deal with Boris Yeltsin he has, he fakes this, uh, coup, that he was being attacked by his military, Gorbachev was you know - which was all part of his way for an exit. So therefore, we have all the hard currency, they have rubles. Nobody wants rubles. So we had agreed with Putin and everybody, who at that time was Vice Mayor in Leningrad (which turned out to be St. Petersburg eventually, it was on the [?] commission), that we would give a non-returnable grant to the USSR under the new image of the Russian Federation of $30 billion US dollars and that's to rebuild.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Where was this money earmarked for once you make this money back then?

LEO WANTA: Well, the money was earmarked for the US Department of the Treasury, except for $30 billion that was authorized by President Reagan through AmeriTrust to the Russian Federation in Mockba, which is Moscow, for redevelopment programs. As long as there are none military. We would have been monitoring all of that $30 billion. We paid back the $150 billion, that we got forwarded from the US Department of the Treasury, within 6 months.

We had a tremendous amount of real hard currency and of that $70 billion that was set aside: $5 billion was going to Canada, $5 billion to UK, and $5 billion to Mexico and so on so forth, a total of $70 billion. But at the same time down in Western American Samoa, we were setting up a $5 million oil refinery to back up the US oil needs.

We were [also] buying medium term bank... Well at that time they were called prime bank guarantees, at 7.5% annual interest, 10 year plus one day maturity. We were buying them at 68%, 66% per $100 million par value and we could either loan 'em, or sell 'em, or transfer, at 88 to 92[%]. In reality, we're making $20 million for every $100 million par value prime bank guarantee. And we're doing this repetitively, every hour on the hour. That generated a tremendous amount of money, that we would reduce any and all debt obligations of the USA. And that is what President Reagan wanted to do.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So this money, so you're sucessful at bringing the ruble down. In the meantime, you amass a lot of dollars. And you become the caretaker of this through Ronald Reagan. Who appoints you, through what you told me earlier, his trust in you.

LEO WANTA: Oh yes.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. So the years go by now, this fund is there, I mean the money is there now invested in the different things.

LEO WANTA: Yeah, in prime bank guarantees.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. Now how does that transition remain American assets, but remain out of the country?

LEO WANTA: Yeah, offshore bank deposits.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So basically Reagan must have been really pleased with what you guys were doing?

LEO WANTA: Oh, he was overly excited. The Soviet Union had no money to buy anything for military arms, and Star Wars, and stuff of that nature. That's why Gorbachev [publically] in Helsinki was so mad. Gorbachev, [meaning the USSR] had zero, zero in cash.

We paid him $10 billion through the Gorbachev Foundation. So he was happy to sell out his country. What are you going to do? It's easier to pay these guys a couple of bucks.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now, Reagans intention was always to bring this money back. Now you guys amassed a lot of money, it was constantly compounding interest...

LEO WANTA: Reagan's first intention was to have US security thoughout the world and the Soviet Union - being [unknown] - to nothing, so he [would] not have to spend money on military.

So all of these funds then... We paid back the treasury the $150 billion. There was security throughout the world. There was no more USSR. They were gone.

The Russians had a Federation; they needed money. Boris Yeltsin and Putin, the Deputy Mayor in Leningrad, was going to receive through the Reagan Group, which was us, $30 billion to rebuild their countries. But for no arms, and no tanks, and no nothing [military].

And we were rebuilding the US dollar economy. We were buying prime bank guarantees of 66% to 69% and retrading those at 88% to 92% which was making us around $20 million for every $100 million prime bank guarantee. That was the money that was rebuilding all of the banking community, money in the United States, so the banks could give out loans and mortgages and do whatever you want. And also, more foriegn aid to the countries of acceptance to the US State Department. So this money was coming back, and it was also being used and generated to make more money for the USA to be a super-economy.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Well tell us how did you save his [Reagan's] life.

LEO WANTA: Well being in the intelligence community we, you know, we're reaching out to a number of people throughout the world at all times. We had a certain person that was a foriegner as a guest of the United States. I don't think he had a green card since he was in the political regime.

He had called me and he was extremely nervous. He said he had people staying in his Washington office for months, and months, and today was the day they were going to assassinate President Reagan. I asked really clear what was going on? How can I know for sure? He told me all of the details.

I immediately called Treasury Special Agent Bill Lecates. He got on the phone to Special Agent of the Secret Service Glen Speedy, along with Frank B. Ingram, who is a liason with the FBI. That's why his initials are F.B. Ingram.

We immediately pulled President Reagan out of the Whitehouse.

We pick[ed] up everybody that came via Texas, to come into the Washington area. They were being groomed and being hosted by this gentleman, who will remain anonymous, except [to] the people that need to know. The Secret Service came immediately to his place, grabbed him for his own security and protection. He wasn't sure who I sent to get him.

So he's there; they're coming in with all their Secret Service garb, and everything else, and the Secret Service agent said he went all over the floor. I said, "Well I would too, if they came in running with all of those machine guns and everything else."

He said, "You should have warned him."

I said, "I was kind of busy."

GREG SZYMANSKI: What year was this just to give us...

LEO WANTA: That was... I'll say a Friday the 13th. I'll let you track it back from there.


LEO WANTA: But you can talk to the Secret Service, because we all got plaques and all this other good stuff. Glen Speedy, the Secret Service, and Bill Lecates who was Direc. in US Treasury and national at that time. So you know everybody was happy, happy, happy. We were all happy that the threat, [that] wasn't sure at that time, [and] when we verified that it was absolutely a threat. We picked up everybody. To the best of our knowledge, we got them all.


GREG SZYMANSKI: [Who do you work for?]

LEO WANTA: For the Office of the President. That's who I work for.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. So when did the whole problem begin, when you wanted to put the money back. But I think you were talked to by someone. Did somebody want to really take it from you, is what I'm getting at.

LEO WANTA: Well here, first of all you have to understand we have all of [this] in our control, Howie and I. We had all the money in foriegn accounts, prime bank guarantees, and other collateral, and gold bullion, and the like.

