Saturday, April 18, 2015

Dr.RichardCorderoEsqholdingJudgesliableProSeInjuy

From: dr.richard.cordero.esq@cantab.net
To: chachaangelina@yahoo.com, CPIMembers@publicintegrity.org, contact@whistleblowers.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, RicCordero@verizon.net
Sent: 4/13/2015 8:30:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Oral argument in a test case on holding a judge liable for disregarding the law and the facts and causing a pro se injury in fact
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

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, RicCordero@verizon.net

Dear Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
Next Thursday, April 16, I will present oral arguments to the Appellate Division (an appeals court) of the Second Department of the New York State (NYS) Supreme Court in Brooklyn, NY City, in a case of interest to all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries. The legal references, arguments, and structure of this statement can be used as a template by other Advocates in any state trying to hold judges accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.
Table of Contents
A. The issues under review affect the ever growing number of pro ses and involve the liability of judges for causing injury in fact to any party
B. The facts show that the judge failed to ‘hear’ the party’s oral and written arguments; and disregarded or ignored the law and the facts
C. The Appellate court should hold that the judge was tortiously irresponsible, discriminatory, and incompetent, and acted in breach of contract
D. Relief through which the Appellate court can set judicial accountability reform in motion for New York and the rest of the country
E. Your attendance in support of the principle that We the People are the masters and can hold liable judicial public servants
*****************************
A. The issues under review affect the ever growing number of pro ses and involve the liability of judges for causing injury in fact to any party
1. Whether a NYS Supreme Court justice –a trial judge– is liable to compensate plaintiff for:
a. disregarding his duty to uphold a party’s due process right under the U.S. (5th and 14th Amendments) and NY (§6) Constitutions to be heard by refusing to hear him at a hearing and deciding his case without reading his brief, whereby he also disregarded his duty under the NY Code of Judicial Conduct, Section 100.3(B)(6) to “accord every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding…the right to be heard according to law”;
b. disregarding his duty under the U.S. (14th Amdt.) and NY (§11) Constitutions to afford equal protection under the law by showing a dismissive attitude toward a party upon finding out that he was pro se and treating him discriminatorily by assuming that he did not know what he was doing; whereby he also disregarded his duty under the Code, Section 100.3(B)(4) to “not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice”;
c. disregarding his duty under the Code, Section 100.3(B)(1) to “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it” by grossly misstating the law;
d. disregarding his duty under §102 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules –CPLR, the NYS code of civil procedure– to apply those rules so that they are “not inconsistent with the constitution, [or] act of the legislature. No rule…shall abridge or enlarge the substantive rights of any party”, when the judge turned the use of a form to prove service of the summons and complaint on the defendants into a requirement that abridged plaintiff’s right to access to the court to have his controversy with defendants adjudicated although plaintiff had met the constitutional due process requirement of giving notice to the defendants of the claims pending against them and opportunity to be heard in their defense; and
e. disregarding his duty under CPLR §104 to “apply the rules liberally” by limiting service to only one of the 14 CPLR service provisions and excluding from consideration another of those provisions under which plaintiff’s affidavit of service proved service, which has forced plaintiff to engage in extensive legal research and writing, pay court fees and printing and service costs, and bear the consequences of the defendants’ wrongdoing for more than two additional years, whereby the judge also denied him the intended benefit of §104 “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every civil judicial proceeding” –a provision patterned after Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which Rules have been adopted by many states–.
2. This case is particularly appropriate to test these issues because the defendants failed to file an answer or appear in court, so it was the judge who gave rise to those issues by his wrong and wrongful handling of the case.
3. The case must be decided by the Appellate court, rather than a judicial performance commission, because only the former has administrative and adjudicative duties that empower it to award damages or remand to a trial court with instruction either to hold a judge liable, or determine his liability, to compensate a party injured by a judge’s wrongdoing.
B. The facts show that the judge failed to ‘hear’ the party’s oral and written arguments; and disregarded or ignored the law and the facts