George Bush was finishing up his travel time in Singapore. This was about April, 1992, [January 3-5, 1992] because Howie died in May, 1992. He [Bush] realized that all of the assets, which was about $864 billion in Aneko Credit in Singapore, was owned by a Chinese guy named Howie Kwong. [He] was the chairman of our group bank and [with] myself as managing director. He was curious that he was now the President of the United States, and we had all these funds. Then when Bill Clinton became President of the United States, he decided that all three of us were no good. He's the only guy that can handle that kind of money with authority and maturity.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. This is one part of the story, I think you need to explain, because I gotta make that transition from the good days of Reagan; and all of a sudden things change.

LEO WANTA: Okay. Well it's really strange.

GREG SZYMANSKI: How did that happen?

LEO WANTA: The last tour of President George Herbert Walker Bush, he goes to Singapore of all places. Unknown to him, the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, sold Aneko Credit PTA Ltd. in Singapore, to my Chinese partner and I. Now we are [running] the intel community banking. Which everybody who was anybody in the Bush Administration and previous administrations used for their, let's call it, set-aside allocations.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now you told me you were made the trustee by Reagan.

LEO WANTA: Oh, I was the trustor sure, for the Presidential Task Force, yeah.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. Go ahead. So that gives you some power over this money still?

LEO WANTA: No. Guarded power.


LEO WANTA: That doesn't mean I can spend it. I'm just guarding it.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay, so go ahead now we're in the...

LEO WANTA: Okay, so I am in Vienna working with the Chinese against the USSR, because they are also buying rubles to take down their debts. And I'm off to Singapore to meet my Chinese counterpart, Mr. Kok Howie Kwong. His dad is a wheeler dealer within the Chinese administration and a warlord and all this stuff. We had a number of operations with the ruble with PRC [People's Republic of China] and ROC [Taiwan] in China. They're in Pakistan and India and everything else.

His father says to Howie that the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, must sell his stock in Aneko Credit PTA Ltd. [Since] he's the Prime Minister he can't do both. So Howie's dad says to Howie and I, "[Leo] if you put up $25 million, I'll put up $25 million for my son, and you and he will own Aneko Credit PTA Ltd."

[Aneko Credit] is a grandfathered bank [with] underwriters and all of this stuff and this was great for us.

So I take $25 million from New Republic. Where his dad got the money is not material to me, but I'm sure it came out of Hong Kong/Shanghai. So I bought Mrs. Lee's one share and Howie bought the Prime Minister's one share. Now we have all of these funds, and we move in more funds that we are developing. Prime bank guarantees, because we're also now bank underwriters by contract in Singapore under the grandfather clause. The Chinese and Singaporeans had [this clause] long before I even knew Singapore existed.

So here's President Bush sitting in Singapore, in fact we gave the instructions to the Secret Service to move him from one hotel to the Shangri-La. The Secret Service guys in my hotel room at the Marina Manor agreed, let's move him to the Shangri-la which is much safer. He can still do the meetings at the other hotels but at least we'll take over the Shangri-La. So we got credit for that.

So George Bush Sr. comes on his worldwide tour at the end of his campaign and he's in Singapore. He meets Howie and I. He finds out from the Prime Minister that Howie and I own Aneko Credit and now we are holding his special set-aside allocations. We knew all of his set-aside allocations, and George Schultz, and Jimmy Baker, and everybody else.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Oh boy, you had the information now on him.

LEO WANTA: But, I wasn't doing anything with it.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Right, right.

LEO WANTA: You know it didn't bother me, because I had enough to do with what I was doing.

Howie and I [had] in our accounts, our personal accounts under the agreements we had with President Reagan, [we] had total assets in Aneko Credit of $864 billion U.S. which is entirely, shall we say, stock profit. Which would be split between Mr. Kwok and myself, $432 billion a piece.

He [George Bush, Sr.] was very upset that he did not realize that Howie and I collectively owned Aneko Credit.

Okay? See because Howie's got a share and I got a share. That's $432 billion a piece, well, [Carol Courtney's?] there from state and [George Bush] Sr. says that since I report to Bush, the Office of the President, I should consider half to go away and Howie should give half to go away [Bush wanted half of each of their $432 billion].

Howie jumped right out of that chair. He said, "You are S...H... boomp-boomp-boomp. I pay you nothing more,  boomp-boomp-boomp."

We got another North Korean conflict going on. Howie died a couple weeks later.


LEO WANTA: By rat poison.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Rat poisoning?

LEO WANTA: They believe, by rat poisoning because his face got real puffy, yellow jaundice, and he was terrible. I was supposed to die within 10, 15 minutes after him.

I got a call from Singapore Internal Affairs that Howie's in the hospital, he's going into a coma, he's dying. Instead of going out the front door using the company car, I just got the first taxi. The taxi driver took me to the emergency entrance, instead of the front door, where I would naturally go as a tourist.

I got up there and Leo [Tetses?] says to me, "How the hell did you get up here?"

I said, "What are you talking about? You called me, said he's going into a coma."

"How did you get up here!"

I said, "I went out the front door, took the taxi, and the taxidriver says go through the emergency."

He said, "Ohhh!"

So then, he [Howie] died his just...

GREG SZYMANSKI: And you were sure you were slated for the same uh...

LEO WANTA: Yeah, I should never have got to the hotel room. This has been verified by General Vernon Walters. I was going to be hit long before I got to that floor.

So, what happens [is] when you get rat poison in a human being, you create a vacuum in your brain and you blow the stem. That's what happened.

[Carol Courtney's?] there from U.S. State and she's really [offended] now because a Chinese spoke so terrible to the President of the United States. But you know, trying to get Howie for $216 billion, Howie was not interested in paying $216 billion.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And where was that going to go?

LEO WANTA: Who knows?

He [Howie] jumped right out of his chair screaming, I says, "Howie, you put me in a terrible position."

He says, "You stay here with me; you still got $432 billion."

I says, "Howie, that's not the way it works in the United States. He's my superior."

[Howie makes a noise] "Rahrrrararar!!!"

A couple weeks later he died, at Singapore General Hospital.