4. In accordance with procedural rules, the summons and complaint were served by mail on the defendants, who brought them to an attorney. He wrote a letter to plaintiff identifying himself as their attorney in the case, discussing substantive issues of the complaint, insinuating a counterclaim and a transfer to another jurisdiction, and proposing mediation. But they failed to file an answer. Hence, the defendants defaulted.
5. Plaintiff raised a motion for default judgment as well as declaratory judgment, i.e., for the court to state its adoption of plaintiff’s requested positions on related issues. The defendants failed to answer it too.
6. On the hearing day, there were dozens of motions on the calendar. After the clerk called plaintiff’s motion, she asked where the service form was. Plaintiff replied that it had not been used because service had been made by mail. She said that the judge would have to deal with that, walked up to him, and gave him the motion as she told him something.
7. When plaintiff approached the bench, the judge asked whether he was a pro se party and he answered that he was. The judge asked where the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint was. Plaintiff started to state that he had served them by mail and that the defendants had had their attorney send plaintiff a letter stating that he was their legal representative in…the judge blurted “I don’t want to hear about it! You have to file an affidavit under 308”.
8. Plaintiff responded that he had performed service under CPLR §312-a, which allows a plaintiff to perform service and file an affidavit as proof thereof, and that such proof was in his motion for default and declaratory judgment. The judge stated, “I will take a look at it”. He thus ended the hearing, which lasted less than two minutes.
9. Thereupon, the judge scribbled on a court form a denial of the default motion for "failure to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint". Most likely he did so while he was still on the bench and without time to read the motion before the next movant approached him. So he failed to notice that proof of service had been listed as the first item of the Table of Contents on the first page of the motion and constituted its third page, but it was what CPLR §312-a referred to “As an alternative to the methods of personal service authorized by section…308”.
10. In his rush to clear his docket of a pro se case, he mailed a copy of the form to plaintiff that same day although his decision was not recorded by the clerk until a month later. One can hardly imagine that if the parties to this case had been NY Retails Association v. Pacific Coast Docks, each represented by top lawyers, the judge would have proceeded with such dismissiveness and haste He did not even mention the declaratory judgment branch of the motion.
11. When plaintiff moved to reargue the motion, the judge denied him oral argument. He took five months to deny the reargue motion, but did not send any copy to plaintiff, who after numerous calls had to go to the courthouse, look for the decision, and have it recorded by the clerk. The judge alleged again that a required form to prove service had not been used. He failed again to even mention the request for declaratory judgment.
C. The Appellate court should hold that the judge was tortiously irresponsible, discriminatory, and incompetent, and acted in breach of contract
12. The judge was irresponsible by deciding a motion that he had not read, did not have time to read, and did not want to know anything about because he had prejudged the issue and had closed his mind to what a pro se had to say about it. By discriminating against plaintiff as a pro se and being partial to his own views, the judge denied him his due process right to a fair and impartial tribunal.
13. The judge disposed of plaintiff’s contentions by resorting to the lazy and conclusory statement that they “are without merit”. He pretended to provide support for it by perfunctorily quoting defendants’ attorney: “Nobody here considers himself or herself served”. With that, the judge grossly misstated the law by implying that being served is a subjective state of the defendant rather than the legal consequence of the objective fact of service in any manner provided for by law: Service can be effected by affixing the summons to a door of defendant’s home or even by publication in a newspaper!
14. The judge added that the required form of CPLR §312-a had not been used, while failing to notice that CPLR §306(e) provides that “A writing admitting service…is adequate proof of service”.
15. If the judge denied the motion out of ignorance of the law, he proceeded incompetently. If he did it out of expediency to avoid reversing himself, which would have implied his admission that he had erred in denying the motion, he proceeded dishonestly.
16. In either case, the judge breached the contract to render the judicial service of determining a controversy according to law and honestly contracted for upon his employer, the court, accepting the fees charged to, and paid by, the plaintiff.
D. Relief through which the Appellate court can set judicial accountability reform in motion for NY and the rest of the country