[Then] they came to get me.

I went to Canada. Dan Qualye arranged for me to get to Canada, for whatever reason. I stayed in Toronto. And then I went per Uncle Sam to Switzerland to meet Vince Foster. And that's when I was taken down.

GREG SZYMANSKI: [Back to when] you're sitting across from Bush...

LEO WANTA: Oh yeah. He's staring at me. I was always quizzed by him in the old days with Reagan, because Reagan wouldn't trust him. Reagan wouldn't ever tell him what we were doing.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Reagan didn't trust Bush back then?

LEO WANTA: No. He never told him anything. When he would ask me or Larry Eagleburger, would ask me questions or something, I would always refer back to Dutch [Reagan]. Or, [to] William French Smith, or Casey, because [with] what I was doing, I was told to just shut up and get it done.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And that's when you were made the Ambassador [for] Somalia [to] Switzerland and Canada. To work with [William] Sessions and Vince Foster. And basically that's where we're at now.

LEO WANTA: That's correct.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And at this point you end up in a Swiss jail.

LEO WANTA: Well, it really wasn't a jail. It was a dungeon.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay a dungeon for 134 days. And really for... Did they ever give you an official reason?

LEO WANTA: Well for the first three days they didn't even know I was there. So I was starving to death.

And then they said they had a phone call from the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, to hold me for tax evasion from 1982 and '88.

I kinda laughed, I thought it was a political joke. Because I lived in China since 1985. And in 1986, I spent the whole year in the Phillipines, during that coup against Marcos. We were very busy running between Singapore, Malaysia and the Phillipines. So how could I be a resident of the State of Wisconsin? My wife divorced me because I abandoned her in '82. I was too much involved in the government; which she wasn't too happy with.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. So how did they want to get their hands on this money and what did you tell them?

LEO WANTA: After Howie died, they had started giving me a lot of heat in Singapore, so I went on to Canada. I spent a year in Canada trying to figure out how I was going to get the money back into US Treasury.

We were working with Vince Foster and he was kind of a help to us.

In June 1993, I got orders through Vince Foster and [Cupper?] who I think was his boss at the time. We had some transactions that were going to help me move to Lake Geneva and I would buy a beautiful home there and I would settle up on the paybacks. And I said, "That's not a problem as long as I can pay back the US Department of the Treasury."

And they said, "What do you want to do that for?"

I said, "Because two, three years down the road you're going to say I never paid anybody; and I'm going to be arrested for embezzling US federal funds."

So I went to Switzerland and Foster's going to meet me on July 7. We transferred $250 million to the Children's Defense Fund through Credit Suisse, [through] Guy Stewart, the chairman of the board at Credit Suisse. And, I automatically went to Swiss prison, and he [Foster] automatically died on July 20.

GREG SZYMANSKI: It's said this fund that was started, the Global Security Fund, and what Bush and Clinton wanted to do now; was to somehow copycat what you were doing. But, to use the money privately, instead of bringing it back to the Treasury? Correct?

LEO WANTA: Correct and to pay taxes on that money.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. So that's what they wanted to do with you and that's really why they wanted you out of the picture, correct?

LEO WANTA: Yeah, they wanted me out of the game. But at the same time, return all of the trust assets to individuals, and not to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. I feared that in a couple of years, somebody's gonna ask for an audit and I'm not going to have the money, and I'm gonna be in prison for life.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Bingo. And we're talking about how much money, you think?

LEO WANTA: Oh, at that time we had let's see, boomp-boomp-boomp. I would estimate in 1993, we had assets well over $16-18 trillion in prime bank guarantees, 2000 tons of gold, [another] 167 tons of gold, cash-wise we probably had, oh, $500 billion assorted currencies.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Which you're still the trustor for right?

LEO WANTA: Yeah. And I'm also the owner of it because Howe's dead. And I still owe 50% of the final outlay to his estate, which he has two beautiful kids.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Clinton, Bush the rest of them [are] trying to get it into private hands. You want to take the money; put it back into the Treasury.

LEO WANTA: Per the original protocol agreements, yes.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And there, is the reason they are after you, correct?

LEO WANTA: Yeah, but they can't kill me right away because they don't know where all the money is.

GREG SZYMANSKI: They don't know where it's at?

LEO WANTA: Well, they know some of it. They have ripped off 4 or 5 of my computers already. But a lot of this stuff is based on custodial safekeeping reciepts in banks, which open up other assets and numbers and passcodes and stuff.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So the CIA has discredited you, even had you declared dead. Didn't they?

LEO WANTA: Correct. So they could go through all the banking community, and the bank managers, and say he's never showing up here; so now we're in charge of these accounts.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And they've tried discrediting you, now tell us how this backstabbing occurred and what really happened to this money?

LEO WANTA: Well, we had a trading program for 5 T [trillion] through the World Bank; and it was going to be generated by the Swiss banks.

I was in Toronto and I left Toronto [for] Paris to meet President [Haji maheelamashi?] because I was now being appointed the Ambassador of Somalia to Canada and to Switzerland. So under cover of that we had the 5 T contracts with the World Bank and the UN under Contract #4.

[This] would also rebuild Somalia and [give] us a naval supply depot there. Mogadishu Airport would have been a US Airforce station and we would have a rapid deployment force there to protect and control the Middle East from idiots that want to cause war.

So we were in Switzerland. One of the major banks started the first leg of the 5 T [trillion] contract which would have generated $210 billion. Of which $70 billion was set aside for, let's see: $30 billion to Russia, $5 billion to Canada, $5 billion to Mexico, $5 billion to London, $5 billion to France, $500 million to Western Samoa to build an oil refinery [which was] only feeding [to] the United States. We would have had a brand new high-tech refinery in Western Samoa. And $70 billion would have went back into AmeriTrust, and $70 billion would have went into the US Treasury, for whatever the Economic Presidential Council [sic] wanted to do. Laura D Tyson and all these people.

So we would have been very secure and very satisfied with the influx of cash.


Vince Foster made a special request through the Whitehouse at that time. He needed 250 million dollars set aside for the Childrens Defense Fund, which was approved by the Whitehouse at that time, by a Laura D'Andrea Tyson who was the chairperson of the Whitehouse Economic Counsel. So he was in Geneve. We arranged 250 million dollars for the Childrens Defense Fund from their request, based on the 5T [trillion] UN Contract #4.

We moved the first initial traunches of 243 million dollars, which would have gave them a face value of 300 million to start the computers working as a dry run more or less and that was three 81 million dollar transfers. [This] would give you a par value prime bank guarantee of 100 million dollars per each 81 million dollars released.

Vince Foster was staying there. Suddenly, all heck broke loose. I was arrested and detained by the Swiss Sûreté for failure to pay Wisconsin taxes, although I haven't lived in Wisconsin since 1985, being on US government seal operations.

[They] threw me in a dungeon. Vince Foster came to my rescue. He came back to Washington DC, to assist in getting my immediate release from all this nonsense.

Then he was murdered. I know he didn't commit suicide. No one with $250 million in his briefcase commits suicide.

They had me incognito. Only a handful of people knew I was in the Swiss dungeon in Lausanne.

Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, came to my rescue because he was part of an agreement we had between the Palestinians and the State of Israel. The Ameritrust corporation, of which I'm the Chairman of the Board, was going to grant the State of Israel 5 billion, and the Palestine government at that time, $5 billion a piece. To [encourage] a solid peace program. Which we would have controlled all the funds, so the funds would not be removed from the recovery, the redevelopment of roads and infrastructure.

He notified the Swiss government that he was coming to rearrange the furniture, as we say.

I was immediately extradited to New York, without any arrest warrants, without anything at all. Just put me on a plane, under armed guard, and shackles. I ended up in New York, and the FBI was saying, "What the hell are you doing here?"

I didn't have an American passport, I had a Somalian passport, a diplomatic passport, so they figured they were being swindled by somebody.

In the meantime, Yitzhak Rabin, got murdered.

I went to the Brooklyn House of Detention. They were supposed to remove me to Madison, Wisconsin, so I could get a hearing and get released.

The Federal Judge Alyce Ross says, "You know Mr. Ambassador, I don't know what you're here for and I don't want you here. Get the hell out of here." More or less [that's what she said].

But before she dismissed everything against me by the State of Wisconsin, which I haven't lived in since 1985, she asked me, "Why are you carrying these $1 billion notes, these securities."

I started to explain it and immediately the US Attorney jumped in and he says, "We dismiss all the charges. He's free to go, he's free to go. We make a motion, US government."

And I went to the [courthouse] steps only to be arrested by New York detectives, without a warrant, but, based on a phone call from the State of Wisconsin to hold me for civil tax evasion for 1982.

GREG SZYMANSKI: We left off where you were named the Ambassador [of] Somalia [to] Switzerland and Canada. Basically to deal with the Vince Foster issue and Marc Rich?

LEO WANTA: We had [a] tremendous [number] of security plans to use in Mogadishu And it would have helped all the people, remember the Cubans were fighting in the upper part of Somaliland.


LEO WANTA: We had a vested interest in there.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now what happened to...You were also there for Rich, correct? Marc Rich?

LEO WANTA: Well yeah, we were there because we were doing this settlement, and we were also taking down Marc Rich. Because the FBI Director Bill Sessions, gave us a live open arrest warrant to take down Marc Rich at any cost and bring him on back. So we were going to coax him [into] going to a french casino across the lake in Lausanne. But Lorrayne Fine somehow tipped him off, and knew somehow from her cohorts, what we might be doing in Switzerland. We were going to arrest him in the middle between Lausanne and France on the ferry boat.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And what happened?

LEO WANTA: (Laughs) He refused to come at the last minute. And on July 7, 1993 I was arrested for Wisconsin civil tax evasion.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And this was...

LEO WANTA: And he was free to travel and he went back to Zug.

Keep in mind, one of the persons who had talked to him and tipped him off to what we were doing was a Miss Lorrayne Fine. We have photographs that they met at the Hotel Aulac in Lausanne. She was a Mossad agent. We feel that she's the one that told Marc we were going to take him down.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So then basically Clinton orders his release?

LEO WANTA: Yeah. You have to understand, he doesn't really have [the] pardon that he thinks he's got. He's got pardon for a crime once he's arrested. Since we didn't arrest him, we don't consider the pardon a real pardon. The pardon only releases him after somebody makes the arrest and we [still] have the arrest warrant.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay, Leo I think it would be good to maybe take us back to when you were taken away and put in that Swiss dungeon and explain to our listeners exactly why you ended up going through all these legal battles. They basically wanted to copy this. They wanted the money now into private hands, instead of Treasury hands, but [besides] this was there anything more? Is that basically it or is there more behind why you were jailed?

LEO WANTA: Well, there's a lot more behind it. Keep in mind they came to the hotel in Lausanne, Hotel Aulac, because we were now going to meet Vince Foster. Vince Foster had arrived in Geneva to meet with us.

They take my diplomatic passports. I have two of them. One for each country. I don't have an American passport because Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State, said I couldn't have passports for both countries. So I surrendered my U.S. passport, he almost flipped.

And, Mossad was with Lorrayne Fine. And they were very much involved with Hillary Clinton, on a number of financial programs with Marc Rich. He works for the Israelis. They had a number of things on their agenda which [were] contrary to what we wanted to do within the United States, and [in] the Middle East per se. So they had to get me out. They had to get the money. I had already gave Foster $250 million from Credit Suisse and Vince Foster was going to testify against Bill Clinton on a number of things. He agreed to [do this] with the U.S. attorneys.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And then he turned up dead of course.

LEO WANTA: Absolutely. But, he did come and try to save me and get me out of the dungeons. The superintendent came and said he died. Why would the superintendent want to tell me that he died? Except, somebody was sending me a veiled threat.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Right. When's the last time you saw him before he was killed?

LEO WANTA: July 7th.