17. I will stress to the Appellate court and its judges that to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of not only plaintiff, but also all other parties who are or will come before the judge, and to discharge their duty under the Code of Conduct, Section 100.1, “to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and its independence…from undue influence of relationships” to their peers, and under Section 100.3, to “perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently”, whether they be their “adjudicative, administrative, or disciplinary duties”, they must hold the judge accountable for his wrong and wrongful handling of this case and liable to compensate plaintiff for the injury in fact that he has caused him, just as they would hold any other public officer or private citizen.
18. To that end, I will ask that the Appellate court:
a. on behalf of plaintiff, reverse the denial of the default and declaratory motion and grant it; order the refund of all court fees paid by him; compensate him for his legal work; award other damages; and grant the requested declaratory judgment; an
b. on behalf of other parties and the rest of the public:
1) order the auditing of the judge’s decisions and hold hearings of parties and attorneys that have come before him, court clerks, and his peers, to detect a pattern of conduct and determine his suitability for judicial office in terms of his record, competence, and character; thereby
2) take action that sets in motion in the courts of New York and all other jurisdictions a development that does for the benefit of the American justice system what the Supreme Court did for the benefit of our national education system in Brown v. Board of Education when it recognized a similar principle: Holding judges separate from all other people as a class immune from accountability and liability is an inherent violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the federal and state Constitutions; and
3) if this Appellate court cannot grant the above-requested relief, let it certify a question to the Court of Appeals –the highest court in the NYS judiciary- asking whether the recognition of such principle, from which the rest flows as implementing measures, is mandated by the federal and state Constitutions.
E. Your attendance in support of the principle that We the People are the masters and can hold liable judicial public servants
19. I encourage you and all Advocates to attend oral argument and invite journalists to cover it to impress upon the Appellate court the importance of this case as a test of the value that it puts on two tenets of our democracy:
a. In ‘government of, by, and for the people, We the People are the masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, and are entitled to hold them accountable, disciplinable, and liable to compensate the victims of their misconduct.
b. Judges too are subject to the foundational principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, Nobody Is Above the Law so that there must be administered to, and imposed on, all Equal Justice Under Law.
20. The Appellate court is located at 45 Monroe Place in Brooklyn, NY City, very near the Court Street and Borough Hall subway stations on the 2, 3, 4, 5, and R Lines. The case will be heard when called after 10:00 a.m. For every useful purpose, this Appellate Division’s website is at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/contactus.shtml; and its phone number is (718) 722-6324.
I look forward to receiving your comments. You may also share your comments with the court at AD2-ClerksOffice@nycourts.gov; see also http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/contactus.shtml.
Meantime, kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.
You may widely share and post this email as well as the related article below.
Dare trigger history!(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/
NOTE: Given the evidence at * >ggl:1 et seq. of interference with Dr. Cordero’s emails, when emailing him, please place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
See also Dr. Cordero’s study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, titled:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8
or
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8E3D78595FC3EBB8!156&authkey=!AMV7fOyVzLPJU6g&ithint=file%2cpdf
or
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx26luEuzfjgc1hiZXctZjdLQlE/edit?usp=sharing
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:
https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.
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:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news
or
Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue - 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity.
*******************************
Re: Out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
The out-of-court strategy
for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
that appeals to journalists’ self-interest to inform
the national public of two unique national stories so that
outraged, it forces politicians campaigning in these elections
to officially investigate judges and reform the Federal Judiciary
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, RicCordero@verizon.net