LEO WANTA: Of 1993 because we gave him $250 million from Credit Suisse. He needed $250 million for the Children's Defense Fund. He made lodging arrangements for us at the Hotel De la Paix in Geneva. He got his $250 million from Credit Suisse. He got murdered, and I went to the Swiss dungeon for 134 days. We still don't know who got the $250 million, but I know it was debited to our corporate account.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So you have verification that Vince Foster was with you in Switzerland two weeks before he was murdered, he was there with you correct?

LEO WANTA: Correct. And we were staying at the Hotel De la Paix. In fact we were all on his American Express card, because he wanted to keep it quiet and didn't want anyone to know we were having a group meeting.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And so you give back the $250 million to the Children's fund, both of you, well at least you not knowing, that later that the Children's fund turns out to be under an Executive Order, a slush fund really. And, so Foster gets killed. But, if they were going to run a fair investigation [of Foster's death] don't you think they would want to talk to you?

LEO WANTA: Oh yeah, but [Kenneth] Starr knew about it. So Starr doing what he did, is really not a cover-up, it's obstruction of justice.

Starr wanted to represent me [on the tax evasion charges] in the State of Wisconsin and the Department of Justice Attorney General Doyle at that time gave him a job as a contract lawyer [in the] Department of Education. So he dropped me like a cheapskate and he went with the Department of Education. We all knew Starr was given a plum job on the behalf of the State of Wisconsin to avoid me. That's another case of obstruction of justice. He knew my case inside and out and he bailed on me to go to the Department of Education.

GREG SZYMANSKI: ...they cover up their own investigations...

LEO WANTA: Yeah but you have to keep in mind Marc Rich was in the Hotel Au Lac in Lausanne, and he was going to take the ferry. His attorney at the time, of all people, was I. Lewis Libby, also known a 'Scooter'. That's one of Marc Rich's main attorneys, Scooter Libby. So how do you think they get the inside track?

GREG SZYMANSKI: That's interesting, I didn't know that.

LEO WANTA: Ken Starr knows it because we talked about it.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Interesting. And of course these things have never been investigated properly.

LEO WANTA: Why, I've been talking about it for years.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And like I said they've never been investigated. And there you sit...

LEO WANTA: I told everybody in Congress, everybody in the Senate, I told everybody and anybody.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And let's get back to Hillary. Here I'm reading something that was sent to me, that Hillary had been in control of an organization called the Children's Defense Fund and that was listed under Executive Order 12333 in 1981 under President Reagan. Okay?

LEO WANTA: I don't think so.

GREG SZYMANSKI: That's what it said here, but that's not it?

LEO WANTA: Because the Executive Order allowed us to have CIA proprietary corporations. Now, that's not saying the Children's Defense Fund wasn't a CIA proprietary corporation. I wasn't a member of the Children's Defense Fund.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay. Anyway, we have the Executive Order now. Hillary Clinton then... Basically, this corporation has been used for intelligence purposes. Money being used for intelligence purposes, not for a children's defense fund. And she basically is in control of this, and also treating it maybe, as her own private little slush fund.

LEO WANTA: She is the chairman.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So is there anything in there that you had found out about how she was using the money.

LEO WANTA: No. All we were told by Andrea Tyson, who was the chairperson of the Presidents Economic Counsel, that she [had] approved the request from Vince Foster for us to set aside $250 million for the Children's Defense Fund. Since they're in the Whitehouse, and I'm not in the Whitehouse, I'm not going to argue about it.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So then she, this money then is... What ever happened to that $250 million?

LEO WANTA: I'm in a dungeon, I haven't the slightest idea.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Right. And let's trace that then, tell me what was your... You were put in there for 134 days, correct?

LEO WANTA: Uh-huh.

GREG SZYMANSKI: What kind of treatment did you get when you were there?

LEO WANTA: I was... Well, first of all they didn't know I was there for 2 or 3 days. They were probably hoping I would have a heart attack but I didn't. It was terrible. I was in a pre-Nazi dungeon of probably 1930 vintage.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And you stayed there 134 days until Rabin got you out, correct?

LEO WANTA: Correct. They came and rushed me to the airport. And at the airport they gave me the letter from Yitzhak Rabin that he was coming to my rescue, so they flew me right to New York immediately on Air Swiss.

GREG SZYMANSKI: It seems like everybody surrounding you who tried to help you ended up dead.

LEO WANTA: I agree.

GREG SZYMANSKI: I just wanted to go step by step here, after you get out jail, out of the Swiss dungeon, what happened?

LEO WANTA: They took me in shackles and chains and they put me on Swiss Air. Flew me to New York. I end up at JFK.

I have my Somalian passport, no American passport. They look at my Somalian, my diplomatic passport, and the FBI says, "What the hell we picking you up for?"

"Hey, I'm here, take off the chains and shackles if you don't mind."

They took me right away to the Brooklyn House of Detention where I sat for a bit. And, no, no, it was the Federal, the Metropolitan uh, jail for the feds [Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn]. So I spent a couple of days there; then they took me to the judge.

The judge looked at me, looked at my papers, and asked me a number of questions. [She wanted to know] how come I'm an Ambassador. I started to tell her, then she asked me why I'm carrying these $1 billion treasury notes. I started to tell her who I was and everything else. And the Assistant U.S. Attorney jumps up yelling and hollering, "We move for immediate dismissal, and stop the conversation, boomp-boomp-boomp."

And she says, "Well I didn't want to hear it anyhow, Mr. Ambassador you're free to go."

I leave, I figured that a guy had finally [come] and saved me from these characters.

I walked down the steps [of] the Federal Court House and two New York detectives come up to me and said they have a phone call from the State of Wisconsin. They're holding me for tax evasion.

I said, "You're out of your mind."

So they took me over, kept me there at the Brooklyn House of Detention for 30, 40 days.

Wisconsin finally decided to come and get me, without any extradition or anything. No papers, no arrest warrants, or nothing. Put me in more shackles. Embarassed me walking through airports, which is illegal under the Air Act. You cannot carry guns, even if you are a deputy sheriff.

So they take me to Madison, and for 2 years they put me in the county jail on the floor.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And you spent 2 years in the county jail?

LEO WANTA: Excuse me?

GREG SZYMANSKI: How long did you spend in county jail?

LEO WANTA: A couple of years.


LEO WANTA: On and off. It was a county jail, that there wasn't even a crime commited in, it was terrible. And I don't like to sleep on cement floors.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So the money is now in the trillions of dollars. What happens now is, the Clinton and Bush people backstab you guys, and they begin to loot this money. Correct?

LEO WANTA: Well, they took charge of the money. My business partner he got killed by rat poison. Vince Foster met his demise in Washington, DC. Francois de Grosseurve the spymaster of France, he got murdered. [Leno Barris?] who was working with us to uncover the Red Merc 20/20 that was used by the Iraqis, against the Kurds, he got killed in Hong Kong. All of the people working special assignment and feeding [information to] President Reagan all decided to die. And they put me in a Swiss dungeon because I had all the banking codes.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And Yitzhak Rabin, he was also assasinated after...

LEO WANTA: He was getting $10 billion from President Reagan. We had the money for him for the Peace Accord.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And Rabin tries to come to your rescue and there's a letter basically verifying that.

LEO WANTA: He did come to my rescue. The moment he served the Swiss administration, they picked me out of there, and flew me to New York.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Why do you think they wanted you out of the way? Out of the picture here?

LEO WANTA: They wanted me out of the way because I controlled all of the money, all of the bank accounts. I was the holder of all of the accounts.

In the old days under Colby and Casey, they would give me the banking instructions. I would follow the banking instructions under certain passcodes to do whatever operations they required.

If you look, when I came to New York in shackles and chains from the Swiss adminitration, Judge Alyce Ross, Federal Judge Alyce Ross asked me how and why I had 18 one billion dollar Treasury notes in my briefcase. I had 18 one billion dollar notes, and now there's an argument between the Federal Court in New York and the Treasurer of the State of Wisconsin, [over] what happened to the 18 one billion dollar notes. It's in the transcripts. That's 18 billion dollars missing right now. Parked between the New York Federal Court, who denies that they have it. [They say] they gave it to the State of Wisconsin.

The State of Wisconsin, the Treasurer of the State of Wisconsin [unknown] says, "Yeah, I heard that story. I know it's here someplace but we don't know where."

Wouldn't you look in your bedroom for 18 one billion dollar notes if you wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes or something?

GREG SZYMANSKI: How much money was involved in your tax evasion charge?

LEO WANTA: According to the audit the feds did, if I was a resident I would have owed 15 cents. If I'm a resident, which I'm not. They never had a case. In fact the case was held in Dane County, I've never lived in Dane County in my life. There's statutes that say you have to be tried in the county where the crime [was commited]. The only thing I ever did in Madison, was going to a Bucks game.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now what about getting a fair trial? Were you able to mount any kind of trial?

LEO WANTA: No, they would not allow me to have private counsel. They hired a Major retired from the US Army Adjutant General. And he did absolutely nothing except ask what he should do from the Attorney General.

GREG SZYMANSKI: It doesn't sound like the Constitution was being adhered to in the Leo Wanta case.

LEO WANTA: No and I wasn't even allowed one witness to show who I was, and where I lived, and where I resided.

GREG SZYMANSKI: No. And finally how did you ever secure your release into house arrest? How is this working?

LEO WANTA: We don't know yet. Suddenly, they decided I should not be where I was. They moved me down to Sayre, Oklahoma. We filed a number of papers with the federal courts down there, that I'd been kidnapped from Switzerland. I'm an Ambassador. They have no authority, no jurisdiction.

They kept me in a private prison under the Corrections Corporation of America, which is owned by the U.S. military. They sent me back to Wisconsin. Wisconsin didn't want to hold me any longer because they were getting all these questions and no answers. So they decided that I should not be in the prison system. I should just go on house arrest and fend for myself.

There's a lot of good people that cared in these jails and prisons. They did their check with their FBI buddies and deputy sheriffs, and said I got screwed and tattooed.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So why did they let you out of jail finally?

LEO WANTA: They couldn't get the rest of the money because I had the security codes and passwords. And also to quiet down all the exterior noise that we were making with the special investigators in Europe. They decided to quiet this thing down and try to get some kind of low cost settlement.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Yeah. Which you did and now you're sitting there with all this information. I noticed that you have made a list also, of reciepts identified in handwritten notes, on some of the transactions involving these giga-financing operations.

LEO WANTA: Yeah, I thought I was dying.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Amazing, Francis Driscoll Trust, uh, we go on and on and on. Incredible.

LEO WANTA: Those are Fed Reserve reciepts right there.

LEO WANTA: By Judge Lee's ruling, I think you have a copy of that? That says, I should recover all of this money. [When] I recover all this money 38.6% of that immediately goes to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And then of course we have George Bush, President Clinton, and Jim Doyle, the former Attorney General of Wisconsin [who] helped to prosecute you, correct? On trumped up charges?

LEO WANTA: Correct. Knowing that I was innocent. I wasn't a resident of Wisconsin, they knew this.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Who can you trust? From your perspective, right now?

LEO WANTA: Well, the only one I can trust right now is Judge Lee who ruled in the favor of the people. He's got tremendous [sic] other judges. If all those judges get together in the judiciary, things will stop quickly because they can put a huge oar in the water, as well as a number of senators and congressmen that can no longer live with the manipulation... and take charge, the people win, win, win.

GREG SZYMANSKI: I want you to explain to us who is Judge Lee and what was his ruling.

LEO WANTA: Judge Lee at Alexandria, Virginia ruled that I am in charge of all of these government corporations and private corporations as chairman and full shareholder under the Reagan administration. [I] should legally and immediately recover all of these funds and pay it to the US Department of the Treasury. And also notify the Internal Revenue Service of the payment. This is what Judge Lee went way out of his way to [do to] help all of us.

GREG SZYMANSKI: I just wanted to verify from you that this amount of money is a real amount, correct?

LEO WANTA: The money is a real amount correct, but like you said it's the minimum amount because each day it accrues.