A. The out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
1. The purpose of advocates of honest judiciaries for joining forces is to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. They can do so by implementing:
a. an out-of-court strategy to inform the national public(* >ol:139§1)
b. through the further(ol:194§E) investigation by journalists(ol:111) and students(ol:113§C) of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:191§§A,B) involving objective, criminal wrongdoing rather than discretionary decision-making on any legal issues; and
c. so to outrage the public that it demands more updating news,
d. thus giving ever more journalists a commercial interest(ol:199§2) in offering such news by ‘digging deeper’ into
1) the enabling circumstances of wrongdoing(ol:191¶6) in the Federal Judiciary; and
2) the coordination to do wrong(jur:88§§a-c) among judges(* >jur:102§a) and between them and other legal and bankruptcy systems insiders (jur:81fn169) to the point where
e. the journalistic findings so exacerbate the outrage of the national public that the latter forces(ol:123¶17)
f. campaigning and incumbent politicians to officially investigate federal judges at nationally televised hearings and
g. undertake judicial unaccountability and discipline reform(ol:201§K).

* Note: All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of institutionalized wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and its coordination among its judges, the models for their state counterparts, titled:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)
The study and this article are contained in a pdf file that can be downloaded through these links:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
http://1drv.ms/1IkvhB8
or
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8E3D78595FC3EBB8!156&authkey=!AMV7fOyVzLPJU6g&ithint=file%2cpdf
or
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqw00v30ex3kbho/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
or
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx26luEuzfjgc1hiZXctZjdLQlE/edit?usp=sharing
or
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/jur/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:
https://www.google.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/download-and-install.

1. The superiority over filing complaints or suits against judges in court
2. This out-of-court strategy:
a. recognizes and avoids the failed, rote reflex of suing judges in court(ol:158) in the counter-intuitive expectation that judges will allow their peers, who are their colleagues and friends, to be found liable;
b. appeals to journalists and highlights their interest in advancing their careers by making a scoop regarding an issue that becomes a dominant one of the primaries and the presidential campaign because it:
1) exposes the criminal wrongdoing underlying the suspicion by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealment of assets by Then-Judge, Now-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the first justiceship nominee of President Obama –concealment of assets is committed to evade taxes; launder money with dirty origin, e.g., from a bankruptcy fraud scheme run by federal judges(jur:65§§1-3); and escape marital property and bankruptcy estate distribution; so it is a criminal act(ol:5fn10)–;
2) strengthens the available evidence that the NSA abuses its authority by doing ‘whatever it can do technically without regard to whether it should not do it because it is unlawful or unethical’(ol:76¶3); and
3) provokes a scandal with more intense outrage and reformative consequences than the one that burst out of Snowden’s revelations because it shows that the Federal Judiciary and its judges abuse their authority, not in ‘the national security interest’, but rather in their crass personal interest in money(jur:27§2; 65§§1-2), expediency(jur:44fn69), and a cover-up(68§3) of the wrongful status that they have arrogated to themselves as the safe haven for wrongdoing by Judges Above the Law.

B. Politicians forced to condemn and investigate judges’ wrongdoing
3. No politician can afford to refuse to condemn criminal wrongdoing, such as concealment of assets, even if committed by a judge, not even by a justice of the Supreme Court.
4. Democratic politicians will not dare allege that so-called liberal media, said to lean toward their party, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico, had a bias against President Obama and his first justiceship nominee, Then-Judge Sotomayor.
5. Far from it, every insightful journalist will ask whether there was a quid pro quo between those media outlets and the Obama administration providing for the former to kill their story in exchange for some benefits from the latter(jur:xlviii).
6. Those who are willing to think strategically will recognize this “Al Capone tactic”: to ‘get’ federal judges on tax evasion through an out-of-court journalistic investigation that opens the door to further investigation into their coordinated wrongdoing by them.
7. This out-of-court strategy is pragmatic and brings to bear on its implementation journalists’ self-interest and thus, their collectively massive investigative and information dissemination resources. Therefore, it is superior to relying on yet another historically futile attempt by an individual party, such as a tax complainant, working in isolation with his comparatively puny amount of effort, money, and legal research to show in court that a judge was ‘corrupt’ because she issued a ruling or a decision in the exercise of her discretion that led to the party’s loss, such as of his bid for lower taxes or no taxes at all.

C. Some journalists’ investigation of a justice becomes a Watergate-like generalized, competition-driven, and first-ever media and Trojan horse investigation of wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary
8. The further(ol:194§E) out-of-court investigation of Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing may initially be conducted by citizen journalists, journalism students, and rooky journalists, whose likely profile(jur:xlvi§§H-I) may be very different from that of established journalists. Nevertheless, all of them need provide only enough information to show that she failed to abide by Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) because she appears:
a. to be a tax cheat(ol:194§1);
b. to have withheld from the Senate Committee on Judicial Nominations a case that would have exposed her cover-up of a bankruptcy judge appointed(jur:43fn61a) by her peers and running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(ol:194§2); and
c. to be partial to her complained-about peers by exonerating them in 100% of cases(ol:195§3) while being indifferent to the rights and plight of the complaining victims and future potential victims.
9. The scandal provoked by the initial journalists’ exposure of Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing will have the normal consequences of every scandal: A generalized jump by journalists and media outlets onto the investigative bandwagon because none can afford on competitive grounds not to carry updating news on the scandal or not to search for, and be credited with, the next scoop, lest they be reduced to mere redistributors of what others already discovered and published or to observers of other journalists who make a name for their findings or insightful articles.

1. Investigating the circumstances enabling J. Sotomayor’s wrongdoing
10. Thus, journalists will expand their investigation of Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing into a Trojan horse one of the context in which she committed it, that is, the Federal Judiciary, pursuing, among others these investigative queries:
a. Why was J. Sotomayor not caught when she submitted to her peers(jur:105fn213) for review her mandatory annual financial disclosure reports(jur:65fn107d)?
b. In what similar or other(jur:102§a) wrongdoing do Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor and her peers(jur:71§4) have engaged and on the assurance that none of them will dare denounce them, for if they did, they would risk having the investigation started by them end up incriminating them for their own wrongdoing as principals or for having covered up as accessories before and after the fact that of others(jur:88§§a-c)?
c. What did President Obama, Sen. Schumer and Gillibrand –the two senators who were the main shepherds of J. Sotomayor through the Senate confirmation process–, and their colleagues know about her wrongdoing and when did they know it?
11. That is how the initial investigation of the two unique national stories of President Obama-J. Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:191§§A,B) can give rise to a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized and first-ever media investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges in connivance with politicians(ol:200§I). Its findings can keep exacerbating the outrage of the national public precisely when the primaries and the presidential election campaign are in full swing.
12. If Justice Sotomayor is shown to give “even the appearance of impropriety” by, among other wrongdoing, concealing assets to evade taxes, her moral authority to require others to comply with tax laws and IRS rules and regulations would be shattered, as it would concerning all other laws. The call for her resignation would follow. The precedent here is the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties, which were not even misdemeanors(jur:92§d).

2. The national outrage in an electoral context at judges’ wrongdoing will establish the need for substantial judicial reform
13. By advocates of honest judiciaries embracing the out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform and implementing it through self-interested journalists they will accomplish what in-court complainants of judges’ allegedly wrong or wrongful decisions cannot possibly accomplish:
14. The investigation will expose not merely one wrongdoing justice, but rather the Federal Judiciary as a wrongdoing institution run by judges held unaccountable(ol:191¶¶1-7) by themselves(jur:21§1) and by conniving politicians(jur:22¶31) so that the judges risklessly do wrong in pursuit of their own interest, doing so in such a routine, widespread, and coordinated fashion that wrongdoing has become intrinsic to their performance: It is the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4).
15. The deeper and more extensive and outrageous the wrongdoing exposed, the more convincing the need for substantial judicial reforms(ol:201§J), including those that today would appear unthinkable. That explains why this is not the time for a detailed public debate of whether and, if so, how to reform the Federal Judiciary or its state counterparts.

D. Strategic opportunity to turn the fight for the Democratic leadership in the Senate into an incentive to expose judicial wrongdoing
16. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he will not run for reelection and would like to see New York Senator Chuck Schumer succeed him. His wish will be opposed by all the senators and other people who do not want Sen. Schumer as minority leader or who want that office for themselves or their friends.
17. The most effective way for Sen. Schumer’s opponent within his own party to derail his ascension to that leadership position is for them to establish, whether openly or covertly, ‘his appearance of impropriety’(cf., jur:68fn123a), to wit:
18. Sen. Schumer knew, or willfully ignored the evidence(id. >jur:65fn107c; 78fn159e), that Then-Judge Sotomayor had concealed assets; and went on to vouch for her honesty as the main shepherd through her confirmation process in the Senate. He did so to advance his interest in strengthening his personal relation with President Obama. The latter, in turn, wanted to ingratiate himself with all those who were petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic as replacement for Retiring Justice Souter and from whom both the President and Sen. Schumer expected in return support for the passage of Obamacare, which at the time, spring of 2009, was very much in doubt.
19. Sen. Schumer would be placed in a very embarrassing position if he were asked by journalists and the public to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports –there are at least three of them(jur:102¶231a.4-6)– on J. Sotomayor held by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on which he sat at the time and still sits.
20. More importantly, the investigation prompted by his opponents will likewise become a Trojan horse into the circumstances enabling wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary through the connivance of judges and politicians(jur:71§§4-6).

E. Request of action on your part
21. Therefore, I respectfully request that we join forces and that you, thinking strategically:
a. reach out to all advocates of honest judiciaries to bring their skills, resources, and commitment to bear on the implementation of the out-of-court strategy(ol:193§D) to expose judges’ wrongdoing and set in motion the process of judicial reform; to that end,
b. email and post this email widely , and organize presentations(ol:194§G; ol:225§D) in private, at press conferences, and elsewhere(ol:198§a), whether in person or by video conference, to persuade(ol:199§H) journalists and other professionals(jur:128§a) and students(jur:129§b); Democratic senators opposing the Reid-Schumer leadership; and Republicans seeking to discredit Democrats; to further(ol:194§E) investigate the two unique national stories of P. Obama-J. Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:191§§A,B);
c. resort to all other means, i.e., social media and mass emailing, to launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation(ol:200§I) that informs the national public of judges’ individual and coordinated wrongdoing so that an outraged public may force campaigning politicians and their supporting incumbents to take a stand on the issue and officially investigate it at nationally televised hearings, thus turning judges’ wrongdoing into a dominant issue of the election campaign that leads to judicial reform(ol:201¶50); in that vein,
d. use your access to bloggers, news redistributors, talkshow hosts, and other members of the media to build the Coalition for Justice(ol:222§1), which can become a powerhouse in national politics and help develop a Tea Party-like civic movement: the People’s Sunrise(ol:201§J); and
e. encourage Information Technology experts, such as your son-in-law and his fellow computer security experts, to determine in their own professional interest of making a name for themselves whether there has been interception(ol:227§A) by the Federal Judiciary, NSA(ol:192§B) or any other parties(ggl:1 et seq.) of the communications of advocates, including me, to prevent us from joining forces to expose the wrongdoing of federal judges in connivance with politicians, which constitutes a denial of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment to “freedom of speech[,] of the press[, and] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(jur:130fn268).
22. By joining other advocates, and thinking and proceeding strategically to help the national public assert its right to be masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, and hold them account-able for rendering honest services, you and they can be recognized by a grateful nation as We the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:201§K).
I look forward to hearing from you. Meantime, kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.
I encourage you to share and post this email widely.
Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it!
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com, RicCordero@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net
www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/
NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
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:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2362oh_dr-cordero-u-s-judiciary-goes-rogue-99-82-complaints-vs-judges-are-dismissed-u-s-justice-sonia-sotom_news
or
Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue - 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity
***********************************
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Sharon4Judge