GREG SZYMANSKI: And so there could be at this point it's more that $27 trillion?

LEO WANTA: Oh, sure. The last time the IRS and the US Treasury did an audit, I think it was $26-$27 T and that's when they were giving me more pressure. And, I wasn't moving.

GREG SZYMANSKI: I wanted to set the record straight that this court ruling does protect this money for the American people and puts you as basically trustor, the caretaker of this money, correct?

LEO WANTA: Right, the judge ruled that I should go recover the money and pay taxes on all the recovery directly to the IRS. We're going to give copies to his clerk so he knows that he did his part.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now, if people wanted to check this out how would they be able to find the court document?

LEO WANTA: It's 02-1363-A and it was filed April 15, 2003 by Federal Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria, Virginia.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Now, many people say it's a rarity to see an honest judge anymore, he appears to be one...

LEO WANTA: A senior one at that, a senior federal judge. And he's got all these exhibits and sealed documents and he's shocked, absolutely shocked.

GREG SZYMANSKI: An interesting part of this story, is how much money that's been traced that's missing so far. Tell us [about] the trail to track this money down, how hard that's been.

LEO WANTA: It's really hard, because you have to keep in mind that the banks that have this money were probably told I was dead or missing. Or, they paid certain things into other private banking relationships and used it for collateral. So they're taking loans they know they don't have to pay back. Everything they borrow from us and they loan out is really all profit to the banks. Plus, the banks can use that for their asset control.

GREG SZYMANSKI: I've seen a list of some of those accounts. Some traced back to Bush and other people. That's a fact right?

LEO WANTA: Oh yes, yes. That was on the (fencin doc?) and that was a tremendous amount of money. An audit was done and that is all [in] records from the Fed Reserve that we got. Because we can use PROMIS software from Inslaw. We have four units.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So you can bring this money back to the Treasury right?

LEO WANTA: Correct. But we're going to go through Judge Lee's clerk of courts.

GREG SZYMANSKI: You've gone this route to protect yourself right?

LEO WANTA: Correct and we even filed suit in the US Supreme Court and they refused to take the case because it was too political. I didn't know the Supreme Court was under a political arm.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Tell us how you came to this agreement [to collect and turn over $4.5 trillion].

LEO WANTA: Well, we had to go to the courts in Virginia to prove that we had an agreement and [that] these funds were set aside for all of the protocol agreements.

The judge ruled that the United States had immunity, but he did not rule that I was the trustor of all the funds. He just ruled that all the powers: The CIA, and the Treasury Department, and the State Department, and everybody else had immunity. So they didn't have to testify one way or the other which was strange.

But the judge did go ahead and order that we go recover all the money. He wanted to know why the money wasn't in the US Treasury and why taxes hadn't been paid on it. And why, whoever thought they were in charge, refused to allow us to repatriate all this offshore money. So then we argued that; and started to contact a number of investigators. They went to all of the european banks of record, about 109 bank accounts. And the banks decided that, oh my god, if this program keeps going and all the audits are done, so many things are going to be exposed.

So they came and agreed to $4.5 trillion just to shut [us] up. And, no audits and life goes on. I don't talk to them and they don't talk to us. We'd get a gag order and we'd get $4.5 trillion. We immediately notified the Treasury and they agreed that right now the tax base is around 35% or $1.575 trillion [on the $4.5 trillion] and since we're incorporated in the state of Virginia, we would have to set aside $270 billion for the state. We still don't know what the city and county taxes would be.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Okay, so this agreement was signed, the money transferred on June 12, (2006) it is there. The Fed is blocking it for some unknown reason, we'll get to that later. Tell us about, who did you actually enter in to this agreement with?

LEO WANTA: Well we have gag orders, but a number of attorneys that represent the pool of all the banks. They protect their clients. They just put the money on the table and say go away.

GREG SZYMANSKI: You also met years ago with John Roberts, you think he may have helped you get this agreement together, correct?

LEO WANTA: Yeah, John Roberts. Roberts worked with all of us when we were at the Whitehouse with Reagan in '81 through '88. They all knew who I was. They could not deny who I was, because you know, I was one of the few guys that went into certain quarters underneath the Whitehouse to get from place to place. And remember that Casey at that time was in the old exec office building and at the FBI we would go behind the stage and get through the FBI without being, shall we say, filed or reported.

GREG SZYMANSKI: So you're basically dealing with US authorities, and...

LEO WANTA: And corporate attorneys and bank attorneys and so on and so forth.

GREG SZYMANSKI: Talk a little bit about why you think the Fed is holding this up?

LEO WANTA: Well I have a problem with the Fed Reserve involved with this at all because this was a private deal between the United States and us; and these bankers that consorted in the pool of $4.5 T.

Under the HR 3723, everything that we were doing was protected under federal statute. Under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Which protects all of our proprietary economic information. There was no reason for them to be involved. They're not invoved. We don't need their services. They're a clearing house; we have our own banks that will do all of these things.

We have got all the boilerplate protection that we need and we don't need other groups to come in and try to participate for a fee. Or not participate, by not allowing a deal to go through. They're not in charge. They have no money involved, so why should they be in charge?

GREG SZYMANSKI: And if they don't release the money? You still can, as the trustor go after the whole amount, correct?

LEO WANTA: Well, yeah. They're in default. The banks [would be] in default. The banks would be extremely upset. They settled a $27.5 trillion claim in the federal courts for $4.5 trillion and this reopens everything for resettlement. They certainly would pay more not less. They already have acknowledged that they had property of [mine] that didn't belong to them. They've been using it internally for whatever reasons, and I don't care, since we have agreed to quietly be quiet. And we get the $4.5 T and the Treasury gets paid and Virginia gets paid and life goes on at a very fast pace.


Leo Wanta Story Continues 9 11 06 Interview with Greg Szymanski

Leo Wanta Story Continues 9 12 06 Interview with Greg Szymanski

Leo Wanta Story Continues 9 13 06 Interview with Greg Szymanski

Leo Wanta Story Continues 9 14 06 Interview with Greg Szymanski


September 15, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Democracy or Republic?

Henry Morgan relays:

From: joodd1 []
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 <>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 12:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Democracy or Republic?

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



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 the State represent the States in the US Congress.....and States had to cough up the money if the Federal Government spent more than it took 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 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. 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:



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

to ronpaul-48



Sep 9 (2 days ago)

to ronpaul-48

What is Hilarious about it?


Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via
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
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
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
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
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:

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

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


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


Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via
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 <> Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:48 PM
I thought that some of you might enjoy seeing me school a shill who thinks that democracy is bad.



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

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

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

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
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:23:35 -0500
Subject: Re: LOL!!! a comment on the UCC

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 <> 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

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

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

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 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

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

Subject: Re: a comment on the uniform commercial code
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:39:42 -0500

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 , 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Michael Glavic <> 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 <> 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.


Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:36:59 +0000

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: "" <>
To: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <>; barbara stone <>; Sharon Rondeau <>; kenneth ditkowsky <>; Jeffrey Norkin <>; Andy Ostrowski <>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <>; Attorney Mark Adams <>; michael mccray <>;; Yania Gonzalez <>; Charles R Livecchi <>; Glenda Martinez <>; Richard Hettler <>;; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <>; Chris Forsyth <>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <>; "" <>; Talkshow Host Ethel Lopez <>; Diane Gochin <>;; Juan Carrasco <>;; Jane Bansal <>;; Edwin Nassar <>; Ezzrath Shem <>; Todd Krautheim <>; Rich Martin <>; Michael Glavic <>; Jack Graham <>; Janet Phelan <>; Journalist Janet Phelan <>; "" <>; Bill Scheidler <
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:55 PM

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 ; ; Yania Gonzalez ; Charles R Livecchi ; Glenda Martinez ; Richard Hettler ; ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks ; Chris Forsyth ; Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. ; ; Talkshow Host Ethel Lopez ; Diane Gochin ; ; ; ; Juan Carrasco ; ; Jane Bansal ; ; ; ; ; ; Edwin Nassar ; Ezzrath Shem ; Todd Krautheim ; Rich Martin ; Michael Glavic ; Jack Graham ; Janet Phelan ; Journalist Janet Phelan ; ; 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.




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, I did not receive it because Google disabled my account, as shown at * >ggl:1 et seq.








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,

The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; Saturday, 4oct14;


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.




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:






Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:07:41 +0000
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:
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 <>
To: Janet Phelan <>; Barbara Stone <>; Bill Scheidler <>; kenneth ditkowsky <>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <>; Pat shannan <>; Marilyn Barnewall <>; "Roland Hinkson @ Inbox" <>; Sharon Rondeau <>; Journalist Janet Phelan <>; FYI <>; Jeffrey Norkin <>; Andy Ostrowski <>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <>; "Mark Adams, Esq." <>; michael mccray <>; Yania Gonzalez <>; Charles R Livecchi <>; Glenda Martinez <>; Richard Hettler <>; "" <>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <>; "" <>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <>; "" <>; "" <>; Journalist Editor James Hill <>; Juan Carrasco <
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 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

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

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?


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.

Bill Scheidler
chief activist at

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:17:46 +0000
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 <>
To: Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <>; Att. Wes Hoyt <>; "" <>; "" <>; "" <>; Sharon Rondeau <>; Janet Phelan <>; Journalist Janet Phelan <>; FYI <>; Jeffrey Norkin <>; Andy Ostrowski <>; Bill Scheidler <>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <>; Attorney Mark Adams <>; michael mccray <>; Yania Gonzalez <>; Charles R Livecchi <>; Glenda Martinez <>; Richard Hettler <>; "" <>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <>; "" <>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <>; "" <>; barbara stone <>; "" <>; Journalist Editor James Hill <>; Juan Carrasco <
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. <>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <>; Att. Wes Hoyt <>; "" <>; "" <>; "" <>; Sharon Rondeau <>; Janet Phelan <>; Journalist Janet Phelan <>; FYI <>; Jeffrey Norkin <>; Andy Ostrowski <>; Bill Scheidler <>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <>; Attorney Mark Adams <>; michael mccray <>; Yania Gonzalez <>; Charles R Livecchi <>; Glenda Martinez <>; Richard Hettler <>; "" <>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <>; "" <>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <>; "" <>; barbara stone <>; "" <>; Journalist Editor James Hill <>; Juan Carrasco <
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:







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.;


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  


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.




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:





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

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:
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:
See also:


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:00:44 +0000
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. <>
To: Sharon Rondeau <>; Att. Wes Hoyt <>; "" <>; FYI <>; "" <>; Janet Phelan <>; Journalist Janet Phelan <>; Bill Scheidler <>; Andy Ostrowski <>; Jeffrey Norkin <>; kenneth ditkowsky <>; "" <>; Attorney Dr Richard Fine <>; Attorney Mark Adams <>; michael mccray <>; Yania Gonzalez <>; Charles R Livecchi <>; Glenda Martinez <>; Richard Hettler <>; "" <>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq <>; Judicial Reform Activist Diane Hicks <>; "" <>; Dr. Richard Cordero Esq. <>; "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <>; "" <>; barbara stone <>; "" <>; Journalist Editor James Hill <>; Juan Carrasco <
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:








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).




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;


Editor Deborah Henley          

Ms. Sandra Peddie                   

Mr. Will Van                             

Newsday                                      ;  or 631-843-2700; 1(800_639-7329

235 Pinelawn Road


news tips:


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.,, 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!




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:



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
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT  06076

To: majors.bruce@
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.,, 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.
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,,
The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600,000 of foreclosure work; Saturday, 4oct14;
Editor Deborah Henley          
Ms. Sandra Peddie                   
and Mr. Will Van                     
Newsday                                      ;  or 631-843-2700; 1(800_639-7329
235 Pinelawn Road
news tips:
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.,, 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!
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; 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.
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
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:
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:
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:
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 >* >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 - informing Dr. Cordero that his account, i.e.,, 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.



Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government

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

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

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


September 11, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink